But don't most people believe the official narrative about JFK assassination? How does that compute with your theory?

I'd like to see a study about how many hours the believers vs non-believers have spent on informing themselves about the assassination. My suspicion is that the non-believers are much better informed than the believers.

Better informed in the sense of reliable information, I'd agree. I don't know if it's true based on people I've spoken to in person or read online that they've spent less time. Certainly not in a lot of cases.

Many of them put a great deal of research into it. What they lack is the ability to properly critique sources. And often it goes back to the grain of truth in the premises (mainstream media is often biased, moderated, poorly sourced etc.) followed by a willingness to believe.

For instance, many people start with the premise that they can't entirely trust mainstream media, which is often fair. Then they leap to the unjustified position that all mainstream media information can be rejected or ignored and that Loose Change, Zeitgeist, and AboveTopSecret forums are legitimate sources of information.

No.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...illed-kennedy/

That would be true if the conspiracy theorists could be described as people who just shrug their shoulders and say that they don't know what happened.

Maybe the mafia was involved. Maybe Castro was involved. Maybe (most likely when you add all the evidence up) it was just one nutter shooting a president and another dumb nutter shooting the assassin because he didn't like that the president was assassinated.

Either way, they are all dead so the point is moot. Those still thinking about it are a bit silly.

Sorry, but that's too much of a caricature. Most conspiracy theorists are sane people who shrug their shoulders a lot. They are aware of the different scenarios and in their own way filter them by likelihood. Of course some conspiracy theorists are less rational and tend to be the ones who are more vocal, but to use them pars pro toto in order to discredit all conspiracy theorists is not a helpful strategy.

The point about the JFK assassination is not moot, it influenced an important part of world history and it's not at all silly to still think about it.

I don't think that those who don't have a closely held theory that there was a conspiracy count as conspiracy theorists.

I think believing in conspiracies is mostly a great comfort. It makes the arbitrary rational, the random becomes intentional and ignorance becomes expertise.

Seeking control is one of the fundamental psychological attributes of humans. Conspiracies give such control: "The world isn't fundamentally uncaring, it is just steered in the wrong direction."

Conspiracy construction/affinity processes have likely an evolutionary benefit as elaborate designs to defeat you are always a concern in life (other animals sneaking up, hunting with other humans, sharing resources etc) so being paranoid is of some value. The mistake of course people make is that since the age of reason or maybe since the last 3-4 k years of pre-math and pre-science, rational thinking of a cleaner approach that can easily eliminate many conspiracy theories or even imagine higher level ones, has proven a much stronger evolutionary edge.

The people today that subscribe to conspiracy theories do not realize that by failing to do the proper thing and apply the scientific method in their reasoning they not only fall victims to stupidly trivial theories but also fail potentially grasping the existence of even deeper ones. So ultimately their failed and lazy approach hurts the very cause they support!

Sounds great, but how can you apply this to the moon landing?

I started thinking about this recently when reading about the so- called "guilter" sub-culture that sprung up online around the Amanda Knox case.

What I noticed is that, even though I know in my rational mind that the evidence of the two defendants' innocence is completely overwhelming, when reading "guilter" articles I started to feel a sense of pleasure and reassurance. There's something reassuring about this particular narrative - "evil sadistic killers tried to cover up their crime but were revealed by sharp-eyed observers to be guilty." The true story of the case, totally senseless murder, botched police investigation, miscarriage of justice and so on, isn't comforting or reassuring at all.

I think it's something like this that draws people to conspiracy theories. I don't understand why the 9:11 hijackers did what they did - it's scary that anyone could do that, it scary to live in a world where people can do such things. What's more, there's very little that I can do to influence that world, to reduce the threat. In a sense it's simpler psychologically to believe it's all a conspiracy and we can fight for the truth against the government who set it up. It's not that dissimilar to the idea that the devil made them do it and we can stop the terrorists by converting them to Christianity.

I also think that most conspiracy believers don't truly believe in the depths of their hearts. They just adopt a belief because it makes them feel good in some way and then fight to maintain that belief in their mind because admitting they were wrong would hurt. Kind of like a lot of us have probably tried to tell ourselves "I'm a winning poker player" at some point

A truly wise/educated/experienced human is virtuous and happy. They are that mostly because they have understood that the truth and rational thinking can have significant power when combined (math, science and technology are prime examples where you cant go anywhere without the truth and dependable processes). It is then the search for the truth and the capacity to deliver as clean as possible rational thinking processes and even complete proofs occasionally, the choice that enables so much higher power and success (even if near term in a highly corrupt or severely saturated environment with limited resources this may not be true, it becomes true eventually in a superior future world that must be the objective of the higher game being played).

So a wise man defines success by attaining a closer approximation to the truth through the scientific method and doesnt care as much about winning an original argument but in being ultimately right not in order to declare a prestige ego victory but in order to facilitate dependable future progress. Naively selfish, less educated and ego maniacal people (even some otherwise very smart people) however care more about winning arguments than actually being correct ultimately. They exhibit this way an ultimate form of insecurity that a true healthy genius rarely has. They defend a position in order to win even at the cost of the truth. They eventually end up playing a vastly inferior game for this reason.

Winning arguments is irrelevant if you cant win them properly. And the most important argument you should always win is against your healthy skeptic inner self.

You will probably be able to shed some light on this topic, maybe just not in the way you thought.

I urge anyone who has not seen the Amanda Knox thread to check it out - it's a classic example of people believing in a variety of conspiracy theories. Its huge mostly due to 2 posters going at it for years (Henry and a shill called 239), but even reading through the last few pages it will be immediately obvious who is capable of neutrally assessing evidence, making honest arguments and searching for "truth" and who is not. The posters who believe in Knox's innocence are largely either conspiracy theorists or shills, believe that there is literally zero physical evidence against her and that some combination of incompetence, bad luck and malice are responsible for the fact that she has been found guilty of murder by 3 courts in a modern justice system with the best legal defence and the help of a few million dollars paid to a PR company to promote her innocence. And the Italian Supreme Court will make this final soon.

Its a stark example of how people can go against overwhelming evidence, use the most warped "arguments" and use every single contrary point to bolster their beliefs despite repeated, clear and rational arguments to the contrary. And they have been doing it in that thread for years. Their constant pejorative use of the term "guilter", for example, when the Italian justice system over 3-4 trials has found her guilty is amazing. They often try to frame anyone believing she is guilty as a conspiracy theorist too - something Ikasigh does above.

It's incredibly frustrating but quite fascinating.

Also interesting are the various types of conspiracy theorists posting there. Some prob paid or paid in the past, most just people of obviously low intelligence who have fixated on a belief that she is innocent or that the Italians have deliberately railroaded her, etc... But there are also some reasonably intelligent people making shockingly dishonest arguments who I have a hard time believing really believe what they are saying. For a small time issue (relative to the moon landing, JFK, 9/11, etc...) it's

Ikasigh, are there other things you believe that are sometimes called "conspiracy theories"? That is an honest question by the way.

To add something more directly related to the topic, most of the people who believe she is innocent in that thread, maybe all, believe that's she is 100% innocent, that the huge amount of physical evidence all conclusively and obviously proves 100% that's she is innocent, etc...

The poster above includes at least one of these lines at the end of nearly every post.

Eg: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...php?p=42105101

There seems to be a strong desire for absolute certainty in these people. They are all completely sure of their convictions and never allow the slightest crack in this veneer. It becomes a game for them in finding their own way to rebut every single doubt in a way that reinforces their pre held belief. The idea of "truth" is completely irrelevant.

Seems like most conspiracy theorists have huge self esteem problems and compensate by picking an issue that they can absolutely and totally cling to. They desperately want to be so sure and certain about something when their day to day lives are so full of uncertainties and doubt. Whilst there are common trends in conspiracy theories, I think the specific theory is not that important. It comes down to trying to retain absolute control of something regardless of whether that something is true or not. Think the quotes and posts above are correct re that.

I think there are lots of factors that predispose people to believing in such things though.

I have nothing more to add to what I posted in the other thread. Not going to get into it here.

I have no intention of getting into it here, that's why I directed people to the other thread. You brought it up.

You come into a thread about conspiracy theories to reference the Knox "guilters", as you call them, whilst calling the people who are in agreement with the conclusions of a competent multi stage legal system the real conspiracy theorists. Your absurd "100% innocent" and "impossible due to the laws of physics" lines betray how you deluded you are.

Again, I recommend people to check out that thread and make up their own minds. It's insane.

Defending a position in order to win even at the cost of the truth is an excellent way to arrive at the truth. Our legal system is based on it. Sometimes it doesn't return the correct verdict, but that's the fault of those who argue for the truth ineffectively. If you want to get better at arguing for the truth, try arguing for a falsehood. It gives you much better exercise.

Sometimes I take shortcuts. Maybe I shouldn't? Stopped reading when seeing it was a thread in OOT on the Male dominated American site 2+2, concerning an American Woman, being charged Abroad for something Very Bad. Just too much potential for people to make a stand. The ****% must be too high.

I'm not sure you realize that everything you wrote in this quote and your previous post can be applied, probably even more so, to the other side of that debate as well. I mean, just listen to yourself. Everyone who disagrees with you is a "shill"? And they're the conspiracy theorists? I'll grant you that that thread is very pertinent to this discussion, however. Just probably not in the way you think it is.

As for the main topic, I think the answer is cognitive bias. People who have formed an initial belief in something tend to favor evidence which supports that belief. Some people (particularly those with self-worth issues and who are insecure about their intellect; as noted in your OP), cling harder than others. It's particularly apparent in those with obvious personality disorders or related mental health issues. I would imagine narcissists, for example, probably don't admit they are wrong too often. Particularly when they've clung to an incorrect belief for a long time, and have an elaborate mental construct to justify their belief -- they can probably can come up with all sorts of semi-rational contortions to justify why they think what they think. It doesn't even occur to them they may not have been correct in the first place. Humans and their emotions are a weird thing.

This is not a thread for discussing evidence for or against conspiracies. It's simply for discussing what psychological processes lead one to accepting conspiracies.

Heh. When I taught abnormal psychology, I said "we will not discuss your personal psychological problems or the personal psychological problems that your mommy has that has led you to take this class" approximately once per period on average.

The transparent astronaut is a simple technology of the time issue. Pay attention to how even when he leaves a black area it remains slightly illuminated as if he was still there. Why would you then not have the same effect in areas he is entering maintaining for a while but only a very brief while, that then goes away (very important), the imprint of the prior image/geometry that was supposed to be obstructed now but its effect remains in place as expected (superimposed) for a brief period. This is early 1970s TV issue that most of us never witnessed to recognize (try to watch video from that era eg sports at night time, generally on other examples that have nothing to do with moon but are similar in lighting conditions and you may find it in them too). Its a contrast thing it seems. Someone familiar with older technology can explain it better. I bet it is also a brain illusion slight enhancement thing because our brains like to extrapolate patterns. Watch it many times and pay attention to all my points.

I meant that if a line is draw and then it slowly fades as a new object is in front now the brain may still for a while see the line even when its of lower intensity and even briefly after its completely gone extrapolating it like connecting the dots kind of thing. So the effect may also slightly be enhanced by the persistence of the brain to extrapolate what was there a few hundreds of seconds ago. But the main effect can be seen when he moves lower and his suit still remains a bit behind him as if leaving a ghost behind. Its the same effect with the line that now appears to be crossing his legs although it ought to be behind him. Both those effects however go away if you wait a couple seconds exactly as it would if it was a delay in screen issue when light intensity changes from bright to dark or the reverse. Just watch old videos that have transition from bright to dark or the reverse and see that there is a response delay sometimes.

Try this. Look at a very bright lamp during night then fast close your eyes and you still see the lamp for a while as if it was still there (of course only as a slight remnant in a dark background now). That indicates its a response that is decaying that is not super fast and it allows to essentially notice a ghost image. ( i am not suggesting its the same thing, only something similar as to offer insight on what is technically happening on the old BW video, it has a response decay time kind of thing)

what's the psychological benefit to an individual of creating such an evil force that's pulling all the strings?

Believing that you have special powers of observation makes you feel special.

Believing that you can't be tricked by their damn lies makes you feel special.

Believing that their are bad guys conspiring against you (not directly against you necessarily, just making the world a yucky place) is an excellent excuse for not having a great life in which you do great things.

Explaining that nagging feeling of distrust towards others with an explanation that they are out to get you (or trick you) is better than explaining it as "I am paranoid."

Brother Zeno, keep the forum on the square. Use your bow as you often do.