The Conspiracy Theorists' Mind Set
- Thread starter Eric Newhill
- Start date
As any such "analysis", it is at the very least IRRELEVANT: as any other theories out there, conspiracy theories has to be elevated objectively, by their own merits - by the evidence and argumentation presented by their proponents and opponents - and not subjectively, by any supposed psychological chracteristics of these proponents and opponents.
But worse than being irrelevant, any such analysis is in fact DECEPTIVE, since it tries to replace objectivity (the assessment of the theory and its evidence base) with subjectivity (the assessment of the supposed psychological characterics of the theorists).
In each and any such analysis, the empirical and rational contents of the theory itself are ignored - it is just presented as being wrong-by-definition, as all anti-mainstream conspiracy theories are axiomatically supposed to be by the mainstream.
The ironic facts that much of the mainstream narratives are themselves, in the strict literal sense, conspiracy theories (Russiagate), and that some elite conspiracies are proven true (Iran-Contra), are ignored. The mainstream conspiracy theories, as well as proven elite conspiracies, are never called these names by the mainstream sources, for the simple reason - for the mainstream, the words "conspiracy theory" have lost their literal, objective meaning - "the theory that postulates, and tries to prove, an existence of conspiracy". Instead, it turned in into a subjective perjorative label that may be used to brand and defame any theory, no matter how soundly it is supported empirically, and how validly it argumented rationally, as long as it defies the authority of the power elites and power institutions (this includes academic elites and institutions). In fact, it is not even necessary for such a theory to postulate, and try to prove, a conspiracy in a literal sense; the defiance of authority alone is enough.
But worse than being irrelevant, any such analysis is in fact DECEPTIVE, since it tries to replace objectivity (the assessment of the theory and its evidence base) with subjectivity (the assessment of the supposed psychological characterics of the theorists).
In each and any such analysis, the empirical and rational contents of the theory itself are ignored - it is just presented as being wrong-by-definition, as all anti-mainstream conspiracy theories are axiomatically supposed to be by the mainstream.
The ironic facts that much of the mainstream narratives are themselves, in the strict literal sense, conspiracy theories (Russiagate), and that some elite conspiracies are proven true (Iran-Contra), are ignored. The mainstream conspiracy theories, as well as proven elite conspiracies, are never called these names by the mainstream sources, for the simple reason - for the mainstream, the words "conspiracy theory" have lost their literal, objective meaning - "the theory that postulates, and tries to prove, an existence of conspiracy". Instead, it turned in into a subjective perjorative label that may be used to brand and defame any theory, no matter how soundly it is supported empirically, and how validly it argumented rationally, as long as it defies the authority of the power elites and power institutions (this includes academic elites and institutions). In fact, it is not even necessary for such a theory to postulate, and try to prove, a conspiracy in a literal sense; the defiance of authority alone is enough.
I like what Eric Weinstein said lately in a recent interview -
"What do you mean a conspiracy theorist? So when I hear nightly on the news that maybe Russia is controlling the American elections and trying to prop Donald Trump up, are those conspiracy theories? When I hear that the corona virus is in fact under control and the market falls apart, is that a conspiracy theory? I mean where are we in history that conspiracy theorizing is a privilege of the people inside the institutional class. No. That's incompetent. We have discovered conspiracies previously in the United States. COINTELPRO is probably the most disturbing conspiracy that we've found within the last 50 years. In fact, conspiracies happen and you need to be able to go after them. So I think we should make a new rule. The next person who tries to use the epithet conspiracy theorist, we try to figure out what conspiracy theory they've been pushing, because frankly everybody inside the gated institutional narrative is hawking one conspiracy theory or the other. Its time for this technique of trying to intimidate people by using that epithet to die."
"What do you mean a conspiracy theorist? So when I hear nightly on the news that maybe Russia is controlling the American elections and trying to prop Donald Trump up, are those conspiracy theories? When I hear that the corona virus is in fact under control and the market falls apart, is that a conspiracy theory? I mean where are we in history that conspiracy theorizing is a privilege of the people inside the institutional class. No. That's incompetent. We have discovered conspiracies previously in the United States. COINTELPRO is probably the most disturbing conspiracy that we've found within the last 50 years. In fact, conspiracies happen and you need to be able to go after them. So I think we should make a new rule. The next person who tries to use the epithet conspiracy theorist, we try to figure out what conspiracy theory they've been pushing, because frankly everybody inside the gated institutional narrative is hawking one conspiracy theory or the other. Its time for this technique of trying to intimidate people by using that epithet to die."
I only listened to a part of it, but I think the problem is that the guy is suffering from psychopathological ideation - a term I just coined to refer to people who have a pathological desire to interpret other people's ideas in psychological terms 
As Vortex has said above, each conspiracy theory has to be evaluated on the facts, and often that is not easy.
The other thing I would say, is that after watching the media begin to distort or hide a lot of facts in recent times (think of those false flag gas attacks), my threshold for believing in CT's has dropped considerably. I am sure that people in the former Soviet Union or its satellites thought much more in terms of conspiracies - not because they had a mental disease, but simply because they knew they were not getting a true version of the facts.
David
As Vortex has said above, each conspiracy theory has to be evaluated on the facts, and often that is not easy.
The other thing I would say, is that after watching the media begin to distort or hide a lot of facts in recent times (think of those false flag gas attacks), my threshold for believing in CT's has dropped considerably. I am sure that people in the former Soviet Union or its satellites thought much more in terms of conspiracies - not because they had a mental disease, but simply because they knew they were not getting a true version of the facts.
David
Wow - that was a totally brilliant video - thank you so much for posting it. What was said is enormously relevant to so much of what we discuss on Skeptiko, that I hope you will put this video at the head of a new thread - say in "Why science is wrong...." so that this topic doesn't get lost.
I can think of so many scientific/medical issues which seem to have been supressed using the mechanism described in that video:
1) The whole issue of the existence of paranormal phenomena is a great example. Dean Radin has run an experiment for years, which uses standard psychology lab techniques to show that people become dimly aware of startling events for a period of time up to 4 seconds before a computer has generated a random number to 'decide' to produce this event. This is known as 'presentiment' and has been repeated by others. Dean Radin has also been able to reanalyse data from certain other experiments - designed to show completely different effects - which show the same thing. Somehow this story isn't worth a mainstream discussion!
2) Some years ago I was having difficulty walking for reasons that ultimately turned out to be statin side-effects. These are supposed to be rare and normally trivial, yet as yet big pharma are still making a great profit out of selling these drugs. I could have been exceptional, but as soon as I realised what had bugged me, I went online, and the stories came pouring out, and it turned out there are medical doctors writing about thise issue and being ignored as far as possible. Here is just one book that exposes this scandal:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Statin-Nat...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1584035884&sr=8-1
Dr Kendrick has managed to remain a doctor in the NHS, even though clearly a lot of powerful people would like him out.
3) Some years ago, an astronomy academic called Halton Arp found evidence that the red shifts of seemingly distant objects might not be translatable into their distance from Earth. This discovery threatens to wreck a great deal of research the depends on those distances. He had the greatest difficulty getting this information out, and indeed in obtaining telescope time, once the significance of his research became clear.
4) As you will see, if you look at my thread here on Skeptiko about Michael Behe's book, it looks as though the theory of evolution by natural selection is deeply flawed, but nobody wants to mention that in polite society!
Etc etc.
David
I can think of so many scientific/medical issues which seem to have been supressed using the mechanism described in that video:
1) The whole issue of the existence of paranormal phenomena is a great example. Dean Radin has run an experiment for years, which uses standard psychology lab techniques to show that people become dimly aware of startling events for a period of time up to 4 seconds before a computer has generated a random number to 'decide' to produce this event. This is known as 'presentiment' and has been repeated by others. Dean Radin has also been able to reanalyse data from certain other experiments - designed to show completely different effects - which show the same thing. Somehow this story isn't worth a mainstream discussion!
2) Some years ago I was having difficulty walking for reasons that ultimately turned out to be statin side-effects. These are supposed to be rare and normally trivial, yet as yet big pharma are still making a great profit out of selling these drugs. I could have been exceptional, but as soon as I realised what had bugged me, I went online, and the stories came pouring out, and it turned out there are medical doctors writing about thise issue and being ignored as far as possible. Here is just one book that exposes this scandal:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Statin-Nat...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1584035884&sr=8-1
Dr Kendrick has managed to remain a doctor in the NHS, even though clearly a lot of powerful people would like him out.
3) Some years ago, an astronomy academic called Halton Arp found evidence that the red shifts of seemingly distant objects might not be translatable into their distance from Earth. This discovery threatens to wreck a great deal of research the depends on those distances. He had the greatest difficulty getting this information out, and indeed in obtaining telescope time, once the significance of his research became clear.
4) As you will see, if you look at my thread here on Skeptiko about Michael Behe's book, it looks as though the theory of evolution by natural selection is deeply flawed, but nobody wants to mention that in polite society!
Etc etc.
David
Glad you found the video interesting. I just posted it in a new thread as you suggested. I'll also link a few other of his videos that go further into the idea of the DISC that are well worth watching in my opinion. (The guy Eric Weinstein also had personally met Epstein and his take on the man, which he calls a Construct, is fascinating.)
I'm involved in the health field so familiar with how this plays out there. Statins have made over $1 trillion! Regarding some unusual side effects I recently came across this article which opened my eyes even more to how drugs like statins affect people's personalities. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200108-the-medications-that-change-who-we-are
Regarding evolution, I haven't seen that thread, but have you read or heard of Perry Marshall's Evolution 2.0 book or $10 million prize? https://evo2.org/ I personally know the guy. And he is fighting up against the wall of scientism and even media not covering it, though I'm happy to say he's slowly making some ground with it.
I'm involved in the health field so familiar with how this plays out there. Statins have made over $1 trillion! Regarding some unusual side effects I recently came across this article which opened my eyes even more to how drugs like statins affect people's personalities. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200108-the-medications-that-change-who-we-are
Regarding evolution, I haven't seen that thread, but have you read or heard of Perry Marshall's Evolution 2.0 book or $10 million prize? https://evo2.org/ I personally know the guy. And he is fighting up against the wall of scientism and even media not covering it, though I'm happy to say he's slowly making some ground with it.