Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?

* patternicity, or a tendency to find meaningful patterns in random noise;
* agenticity, or the bent to believe the world is controlled by invisible intentional agent;
* confirmation bias, or the seeking and finding of confirmatory evidence for what we already believe;
* hindsight bias, or tailoring after-the-fact explanations to what we already know happened.

“The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre."
— Frank Zappa

the OP, dude?

So tired of you getting it wrong.

also take note of the fact that "dude" is unisex.

I remember her well as a she.

ask "her" why "she" lists "her" gender as "male" before you embarrass yourself even further.

has been handing you your ass for so long that she decided not to further humiliate you and let you know she is a girl.

that would explain why no one takes him/her or you, for that matter, seriously, dude.

The female equivalent is the rarely used dudette.

dude.

I see that you're in your usual ready, fire, aim mode.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dude

I think I'm all that now that I have 1,000 posts. :)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We are too busy trying to make sure you and your mystery-solving team don't let your theories out into the general public.
You guys are close to busting this thing wide open and LARED and I are doing our best to keep you contained.

LARED...

(33DeCon9118)

are butterflies truly free?

trying to contain a sighting of the mother ship. Seems there was routine maintenance going on and the cloaking device glitched for a few moments.

(3^3T&Y~KK<<RR)

The Turtles are lost..

thanks for taking care of it.
did you end up "quarantining" those that got a good look?

)3^(3^*spkd 7

the daisies are flying to Arkansas

Answer that question.

Your post and the attached Scientific American article is a strawman.

You'll find very few people who BELIEVE in conspiracy theories in relation to the number who pose conspiracy theories.

Conspiracy theories are developed because of the lack of evidence and credibility of "official" stories. Theorists may pose a more "credible" theory, but wouldn't BELIEVE it without hard evidence.

certainly not because of lack of evidence and credibility of official stories.
what makes a person not believe planes crashed into the WTC?
I am sure a psychiatrist could answer that.

http://americanaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/why-do-conspiracy-theories-develop

You're attempting to smear anyone who questions or doubts official stories by implying that they would BELIEVE the most far-fetched and improbable conspiracy theories.

Your attacks are dishonest and disruptive to open discussion.

you can question or doubt all you want.
but when you tell me planes did not hit the WTC and you have "evidence" that a mini-nuke, or space aliens, or thermite or whatever was responsible, you are NOT contributing to the discussion unless the discussion is about mental health.
if you doubt, then you have to have a better reason for things happening.
belief in something outlandish just to feed your own theory is a very real mental problem.

with doubts as having "belief in something outlandish".

It is entirely rational have doubt without providing a "better reason".

Again, you frame the term "evidence" in your statement with the most outlandish theories of "planes did not hit the WTC" and "mini-nuke, or space aliens, or thermite" in an attempt to smear anyone who would suggest there is evidence that disproves the official story as lacking in mental health.

I repeat, your attacks are dishonest and disruptive to open discussion.

right?

what part of that do you not understand?

dude.

dude?

anyone, dude.

Mere criticism, however harsh, is not an "attack".

It's gonna bite you in the ass some day.

I "attacked" anyone, dude.

I can't show you, if you refuse to see it.

How am I supposed to "see" something you refuse to provide?

Do you even know what an "attack" is?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I didn't think you'd be able to point out where I "attacked" anyone.

It's also ironic that you attacked me while complaining that I attack people. Too bad you can't see that.

troofers can't see

however, it's simply amazing that someone accuses me of attacking anyine, while simultaneously calling me a "clown" parading around in a clown suit.

Fucking unbelievable.

It was a metaphor.

You do know what a metaphor is, right dude?

"You strut around here in a clown suit asking where the clown is and attack anyone who points out that you're the clown".

They don't really understand that the tone and intent of their remarks are the problem. They show up without fail in every thread with a singular goal; to make you feel like an douche bag for not believing what *they* do. When you call them on their aggressive and condescending remarks, they act as if they have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. If you can't furnish exact words constituting an attack (in their estimation), it simply isn't. What their binary, rules based, minds fail to grasp is that the very nature and pattern of their participation; showing up to make the same denouncements day in and day out, is itself an act of aggression. Unfortunately, folks who lack the ability for introspection will never grok this.

If I weren't laughing so hard, I'd reply to this.

Sup?

I am too busy "aggressing".

Sorry man, I couldn't help myself ;)

dude.

I have watched a number of "debates" involving conspiracy theories and they often devolve into situations very similar to "debates" between non-religious (even some religious) and fundamentalists. While there are certainly some conspiracies that merit investigation, some, especially of recent, have become so "magical" that they have entered the realm of mythology.

why do people believe in obviously bogus official stories?

We believe things on the basis of solid evidence, which is why no one takes your delusional ramblings seriously, dude.

and if I found someone who took me seriously, you would be wrong. Right?

who takes you seriously, I find 70000 who don't?

OCT style facts and evidence?

only a crazy person would believe 2 planes flew into the WTC.

As a researcher myself, I couldn't help noticing that the article appears to employ fallacies of division, inconsistent and incomplete comparisons, a strawman argument, and at least one bare assertion. All this in 2000 words or less from Mike Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine and the one person on Earth whom we can expect to know better.

Just what the hell is Shermer really trying to say by pooh-poohing a conspiracy with the same crap logic that the most embarrassing conspiracy theorists regularly use?

It's like reading a love letter from Leo Strauss. You're sure to be more confused after reading it than you were before.

Methinks OCT Shermer doth Project too much...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-conspiracies

totally goofy bullshit somehow delude themselves into believing it's actually everyone else who struggles with critical thinking. Fucking unbelievable.

Just two posts above, I said I spotted at least three logical fallacies in that article.

Did you see them, too? Because I need to know if I'm struggling with my own critical thinking.

If they do exist, then Shermer's article is useless and his motivations are instantly suspect, because he certainly knows better.

Too bad the guy doesn't have a real clue of history.
Otherwise he'd know that this phrase:
“The more elaborate a conspiracy theory is, and the more people that would need to be involved, the less likely it is true.”
is total nonsense and proven wrong by history.
In fact historical conspiracy are often complicated or even extremely complicated eg have a closer look at Operation Gladio
for example the Peteano attack.
I don't know if I can take this pseudo scientific stuff seriously without any reference to historically proven conspiracies.

holographic planes, space beams, magical thermite/ate/ute/ete/ote and sometimes /yte seriously?

Where's your historical basis for those things?

A murderous criminal conspiracy involving members of the administration and the intelligence community. And of course complicity on the part of the media.

They buy into conspiracies because they can't or don't want to accept that crazy, tragic shit happens in this world. It's too random and too horrific to think that events like 9/11 can happen. So they've created this mysterious and unseen mastermind (PTB, NWO, you name it), that controls the world and can be blamed for all its ills. They can then gather together in a unified attempt to expose this threat (which they secretly know is nothing more than shadow boxing, but won't admit it) as a way of ignoring the reality and horror of the real world.

Is that another conspiracy theory?

on whether you think it was some omnipresent, shadowy organization that lead us into Iraq or a corrupt administration.

Do you think it was a conspiracy or not?

I don't think it was a conspiracy.