Yeah, No. Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas don't think you're more sane. Here's the actual study: http://www.frontiersin.org/Personal..._Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/full#h2 Of note in the abstract: Conspiracy beliefs have been shown to be positively correlated with mistrust of other people (Goertzel, 1994) and authorities (Swami et al., 2010); feelings of powerlessness and low self-esteem (Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999); superstition, beliefs in the paranormal, and schizotypy (Darwin et al., 2011); a perceived lack of control (Hamsher et al., 1968; Whitson and Galinsky, 200; a Machiavellian approach to social interaction (Douglas and Sutton, 2011); and openness to experience (Swami et al., 2010; but see Swami et al., 2011). Yet again, a conspiracy theorist was suckered by someone trying to lead them down the garden path. Why don't they ever mistrust these random disinfo merchants as much as they mistrust an "authority figure." Also of interest is another study I found by Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas http://academia.edu/1207098/Dead_and_alive_Beliefs_in_contradictory_conspiracy_theories Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories Abstract: Conspiracy theories can form a monological belief system: a self-sustaining worldview comprised of a network of mutually supportive beliefs. The present research shows that even endorsement of mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively correlated. In Study 1(n= 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n= 102), the more participants believed that OsamaBin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general.
It's hardly a glowing review at all: And it concludes: So basically they find that conspiracists are driven by a need to believe that authority figures are lying to them, but that the actual truth doesn't really matter all that much. They'll believe two completely contradictory realities as long as they contradict what an authority figure tells them. It's apparent to me that this makes them quite easily manipulated. As long as you feed them information that contradicts a conventionalist view, they'll accept it. The OP here is actually a case in point.
I got sent to the shrink a couple of times when I was in the Army, but they cleared me for duty, no restrictions on my weapon, no service connected defect, and the State of Washington has checked me out and found me legally competent to carry a concealed weapon. I think that some major 9/11 CTs, especially, would be in jail for even trying to buy a shotgun.
OOPOS! My bad. I didn't bother to read all the way to the bottom to see who wrote that article. Nothing to see here folks. Just another worthless Nazi scumbag and Salafi enabler trolling for useful idiots ahead of the RaHoWa.
The article was about people like you, bro. You literally did exactly what the article predicted you would do. Classic. - - - Updated - - - The article was about people like you, bro. You literally did exactly what the article predicted you would do. Classic.
You mean the article predicted I would not swallow the article's premise at face value, that I would consult the source material, and that I would find that the original statements made by the article were false, mis-represented, or misunderstood? I'm not sure where in the article it claims I would do that, but good for you for recognizing it. I think it's worthy of note that you did exactly what the study the article referenced predicted. You saw something that contradicted what you perceive to be an authoritative position, and you believed it regardless of it's accuracy.
It's not? Are you talking about the findings of the study, or are you attempting to refute the study? Because my characterization of the study is taken directly from the study itself and you provided zero in the way of evidence to support your statement.
