When researchers trolled conspiracy nuts with random false info, they bought it every time

[HuckleB]

http://deadstate.org/when-researchers-trolled-conspiracy-nuts-with-random-false-info-they-bought-it-every-time/

"Looking at the social media habits of people who subscribe to chemtrails, 9/11 trutherism, reptilians and the Illuminati, a team of Italian and American researchers found that these people rarely engage with social media pages that challenge their views, encapsulating themselves in a self-affirming bubble of misinformation.

Social media proved to be the flashpoint of this phenomenon, since it perpetuates misinformation and allows it to be shared and amplified at a rate not seen before the rise of the Internet.

...

“These posts are clearly unsubstantiated claims, like the undisclosed news that infinite energy has been finally discovered, or that a new lamp made of actinides (e.g. plutonium and uranium) might solve problems of energy gathering with less impact on the environment, or that the chemical analysis revealed that chemtrails contains sildenafil citratum (the active ingredient of Viagra),” the researchers said.

...

The researchers also made sure to point out that “cognitive resources” were wasted when people who reject conspiracy theories took time to engage in disputing the unscientific “troll” claims.”


In other words, there is no way to help those who will do whatever it takes to keep believing something, no matter how much the evidence goes against their beliefs.

Oh, well, then...

[HappyinLA]

1. I have a friend who's into all this

everything is a conspiracy to them. And no evidence you could ever present will dissuade them. One of the CT's they're into is the whole TWA800 flight that broke up over Long Island. They're convinced the Navy shot it down. Doesn't matter that the ship in question was my friend's ship, and that my friend actually manned the Missile System Supervisor console. Or that on the day in question the guy on the console, Rob, wasn't pushing any buttons.

At best that just shuts them up for awhile, until they can come up with some sort of dodge for that fact.

[petronius]

3. That's because there was another ship there that actually fired the missile

A secret, high-tech, stealth ship that nobody saw. And the fact that nobody saw it proves it was there. Because it was stealthy...

[NuclearDem]

2. Pretty much says when anyone with common sense knows.

Conspiracy nuts will fall for anything, and it's a waste of time to convince them otherwise.

[HuckleB]

4. Unfortunately, it's not just the ultra extreme conspiracy nuts.

[hunter]

8. "Common sense" is 90% bullshit...

... just like every other human affectation and pursuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

[HuckleB]

10. True, and yet we do know that conspiracy nuts will fall for anything.

Hmm.

[FBaggins]

14. And thus we have the Enenews business model.

As well as Alex Jones and any number of other crackpot websites.

[Archae]

5. Just look at Alex Jones, George Noory and their disciples.

"Never mind the evidence, *WE* know what is real!"

Anti-GMO hysterics, anti-vaxxers, Kennedy assassination buffs like Oliver Stone, flying saucer cults, etc, etc.

[Octafish]

6. That's exactly what Cass Sunstein said.

Sunstein also provided the reason we could "move on" from prosecuting Bush and Cheney.

Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, (Sunstein) argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.

SOURCE w links n details: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/10/main-obama-adviser-blocking-prosecution.html?m=1

Which is why Bush and Cheney could do all manner of evil and get away with it, conspiracy or not.

[LeatherSofa]

80. Well why did Ms Sunstein think

the Republicans were not starting retributive efforts with their impeachment of Clinton?

Seems to me if they tried to impeach Clinton, a reciprocal attack should have been warranted against Bush. Especially, in as much, that a marital indiscretion was far lighter than a President/VP planning a war before they even concocted the rationale behind it.

[Octafish]

83. That's the crux of the biscuit.

Sunstein doesn't want the People to get the idea that their "elected" representatives would commit such a horrendous crime. The effect of his idea is to give traitors impunity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4736340

[PoliticAverse]

128. Not prosecuting government officials risks a cycle of corruption. n/t

[reddread]

129. mandates it

lack of oversight? laissez faire? Contributors will expect the Moon.

[hunter]

7. Okay, I'll play...

Wisdom isn't the same as skepticism.

Wisdom is knowing where your own blind spots and weaknesses are.

I've met accomplished scientists who are entirely oblivious to their own blind spots and weaknesses. They are not wise, they are fools. I wouldn't trust them to look after my children or my pets.

I've met people of "lower than average intelligence" (whatever the hell "intelligence" is...) who would not presume to argue about math or science because they know it is one of their weaknesses. They are wise. I would trust them to look after my children and pets.

Fools cover the entire spectrum of human intelligence. The more intelligent fools tend to be the most dangerous.

The universe is very big and our minds are very small.

On a linear scale of intelligence, from all-knowing to know-nothing, our own human intelligence is perhaps indistinguishable from a dog's, deep down in the dark depths of know-nothingness, relying mostly upon our instinctive social skills and empathy for our survival.



On the internet nobody knows you're a dog.

[HuckleB]

9. Play what?

You made a speech that we all know well. Thanks for "speaking."

[hunter]

16. Who is "we all?"

I'm just a feral human well trained in the art of science.

[HuckleB]

17. What did your post of cliches have to do with science?

And why do you feel you have claim that you are well trained in something?

Just show us.

[hunter]

18. I'm an open book here on DU.

I'm only evasive so as to protect the innocent.

Read through my journal if you like.

Dig up dirt on me. Find my most insane posts.

If you can find fault with any of my math or science (I've posted plenty here), then let's see YOU change my mind.

BTW, some GMOs, not all, suck.

And everyone in my household is fully vaccinated.

[HuckleB]

19. You keep going off into different directions.

None of which have anything to do with the OP.

And you don't answer basic questions directly. I don't find that to be reassuring, nor would it cause me to waste my time reading your journal. Don't tell, show.

I'm done, unless you have something worth discussing.

[hunter]

22. The Universe is like that. Many, many directions. And I'm certain I could troll you.

Just be yourself. It's easier.

[HuckleB]

30. So what?

Again, not relevant to the topic at hand.

"Just be yourself." Umm. Still not relevant.

[Adrahil]

81. I disagree, profoundly....

The strength of human intelligence is in collective thought and reasoning. Yes, there are scientists who are blind to their own biases. And yes, even collectively, the scientific community has biases and weaknesses. But you cannot deny that collectively, human thought has ascertained a tremendous amount of kniwledge in just a few hundred years.... A mere blink of an eye. To imply human intelligence is insignificant is to miss the bigger picture, IMO.

The scientific method is the most powerful human idea in history.

[SidDithers]

11. Damn you, BFEE!!!...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

86. Funny how you never find anything wrong with the BFEE, SidDithers.

Bartcop coined the term "Bush Family Evil Empire" to denote the 60-year pre-eminence of one family in the formation of the political philosophy in the United States, that of the War Party. And, yes, personally, I have tried to chronicle their influence on the ascension of the national security state. At least three generations have held high national office, while also making big money off war and looting the public Treasury. The last president of the United States, a man who wasn't elected fair and square by any stretch of the imagination, actually said: "Money trumps peace" at a press conference. For some reason, not a single "journalist" had the guts to ask him what he meant by that.

Gee, what kind of person protects Republican evil-doers on DU?

[SidDithers]

124. ...

Sid

[HuckleB]

125. Are you claiming the OP is a part of the "BFEE?"

[Octafish]

134. No. I replied to SidDithers of DU ridiculing Bush crimes.

Bush family and their cronies have tainted US history since at least the plot against FDR.

You might want to learn about it:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/02/wall-streets-failed-1934-coup/

[HuckleB]

135. I'm thinking you probably misconstrued his intention.

[Octafish]

138. SidDithers of DU goes back years ridiculing me for going after the BFEE.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022888757#post30

From my perspective, he's going after the wrong people.

[HuckleB]

139. He was clearly making a joke here.

[rafeh1]

12. The problem is some conspiracies are true

Like operation northwoods or the fake cia sponsered story of Iraqi soldiers killing babies in hospital.

Then there is the 911 problem of 2 planes hit 2 tower but 3 towers fell down.

[FBaggins]

15. The fact that the wolf eventually shows up...

... does not mean that the boy was ever credible.

[LanternWaste]

21. Nor does it mean Capt. Dreyfus was innocent...

Nor does it mean Capt. Dreyfus was innocent and that Watergate was merely a hotel...

[ozone_man]

123. It depends on the ratio of times he cries wolf

to how many times the wolf shows up. And it depends on the severity of the consequences of the wolf showing up.

I think a lot of us cried wolf about the impending Iraq war, and that it was all about oil control and other strategic interest, and not about how bad a man SH was, or about WMDs, and yellow cake uranium. The problem there, after losing a million Iraquis lives, is that they didn't believe us.

[Rex]

23. Well you have to size up a person by how extreme they are imo.

CT nuts are as bad as CT deniers which are just like climate change deniers. You can show any amount of evidence after the facts are made known and it still won't matter. Same with CT nuts, they won't listen so no point in trying to have a discussion imo. You have to find those folks that are willing to listen with some amount of skeptisim.

Binary thinkers all share something in common with fundies imo...they lack any ability to think critically for themselves.

[ieoeja]

25. True, the 3rd tower was not hit by a plane. It was hit by a gigantic fucking building!

Fortunately, it was a glancing blow so it did not come down immediately. I'm betting that gigantic fucking buildings are actually more destructive than jet planes full of fuel. They're just harder to fly.

Nothing all that mysterious about that.

Also, they announced they were going to take it down because of the damage (from being hit by a giagantic fucking building) BEFORE they took it down. Why am I the only person who remembers hearing that at the time? What kind of conspiracy is it when you tell everyone you are doing it?

[cpwm17]

29. Yes, there were numerous news report that WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing since it was severely

damaged and heavily engulfed in fire. The precollapse news reports are easy to find on Google and YouTube.

[HuckleB]

31. +1,000,000 ... 000

[Logical]

84. +1000! Nt

[RiverLover]

13. Businss Insider is a conspiracy troll!

Cancer-linked herbicides are coming under closer scrutiny
8/19/15

U.S. regulators have relied on flawed and outdated research to allow expanded use of an herbicide linked to cancer, and new assessments should be urgently conducted, according to a column published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday.

There are two key factors that necessitate regulatory action to protect human health, according to the column: a sharp increase in herbicide applied to widely planted genetically modified (GMO) crops used in food, and a recent World Health Organization (WHO) determination that the most commonly used herbicide, known as glyphosate, is probably a human carcinogen.

...Glyphosate is best known as the key ingredient in Roundup developed by Monsanto Co, one of the world's most widely used herbicides, but it is used in more than 700 products.

It is sprayed directly over crops like corn genetically engineered to tolerate it and is sometimes used on non-GMO crops, like wheat before harvest. Residues of glyphosate have been detected in food and water.

Full story~
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-scientists-call-for-new-review-of-herbicide-cite-flawed-us-regulations-2015-8

[HuckleB]

92. You found another crap piece pushing Benbrook's debunked opinion piece. LOL!

GMOs, Herbicides, and the New England Journal of Medicine
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/08/gmos-herbicides-and-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine/

The Dying Gasp Of Chuck Benbrook's Credibility
http://www.science20.com/science_20/the_dying_gasp_of_chuck_benbrooks_credibility-156906

Anti-GMO in the NEJM
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-gmo-in-the-nejm/

And you used it as a response to the OP. Very telling.

[Rex]

20. "a self-affirming bubble of misinformation'

See that all over the place, not just CT nuts. CT nuts are like fundies imo...they believe everything they read if it somehow validates their worldview as the correct one. Neither group uses critical thinking skills imo.

Also explains why people buy into so much crap they see on TVEE on CNN and Foxnews. Self-delusional people are impossible to argue with. I won't waste the effort anymore.

[CanSocDem]

24. The only legitimate science is...

Sociology. It studies and predicts how people will behave in groups.

A "group" can be anything from a church or a school all the way down to a family. The science says that we yearn so much for the acceptance of our group that we are willing to adjust our beliefs to make us more compatible with our group. If "our group" is into 'science' we'll believe anything....to be accepted in the group.

The point is, your insistence on what you believe and the arrogant manner in which you deal with other belief systems is evidence of less 'scientific rationalism' than you pretend to possess.

I can only imagine that your diligent efforts in exposing non-medical scams has blinded you to the slick, deceptive and mass-marketing of your "science-based" medical industry. You seem to have no idea about the injustice of having to spend ANY amount of money on personal health. It's a basic human right.


.

[Curmudgeoness]

62. Did you forget the sarcasm smilie? nt

[CanSocDem]

87. Well, no.

I can't imagine where you think I'm being "sarcastic".

Anyway, my post was directed at the OP whose numerous 'pro science' rants are actually quite un-scientific.



.

[AlbertCat]

94. I can't imagine where you think I'm being "sarcastic".

Starting with the "T" in "The" in the posts subject line to the end of your post?

So, you're being ridiculous instead of sarcastic.

Got it.

[HuckleB]

89. No, he/she is serious.

It would be funny if he/she were not so serious.

[Curmudgeoness]

96. I know.

The most amazing thing is the comment about sociology being the only real science.

[HuckleB]

99. Indeed.

It can get very "interesting."

[CanSocDem]

108. It is because...

...sociology is the only science that can explain why so many people believe in pharmaceuticals.

The industry would like you to believe that it spends millions of dollars and countless hours making sure 'their' treatment works.

Well, since it doesn't work for everybody (for whatever reason) the science of sociology is employed. Get a Doctor to say that it does so work. In fact, make a big advertising campaign to tell everybody that "...it does so work." Nobody wants to be outside saying the opposite of what "doctors" are saying. They say it makes us look stupid.

However, if you look around you see that a lot of institutions that we consider sacred, exist not because they are doing a good job but because they serve a social need apart from their institutional objectives. Churches for example don't actually deliver 'salvation', but they serve as social hubs that keep everybody interested. Schools don't actually deliver an education but they serve several social functions in the acculturation process.

The point is, people care more about belonging to a 'tribe' than they do about the actual beliefs of that tribe. Once you get past the need to belong to a group, you can believe what YOU want. And then, presumably, you will find that it is ALL about 'beliefs'.

[Curmudgeoness]

109. So what?

Your statement was that "the only legitimate science is sociology", and I find that to be an astonishing statement. There is no way to rank the sciences until you get into pseudo-science. Without any one of the sciences, we would be living in a much poorer society, as well as more ignorant. Life would be very hard. Sociology is an intriguing study, but to discard every other science is foolish.

You talk about pharmaceuticals, and how we are being sold a false bill of goods. Well, it is true that some people get obsessed with them, and think that they need drugs for everything. But you would have a good chance of not being here without them. Go ahead and live without any drugs....and that will include the early pharmaceuticals used by people from the beginning of time, because that arose from science even if they didn't call it "science".

Live without everything that we have because of all the sciences if you like. Stop driving cars, or even using a bicycle. You can't use electricity either, not even solar energy unless it is drying your clothes or making sun tea. Oh, never mind, you would not have clothes.

My point is that your statement made no sense.

[MrScorpio]

100. I'm a huge supporter of studying sociology...

And normally, I wouldn't think that there's a way that one could overstate the importance of that science...

However you, my friend, seems to have found a way to do exactly that.

[OnyxCollie]

111. I don't know about sociology being the only legitimate science,

but it does help to explain why people believe conspiracy theories.

MacDonald (2003) described Rational Choice theory by its three components: purposive action, consistent preferences, and utility maximization. Purposive action asserts that an actor’s behavior is directed toward goals which represent a perceived self-interest, the most common being the wish for survival. Most social outcome can be explained by this goal-oriented action, rather than non-rationalized elements, i.e. habit, tradition, or social appropriateness. Not only is survival the most common preference, it also ranks as the highest among ordered preferences.

The behavior of rational actors is directed by a set of ordered preferences determined by the rationality applied within the social interaction. These choices are developed through a method by which the actor’s preferences are ordered and evaluated to determine which will provide the greatest utility and what course of action should be taken to achieve them (Monroe & Maher, 1995). These preferences include a predilection for survival (Chatterjee, 1972; Monroe & Maher, 1995).

Utility maximization states that when presented choices, players will select the alternative with the highest expected utility depending on whatever constraints exist. When players are uncertain about which alternative to take, they will generate subjective estimates of the probability of uncertain events, and then use these estimates to determine the expected utilities from certain actions. An important source of uncertainty is the actions of other players.

Levine identified four different forms of rationality:

(1) Instrumental rationality is the rationality of adopting the best means for the given ends. (2) Value/substantive rationality is the rationality of choosing actions that are consistent with value commitments. (3) Conceptual rationality is the formation of increasingly precise and abstract concepts. (4) Formal rationality is the creation of methodical, rationally defendable rules (Levine, 1985, p. 210 as cited in Wright, 2002).

These forms of rationality can each be further defined as either symbolic rationality or organizational rationality. Failing to know that what they know is wrong, players may operate “rationally” under a faulty epistemology.

Rational Choice theory is not without its critics, who claim that people are inconsistent, complacent, and often make mistakes in their reasoning. MacDonald (2003) addresses this issues through the “as if” response. The “as if” assumption assumes that people behave “as if” they were following the rationality assumption. MacDonald argued that it is less important to question whether people behave rationally than whether the hypotheses generated by Rational Choice theory are found to be empirically valid.

Another point of contention is the self-interest assumption. MacDonald (2003) presented two different viewpoints, thick-objectivist and thin-subjectivist, in response. The thick-objectivist view states that “all actors maximize {the} same set of consistent preferences and that these individuals should be permitted to assign value only to elements that are ‘objective characteristics of the environment external to the choosing agent’” (p. 557) and that by focusing on ends which are objective, material, external, and do not vary in the population, hypotheses can be created that are clear, testable, and generalizable. Furthermore, the establishment of a common value to ends reduces the need to assign preferences to actors in an ad hoc manner. This essay will apply the thick-objectivist view to the formal and conceptually rational economic and national security hypotheses.

Alternately, the thin-subjectivist view suggests that not everyone shares the same preferences and that actors should be allowed to have preferences over anything, including nonmaterial values (MacDonald, 2003). This is more realistic, and provides an explanation for efforts affected by pride or altruism.

[CanSocDem]

112. It explains why people...

...believe anything. And it is usually more to do with looking good than actually being good.



.

[HuckleB]

126. Ah, its circularity is clarified.

Thus, we know why you'll believe your claims.

Awesome.

[Thor_MN]

26. To be fair, in the case of this study, they WERE out to get them.... nt

[HuckleB]

27. Indeed.

[Egnever]

28. One needs only to take a critical look at this forum

To see their point validated. For all the pretense that people here are well informed ,you can see it being dragged around by the TV or sensational headlines every single day.

[WinkyDink]

34. "it" referring to what antecedent?

[Egnever]

37. The board in general

[WinkyDink]

32. Guess what? MOST people don't seek out opposing viewpoints that "challenge their views." Moreover,

this "study" is asinine, ignoring such little things as BOOKS, NEWSPAPERS, TV, and EXPERIENCE.

Finally, this OP has very poor timing, considering the current threads on government conspiracies with private companies and with scientists.

[mike_c]

52. sad to say...

...I think you're right. Fear of opposing perspectives is even becoming ingrained in our higher education culture, where it is arguably most damaging.

[wildbilln864]

55. well said. Thanks. n/t

[WinkyDink]

33. People often believe fiction and falsehoods. (See: Lies about Saddam, Americans' Belief in).

[cpwm17]

38. The neocons and other war-mongers are CT nuts.

They show how dangerous it is when CT nuts get into power. Actual evidence means nothing to them. They have their own agenda.

[Logical]

35. People are gullible. And I think some CT nuts here are just messing with us at times. nt

[HuckleB]

41. I wish you were right about the latter.

[Quantess]

36. Does this include Round-up afficionados?

[wildbilln864]

39. we need to define what a CT nut is I would think. n/t

[HuckleB]

40. The study limited it to specific conspiracy theories.

Taking the definition further would be an interesting exercise, of course.

On edit: This is fairly concise but still worthy starting point, IMO.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

[wildbilln864]

42. and who are those so called "researchers"? n/t

[HuckleB]

43. Alessandro Bessi, Mauro Coletto, George Davidescu, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, W. Quattrocchi

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118093

[wildbilln864]

44. how did they determine...

those they were "trolling" were indeed conspiracy nuts initially?

[HuckleB]

45. Read the study.

[wildbilln864]

46. it is a conspiracy theory in itself. n/t

[HuckleB]

47. So you don't want to read it.

Oh, well.

[wildbilln864]

48. these people conspired to propose a theory.

I indeed will read it however.

[6chars]

77. maybe it is posted here as an experiment

to see if we will buy it

[Logical]

49. LOL, I need to ignore this post. nt

[wildbilln864]

53. but you didn't! n/t

[Logical]

54. Read your posts in CS forum and get back to me. nt

[wildbilln864]

56. "get back to you"!? why would I do that?

for someone claiming to be logical I'm afraid you miss the mark.
But by all means yes. Everyone do read my posts.

[Logical]

57. They are entertainment for sure. Like a fiction TV show. nt

[wildbilln864]

58. what fiction do you refer to?

I predict you can't name any.

[Logical]

59. Building 7 and molten metal bullshit. Endless bullshit. Crazy Bullshit. nt

[wildbilln864]

60. just because you're ignorant of certain things...

doesn't make them fiction. That's not very logical! It's just ignorance exposed.

[Logical]

68. Lol, yes, any day now the truth will come out. Like Roswell! Nt

[wildbilln864]

70. nothing like Roswell. And...

the truth may never come out but it will still be true.

[Logical]

82. No, not really. This "movement" is just a bunch of nuts on the internet. Nt

[zappaman]

73. Yes, the truther movement is growing!

I read it on DU!

[wildbilln864]

61. eyewitnesses & video evidence:

[zappaman]

63. But I durn saw it on the Utubes!

[wildbilln864]

65. it is documented yes. Eyewitness testimony vs

scientifically illiterate deniers who weren't there. Yes very funny!

[NuclearDem]

75. Nobody who believes in WTC7/Molten Steel conspiracy theories

has any standing to call someone else scientifically illiterate.

[HuckleB]

93. Indeed.

[wildbilln864]

113. nonsense!

your opinion is wrong. If you deny there was molten steel weeks after the event you're just kidding yourself and denying the many witnesses that know it was indeed there.

[NuclearDem]

114. Any law enforcement officer, lawyer, historian, or reporter worth their salt

will tell you how eyewitness accounts are one of the most unreliable sources of information available.

So, pardon me if I don't believe random YouTube videos of people reporting something they saw years ago.

[wildbilln864]

116. they reported it very soon after the event!

Don't know where you get your nonsense. All law enforcement, lawyers, historians rely a great deal on eyewitness accounts! Sometimes it's their best evidence.

[HuckleB]

117. You tried, but you just couldn't help yourself.

Oh, well.

[wildbilln864]

118. and there is video evidence to confirm their testimonies.

and stop projecting!

[HuckleB]

119. LOL! "Projecting."

Oh, goodness.

[NuclearDem]

120. No, it's not.

Eyewitness accounts depend on the memory of the person relating the experience, and even after very short times--especially after traumatic and major events--those memories can become unreliable. Their memories can be influenced by other people's accounts, by trauma, or by not knowing what exactly it was they saw.

Eyewitness accounts are in no way the most reliable sources of information. For historians, they're important because they're often the only available sources through journals and documents written by witnesses, not because they're the most reliable. That's also why historians depend on corroborating sources to the extent they do.

Anyone who told you eyewitness accounts are reliable sources of information for law enforcement is lying to you. There are countless stories of people being thrown into prison due to mistaken identity, or guilty people going free because eyewitnesses couldn't remember clear enough. DNA, surveillance footage, and other actual physical evidence are far more reliable.

[wildbilln864]

121. nice sophistry. n/t

[NuclearDem]

122. Yeah, what would a history major know about the process of collecting historical data?

If my entire argument depended on eyewitness accounts, I'd ignore the mountain of evidence demonstrating how unreliable they are, too.

[HuckleB]

127. Awwwwwwww. You went to the first class of philosophy 101.

Cute. Or not. But, whatever.

[wildbilln864]

131. LOL

I obviously didn't need to. But, whatever.

[HuckleB]

132. This just gets better and better.

Nice.

[wildbilln864]

133. ...

[HuckleB]

136. That says a lot more than you can imagine.

[wildbilln864]

137. ...

[rhett o rick]

50. I am sure there are those that see conspiracies in every thing. But there are also those that

are terrified by conspiracy theories. The theories upset their comfortable denial bubbles. For example, they don't want to hear any evidence that the NSA/CIA is spying on average Americans. But conspiracies are abound in politics. Think Tanks are really Conspiracy Tanks. And people like Karl Rove make a good living conspiring.

[zappaman]

64. I've never met anyone "terrified of conspiracy theories".

Guess you must know a lot of afraid people?

[rhett o rick]

72. Just look at those who alert on CT all the time. nm

[zappaman]

74. You mean the people who alert on CTs in GD because it's in the wrong forum?

A good host would know that there are different forums for a reason.
So, I can see why you wouldn't know...

[rhett o rick]

90. I mean those that only cry CT when it goes against their worldview and not otherwise.

Those that abuse the system to try to lock and hide what they don't like. Not very Democratic or democratic.

A lot of CT gets into GD and it doesn't hurt a thing. Most of us easily recognize the difference in tinfoil-hat CT like Big Foot or Chemical Contrails and those CT that might ring true like "did the republicons steal the election in 2004?" or "Is Monsanto hiding the true dangers of GMO's?" or "Is Congress conspiring to kill the post office."

I notice that it's the non-progressives here that use the cry of "it's CT, lock it, lock it." But only for threads that they disagree with. When some were saying that Snowden conspired with China and Russia to steal secrets, not a single alert.

Looks like progressives are less afraid of the dangers of the truth.

By the way, your attempts to ridicule me are childish.

[villager]

76. Exactly. What's unspoken in all this is the assertion that one must never question...

..an "official story," even when we're not allowed an open, thorough viewing of the evidence involved.

It's an assertion that is, at its core, profoundly undemocratic.

[HuckleB]

91. You're missing a very real point.

Yes, there are some actual conspiracies. That doesn't mean the Internet isn't being used to promote complete fictions. Baseless fear mongering abounds. It is not ok to ignore that because there are some legitimate concerns. No one is going to mix those. Oh, some who push baseless fear will try to say they have legitimate concerns (see anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, climate denial, etc...), but they are the ones who are pushing things in the wrong direction, not those who would explore how and why some people believe baseless fictions without question.

[rhett o rick]

95. Those that push baseless fear should be exposed. The best way is to have open discussion.

Let's take the GMO question. It's a very important discussion and neither side should try to limit the discussion.

What I've noticed is that those that want to limit discussions are generally non-progressives. Instead of debating an issue, they try to shut it down. Most progressives are for open discussion.

[HuckleB]

97. I have no idea how you personally define progressive.

At DU, I have seen plenty of people who claim to be progressives who absolutely want to shut down truly open, science-based discussion. They choose to ignore the clear scientific consensus, while promoting nothing but anti-GMO conspiracy pages. Of course, those same people claim that the repeatedly debunked conspiracies they push are being ignored by those who go with the science. Well, that gets us back to the OP. Conspiracy believers tend to repeat their beliefs, no matter the evidence. When the evidence fails, they then go to other modes of attack, none of which address the actual evidence. It's an interesting pattern to watch, over and over again.

PS: For me, one has to be open to the science of the matter to be progressive. One must always challenge one's perceptions and beliefs with evidence. It's something one has to be very purposeful at doing, of course. Still, it can be done.

[rhett o rick]

101. When I say shut down discussion, I don't mean with argument I mean by trying to censor.

Generally it's the non-progressives that do most of the alerting, IMO.

When products come out they usually have a lot of "scientific" data, but I still am suspicious. Science can be bought like most things in our nation. Regardless of science, if I want my products labeled who are the non-progressives that want to hid the data?
My post is about the fear of acknowledging that conspiracies do exist. The Iran-Conta fiasco was a conspiracy theory for a long time until enough facts came out.

[HuckleB]

102. No one is hiding data.

And labels that have a scientific reason are viable. If there isn't a science based reason for a label, however, then it should be voluntary. BTW, the fact that some conspiracies are real does not justify ignoring the reality that fictional conspiracies are spreading on the Internet.

[zappaman]

103. We all know what kind of host you are, Rick.

No need to remind us you don't care about the rules.

[rhett o rick]

106. Your attempts to bait me are childish and getting tiresome. nm

[reddread]

130. maybe what you need is a paedophile and some meth?

[orpupilofnature57]

51. A lot of that here lately .

[hunter]

66. Okay, I read the study. First of all the researchers didn't troll anyone.

The researchers were merely observers of publicly available facebook posts.

The title of the study is:

Science vs Conspiracy: Collective Narratives in the Age of Misinformation

In their analysis of facebook posts they did find trolls who had posted false information, often from parody sites and such, in communities of "Conspiracy Theorists" and then they measured the dissemination of this false information as CT reality. Yet that's not the meat of the study.

What they found, not surprisingly, is the CT people (labeled CT by the CT newsy items they liked and forwarded) formed one community, and the Sciency people formed another community (based on the sciency news articles they liked and forward.) The sciency people occasionally ventured into the CT community to debunk conspiracy theories, but it was rarer for the CT community to venture into Sciency communities.

If we analyzed DU in the same way these researchers analyzed facebook, we'd find similar patterns.

Etc.

I deliberately use the word "sciency" in reaction to this:

Our findings, coherently... indicate that the relationship between beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive closure—i.e. the attitude of conspiracists to avoid profound scrutiny of evidence to a given matter of fact—is the driving factors for the diffusion of false claims.

Many readers of science and the sciency news are seeking that same sort of "cognitive closure" and they spread their sciency news for similar reasons.

Anyways, is deadstate yours?

The T&A advertising from adblade is a little distracting, and links to many sites that have a certain "CT" quality about them.





http://www.adblade.com

[wildbilln864]

67. very interesting. thanks. n/t

[Whiskeytide]

69. Oh no, no, no ...

They were clearly manipulating facebook (don't get me started about what's REALLY going on there) to troll those theorizing about conspiracies! No well thought out, fact based analysis from someone who critically read the study is going to change my mind. I happen to have read the OP's first and second sentences, and part of the third.

And, it looks like the image of Tower Two in the reflection of that first girl's sunglasses! What's up with that?

[wildbilln864]

71. dang, didn't even notice she was wearing glasses....

just kidding.

[Lil Missy]

78. That can be seen in full force right here in DU. n/t

[WinkyDink]

79. Limited to FACEBOOK posts?! Oh, yeah, THAT'S scientific!

[hunter]

88. Yes, the study is scientific. They were explicitly studying internet communities...

... and facebook is an internet community.

Human societies, on both the internet and in "real life" (whatever reality might be in this insane world of human babble and worse behavior), certainly can be studied in a scientific way.

I think that's the most disturbing thing about entities like the NSA and Google. They collect huge amounts of data and find patterns in it that they hold close as "trade secrets;" the NSA as dangerous and stupid spy trade secrets, Google as advertising trade secrets.

[leftyladyfrommo]

85. I know a lot of conspiracy believers

Here in KC. I think it's really a form of entertainment. Gives them something to get all excited about. And the wilder and more violent it is the better.

[backscatter712]

98. And now you know Alex Jones' business model.

Make shit up, and tell the audience it's a conspiracy, and you can get more information on the Evil Cabal if you just buy the book, and get the subscribers-only podcast!

He is a rich man.

[hunter]

105. There's a great conspiracy against glorious sciency GMOs, for Gosh Sakes!!!

Haven't you been paying attention???

[HuckleB]

107. Indeed. It works in many areas, all too well.

These goofballs, along with their alt med brethren and sistren, and others, have it down quite well, for example.

http://skepchick.org/2015/07/john-roulac-anti-gmo-leader-master-manipulator/

[Oneironaut]

104. While every conspiracy isn't bs, many are total nonsense.

My favorites are flat earthers and chemtrailers. Their complete disregard for science and common sense is hilarious.

[OnyxCollie]

110. Here's a conspiracy:

People were exposed to anthrax in the mail. The anthrax contained silica. Iraq mixes anthrax and silica.

LET'S INVADE A SOVEREIGN STATE BECAUSE THEY MIX ANTHRAX AND SILICA!!! (Even though they didn't attack us.) THEY HAVE THE WILL TO POSSIBLY ATTACK US AT A TIME YET TO BE DETERMINED!!!

LET THE NO-BID CONTRACTS ROLL!

BTW, that anthrax, yeah... um... It came from the dead scientist guy. Really.

When it can be established that when a number of political acts work in concert to produce a certain result, the presumption is strong that the actors were aiming at the result in question. When it can be shown that the actors have an interest in producing these results, the presumptions become a fair certainty- no conspiracy theory is needed. -Walter Karp, Indispensable Enemies, 1973

[lpbk2713]

115. They are comfortable with echo chambers.

Websites that reinforce their own points of view.

That is really insecure IMO.