The skeptics point of view on political "conspiracy theory"

[Knowledge Junkie 2012]

_http://www.volokh.com/2011/04/23/why-so-many-people-believe-in-political-conspiracy-theories/

This article follows the motion that political conspiracy theories are paranoid creations in the mind. That believers in conspiracy are wanting to blame someone else for their problems. Quote:
 "I have no doubt that these psychological tendencies play an important role in causing people to endorse political conspiracy theories. But they do not explain why people are so much more likely to endorse poorly supported conspiracy theories about politics than about events in their personal or professional lives. Here too, a ” a responsible agent” is not always “easily discernible.” It would surely be emotionally satisfying for many people if they could blame setbacks at work on a conspiracy by the Trilateral Commission or “reptilian space aliens.” It’s much less painful to believe that than to believe that the failure is largely our own fault. And once such a self-justifying thought occurs to us, “confirmation bias” would reinforce it. The same goes for failures in our personal lives."
The writer Ilya Somin, also mentions before, the outlandish potential suspects of wild conspiracy theories:
"The ill-defined “they,” whether referring to the U.N., CIA, international bankers, Jews or interdimensional shapeshifting reptilian space aliens living in the hollowed-out artificial moon (yeah, it’s a real one), really seem to me to be a secular version of religious mythology."
Mr. Somin goes on to say that these conspiracy theorists have created this in their mind, so when they search for the evidence, they create a reality that confirms the conspiracy in their mThe ill-defined “they,” whether referring to the U.N., CIA, international bankers, Jews or interdimensional shapeshifting reptilian space aliens living in the hollowed-out artificial moon (yeah, it’s a real one), really seem to me to be a secular version of religious mythology.ind.

I am always a proponent for being skeptical and objective for researching controversial topics, but this explanation just does not hold up for all conspiracy theories, because there is a plethora of hard evidence to prove certain conspiracy theories.(aka 9/11, JFK assassination, et al)

Mod edit: deactivated link

[Gonzo]

Yes, this seems to be a disturbing trend of debunking those who question widely held beliefs and official accounts or explanations.  I heard an interview with an author of a new anti-conspiracy thinker book and was frustrated at the cherry picking.  It is quite easy to find far too many examples of conspiracy theorists who merely parrot others and cannot stand up to scrutiny when pressed.  The black and white thinking that occurs in some on both sides of the equation devalues those with legitimate questions.  Unfortunately, all one has to do is parade out examples of idiots and the entire world of people questioning the official line is brought into disrepute.

There certainly seems to be a significant effort to dilute the credibility from within and without.

Gonzo

[voyageur]

Fwiw, of course not everything should be viewed as a conspiracy, many things we see or hear are what they are, yet the word-use together has certainly been ponerized. Looking at any issue that has rough edges, so to speak, requires objectivity to discern a solution, even if it is just a theory, perhaps because we just might not ever know, yet the foundations are well researched and often scientific; dots are connected. Conspiracies are part of everyday governance and commerce and thus Cointelpro’s seem to have enabled, through false groups and the media in many forms, to divide and focus on the irrationality of the two words used together by pointing out known quacks who use fanciful and subjective means. With this in place, not many will be able to state, using objective data of this or that about governance and commerce et al without being accused of being CT’s.  The article is so focused on the words and does not focus on the diligence or non diligence of research by people who question matters.

Looking at 9/11, there is an extremely high scientific, logical and politically motivated likelihood of a conspiracy, with many divergent theories and just as many corrupt subjective motivations.  When faced with plausible evidence, it is far easier for the PTB to not dismiss the evidence, they don't need to, they only focus on the word association, thus dismissing in the minds of others (usually who have no view) the creditability of any of the above, except the official organ.  On the other hand, business as usual, in the field of governance, finance, MIC, etcetera, is a continuous never ending manipulation in varying degrees and one must decide, is this normal? If it is not, the word branding has become very useful for those not wishing discussion, not wanting any light.  Add in a focused authoritarian psychological assessment of those words and those who employ them, either objectively or subjectively, they can both then be view in the same light without differentiations and dismissed, osit.