Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I just don't get why people can't accept that a punk-ass loser killed JFK [View all]Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)4. ...
...people who suspect conspiracies aren't really sceptics. Like the rest of us, they're selective doubters. They favour a world view, which they uncritically defend. But their worldview isn't about God, values, freedom, or equality. It's about the omnipotence of elites.
(snip)
In 1999, a research team headed by Marina Abalakina-Paap, a psychologist at New Mexico State University, published a study of US college students. The students were asked whether they agreed with statements such as "Underground movements threaten the stability of American society" and "People who see conspiracies behind everything are simply imagining things". The strongest predictor of general belief in conspiracies, the authors found, was "lack of trust".
(snip)
The common thread between distrust and cynicism, as defined in these experiments, is a perception of bad character. More broadly, it's a tendency to focus on intention and agency, rather than randomness or causal complexity. In extreme form, it can become paranoia. In mild form, it's a common weakness known as the fundamental attribution error ascribing others' behaviour to personality traits and objectives, forgetting the importance of situational factors and chance. Suspicion, imagination, and fantasy are closely related.
The more you see the world this way - full of malice and planning instead of circumstance and coincidence - the more likely you are to accept conspiracy theories of all kinds. Once you buy into the first theory, with its premises of coordination, efficacy, and secrecy, the next seems that much more plausible.
Many studies and surveys have documented this pattern. Several months ago, Public Policy Polling asked 1,200 registered US voters about various popular theories. Fifty-one per cent said a larger conspiracy was behind President Kennedy's assassination; only 25 per cent said Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Compared with respondents who said Oswald acted alone, those who believed in a larger conspiracy were more likely to embrace other conspiracy theories tested in the poll. They were twice as likely to say that a UFO had crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947 (32 to 16 per cent) and that the CIA had deliberately spread crack cocaine in US cities (22 to 9 per cent). Conversely, compared with respondents who didn't believe in the Roswell incident, those who did were far more likely to say that a conspiracy had killed JFK (74 to 41 per cent), that the CIA had distributed crack (27 to 10 per cent), that the government "knowingly allowed" the 9/11 attacks (23 to 7 per cent), and that the government adds fluoride to our water for sinister reasons (23 to 2 per cent).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24626-inside-the-minds-of-the-jfk-conspiracy-theorists.html?full=true#.UpcQRuJgWP8
(snip)
In 1999, a research team headed by Marina Abalakina-Paap, a psychologist at New Mexico State University, published a study of US college students. The students were asked whether they agreed with statements such as "Underground movements threaten the stability of American society" and "People who see conspiracies behind everything are simply imagining things". The strongest predictor of general belief in conspiracies, the authors found, was "lack of trust".
(snip)
The common thread between distrust and cynicism, as defined in these experiments, is a perception of bad character. More broadly, it's a tendency to focus on intention and agency, rather than randomness or causal complexity. In extreme form, it can become paranoia. In mild form, it's a common weakness known as the fundamental attribution error ascribing others' behaviour to personality traits and objectives, forgetting the importance of situational factors and chance. Suspicion, imagination, and fantasy are closely related.
The more you see the world this way - full of malice and planning instead of circumstance and coincidence - the more likely you are to accept conspiracy theories of all kinds. Once you buy into the first theory, with its premises of coordination, efficacy, and secrecy, the next seems that much more plausible.
Many studies and surveys have documented this pattern. Several months ago, Public Policy Polling asked 1,200 registered US voters about various popular theories. Fifty-one per cent said a larger conspiracy was behind President Kennedy's assassination; only 25 per cent said Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Compared with respondents who said Oswald acted alone, those who believed in a larger conspiracy were more likely to embrace other conspiracy theories tested in the poll. They were twice as likely to say that a UFO had crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947 (32 to 16 per cent) and that the CIA had deliberately spread crack cocaine in US cities (22 to 9 per cent). Conversely, compared with respondents who didn't believe in the Roswell incident, those who did were far more likely to say that a conspiracy had killed JFK (74 to 41 per cent), that the CIA had distributed crack (27 to 10 per cent), that the government "knowingly allowed" the 9/11 attacks (23 to 7 per cent), and that the government adds fluoride to our water for sinister reasons (23 to 2 per cent).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24626-inside-the-minds-of-the-jfk-conspiracy-theorists.html?full=true#.UpcQRuJgWP8
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
180 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I just don't get why people can't accept that a punk-ass loser killed JFK [View all]
alphafemale
Nov 2013
OP
Of course. That notion that there is such a thing as a military command called Southcom is a lie
eridani
Nov 2013
#125
And, of course, it has NOTHING to do with our government CONSISTENTLY lying to us, right?
Th1onein
Nov 2013
#162
Did I SAY that our government lies to us about EVERYTHING? Good example of twisting my words.
Th1onein
Nov 2013
#172
You use one of the UK's most notorious sensationalist tabloids as a source?
Art_from_Ark
Nov 2013
#15
Actually Oswald was witnessed firing the weapon out the window by several people
cpwm17
Nov 2013
#70
Witnesses did give a correct description of Oswald before the police located Oswald
cpwm17
Nov 2013
#101
he pulled the gun to try to shoot the officer that killed him in the theater. nt
alphafemale
Nov 2013
#180
I'm not sure how US government officials might benefit from the Loch Ness monster...
Fumesucker
Nov 2013
#132
What's frustrating is belief that "do not always tell the truth" means "always lies with competence"
Bucky
Nov 2013
#138
I was talking about the truth eventually getting out, not people being willing dupes
Bucky
Nov 2013
#148
It was inevitable the truth was eventually going to get out about Iraq because there were no WMDs.
Fumesucker
Nov 2013
#164
This!: More broadly, it's a tendency to focus on intention and agency, rather than randomness...
Benton D Struckcheon
Nov 2013
#81
Most people have been intentionally harmed at some point in their lives, it's not that uncommon
Fumesucker
Nov 2013
#165
yes, so did the three LATER congressional investigations, including the one in 1996
librechik
Nov 2013
#35
I recommend Lamar Waldron's new book, "The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination" n/t
librechik
Nov 2013
#73
I'd like to think we're all selective as to what we believe or don't believe.
nyquil_man
Nov 2013
#61
Well you could say that if someone gave opinions on 100 government studies.
former9thward
Nov 2013
#46
Not necessarily. It depends on their goals and how much institutional support they had
BlueStreak
Nov 2013
#170
Ironically, DU was founded on the wide belief that GWB stole the 2000 election...
pacalo
Nov 2013
#10
The Warren Commission knew they were expected to reach a pre-determined conclusion - no conspiracy.
JohnyCanuck
Nov 2013
#47
....who managed to fire multiple perfect shots in a short amount of time from long distance
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
Nov 2013
#49
I am not seeing it with my own eyes in the photos of the Limo at Parkland.
The Midway Rebel
Nov 2013
#137
Because a single gunman scares them. That it was possible for a lone nut to kill the leader....
Logical
Nov 2013
#66
Not true. Lincoln was killed by a conspiracy (of losers, but still a conspiracy)
Bucky
Nov 2013
#140
Government Propaganda Is the Only Source That Supports Oswald As The Assassin
cantbeserious
Nov 2013
#80
You think there is anything to Oswald's ties to the anti-Castro Cubans in Miami?
B Calm
Nov 2013
#85
So, you are saying you are convinced of JFK CT because you get bullied on DU when you present CT?
The Midway Rebel
Nov 2013
#153
Shitbird is not a nickname for an individual, it's a term for someone insufficiently gung ho
Fumesucker
Nov 2013
#166
I have an easy time believing it, because I'm surprised more assassinations haven't succeeded
Hippo_Tron
Nov 2013
#116
"The government also has a poor track record when it comes to keeping secrets that big."
solarhydrocan
Nov 2013
#122
There are so many conspiracy theories, they can't all be right...but they CAN all be wrong
brooklynite
Nov 2013
#119
Maybe it's because people are distrustful of the government's version of what happened on that day.
Wash. state Desk Jet
Nov 2013
#156
so you think the House Select Committee on Assassinations conclusions were wrong?
yurbud
Nov 2013
#179