If you want to shop around for studies on conspiracy theories it's virtually guaranteed that you'll find some that suits you beliefs, and others that don't; however, if you want to figure out which ones are credible you have to check them carefully, perhaps especially if your inclined to agree with their conclusions before reading the study or article about the study.
There have been false stereotypes about conspiracy theories for decades, often repeated by mainstream media, the academic world, many so called scientific skeptics and even in the dictionary definitions of them. These stereotypes routinely ignore many relatively simple conspiracies that routinely turn out to be at least partially true, many exposed by reporters, prosecutors, historians, environmentalists, antiwar protesters, consumer advocates, and more.
There's a common saying in the computer industry, garbage in garbage out, (GIGO) which means that if you don't start with accurate data then you wont get accurate results. This should mean that you have to start by getting the fundamentals right, including the definition of a conspiracy, or conspiracy theory. A conspiracy is when two or more people act or communicate to impact other people's lives in secret. A conspiracy theory is when someone suspected this is happening and they try to speculate about what's going on.
A good conspiracy theorist wouldn't jump to conclusions without some degree of evidence and would follow a rational thought practice. He would have to be a rational skeptic with a reasonably open mind unlike some well know so-called skeptics that accept everything the establishment tells them with little scrutiny. Of course there's little or no doubt that there are plenty of incredibly bad conspiracy theorists responding to appeals to emotion and accepting many far-fetched conspiracy theories, like a claim that we have a hollow Earth and some version of this say that Hitler's still alive and flying a UFO inside it. These irrational conspiracy theories are routinely used to smear much more rational ones; however, only when they challenge the dominant beliefs by the political and media establishment.
If you consider the literal definition of a conspiracy theory then these should be no doubt that this should include reporters that expose corporate wrong doing and release secret documents to prove their claims, prosecutors that make a case against criminals who conduct illegal activities like conspiracy to commit murder or sell drugs, historians that debunk some irrational conspiracy theories and report on other secret actives the public didn't know about at the time. But of course none of these people are referred to as conspiracy theorists, even though that's what they do when the need arises.
Furthermore, if you Google "Conspiracy theories that turned out to be true," you'll find plenty of examples of conspiracy theories that really did turn out to be true, although I would advise checking them out independently to be sure. I found several lists, including a few below, that are mostly conspiracies that I checked into with some that I'm not familiar with and a couple that I suspect might not be quite as true as they claim.
This doesn't mean that there aren't some people that fit the stereotype of conspiracy theorists, there are, and that is what makes these stereotypes seem more convincing; however most of these studies act as if most if not all conspiracy theories should be dismissed, or the people reporting on them second had argue this, often going beyond what some of the studies claim. These studies don't seem to go through the process of trying to figure out which conspiracy theories are true or advise readers to do so, when they do recommend critical thinking skills they often imply that the result will be dismissal conspiracy theories as completely false, even when some might be partly or completely true.
Another false stereotype often claims that conspiracy theorists believe this or that, which might be true for some people but a good conspiracy theorist will be careful to keep in mind that until you have conclusive prof that a theory is either true or false it would be inappropriate to rule things in or out. Another stereotype is that conspiracy theorists often believe different theories that blatantly contradict each other, once again some people might do this as well, but a good conspiracy theorists won't jump to conclusions and might consider contradictory theories keeping in mind that it's an either or situation until there's conclusive evidence.
Furthermore, if these studies are subject to good peer review they should have figured this out, which might indicate either a strong cultural bias with closed minds, or possibly even a conspiracy to provide propaganda to cover up something big. However, for the sake of argument, I'm going to assume most researchers that act reasonably are sincere in their beliefs unless I see evidence to the contrary. If they make incredibly incompetent blunders that they should have caught then it shows either closed minded researchers, or perhaps, in some cases there is a possibility they might be covering this up, but even then that's still theory.
Regardless of why some of these academic studies or the researchers miss some basic fundamentals there are some blatantly biased articles like this one, which, once again, might apply to some conspiracy theorists, but not all:
The Characteristics of the Conspiracist 11/02/2017 by Steven Caldwell Brown Ph.D.
A recent study shows that belief in conspiracy theories is tied to a need to be unique.
The study also corroborates other research in highlighting that belief in one conspiracy correlates with belief in others; this is even the case when the conspiracies directly contradict one another. If you know someone who believes in a conspiracy theory of some sort, chances are they will believe in others.
The new findings are important as they highlight a core social aspect of believing in conspiracy theories—the need to feel special. The study found that belief in fictional conspiracies (created for the purposes of the study) was enhanced when it was framed as a minority opinion. That is, being unique by way of being part of a minority—believing in a fictional conspiracy theory—is appealing.
Believing in conspiracies are all about rejecting official accounts of events, not actually putting forward alternatives.
Crucially, the new study found that when debriefed, a quarter of participants continued to believe in the fictional conspiracy, when told it was developed merely for the purposes of the study.
Another recent study finds that a theory is thought to be more likely to be true when people take some ownership of it—when it is not ascribed to others.
Conspiracy theorists have also been found to be less intelligent, more hostile, more anxious, more disagreeable, and more cynical.
Furthermore, research has found belief in conspiracies to be associated with riskier sexual attitudes and behaviors and racist attitudes.
Complete article
A recent study shows that belief in conspiracy theories is tied to a need to be unique.
The study also corroborates other research in highlighting that belief in one conspiracy correlates with belief in others; this is even the case when the conspiracies directly contradict one another. If you know someone who believes in a conspiracy theory of some sort, chances are they will believe in others.
The new findings are important as they highlight a core social aspect of believing in conspiracy theories—the need to feel special. The study found that belief in fictional conspiracies (created for the purposes of the study) was enhanced when it was framed as a minority opinion. That is, being unique by way of being part of a minority—believing in a fictional conspiracy theory—is appealing.
Believing in conspiracies are all about rejecting official accounts of events, not actually putting forward alternatives.
Crucially, the new study found that when debriefed, a quarter of participants continued to believe in the fictional conspiracy, when told it was developed merely for the purposes of the study.
Another recent study finds that a theory is thought to be more likely to be true when people take some ownership of it—when it is not ascribed to others.
Conspiracy theorists have also been found to be less intelligent, more hostile, more anxious, more disagreeable, and more cynical.
Furthermore, research has found belief in conspiracies to be associated with riskier sexual attitudes and behaviors and racist attitudes.
Complete article
The claim that these beliefs are about rejecting the official narrative not about putting forward other explanations is clearly wrong, for many people, and this is just one smear after another, although if they search for people that have these characteristics they can stereotype anyone that disagrees with establishment views.
This study about those believing in a conspiracy after being told it was invented for the sake of research raises some questions, unfortunately it's behind a pay wall. Fortunately I was able to find another copy searching the internet, as well as the second one saying they believe conspiracies that directly contradict one another. articles like this rarely talk about the methods which are reported in the study. Both these studies were done by asking people to fill out questionnaires, in some cases there's little or no discussion of follow up questions. The third part of the first study, which involved an alleged conspiracy that they made up for the sake of the study was the only one that discussed follow up questions to make sure that they still believe them after being told it was false. Initially they informed them that "The information given in the article is not true," without fully explaining that it was made up for the sake of the study; then they followed up a second time to explain that it was totally manufactured. this method could have led them to stick by their beliefs and dig in their heals, although that's only speculation and further follow up would be helpful.
In the second study it says, "Conspiracy theories are not by definition false; indeed, many real conspiracies have come to light over the years," which Steven Caldwell Brown Ph.D. didn't mention in his article, and most people that didn't pay for it or search for alternative ways to get it wouldn't have any way of knowing this. However this study does focus on a couple irrational ones, reinforcing common stereotypes, even though they acknowledge some conspiracies are true. Both studies recruited people for the study that were willing participants & presumably interested in conspiracies. The first one only offered them a modest amount of change, under one dollar, to participate, the second one was from psychology students that volunteered. This isn't uncommon, but it's not necessarily representative of the majority of the public and this isn't reported in the article.
Another problem with this second study is that they asked people what conspiracies they believed in a questionnaire, but didn't spell out how it was phrased completely clear they say that they were asked to say whether they strongly agreed or disagreed with a statement with seven options so they could chose something in between. They acknowledge that "One possible alternative explanation for these results is acquiescence bias: participants may have simply replied in the same way to every question, resulting in positive correlations across the scale regardless of the questions’ content. However, the scale included a reverse-coded Diana conspiracy item which read, 'The death of Princess Diana was an accident.'” However by declining to even say that whether they followed up and asked whether that was the case or not implies that they didn't. Another possible explanation is that some of the people responding to the questionnaires might have considered them viable theories without being totally committed to them. As far as I know they didn't ask that either. I know other articles about conspiracy theorists have admitted that many of them couldn't be completely sure.
These studies routinely have lots of problems which many good academics are fully aware of but when they're reported to the public they rarely mention this or inform us where we could find diverse criticism. They're posted in academic journals so they can be subject to peer review, but your not familiar with where to look for opposing views you won't hear about it unless someone who is manages to get their point across & this is often at a very low profile manner since the media does a terrible job reporting on this or anything else.
To determine the quality of these studies it helps to read more of them, as well as other social psychology research, which most people don't do. the above article citing numerous studies to push conspiracy theory stereotypes is seriously flawed, which can be recognized by checking facts from diverse sources, not just relying on authoritarian sources. This next one isn't quite as bad, however it still operates on the implied assumption that mainstream media is always right or at least close, and that alternative media outlets are less reliable, and even when it probably gets some things right it is at best incomplete, and they probably should have know it because they express no understanding of why religious people might be more likely to believe irrational conspiracy theories, assuming their conclusions are right:
What do religious fanatics & conspiracy theorists have in common? They believe fake news 05/10/2018
It turns out that people who “endorse delusion-like ideation” are more likely to believe fake news — as are “dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists.”
People prone to psychosis are also more likely to believe fake news. Is there a certain kind of person who is more likely to believe fake news? Yes: “Belief in fake news was associated with increased endorsement of delusion-like ideation,” according to a working paper from Yale’s Michael Bronstein, Gordon Pennycook, Adam Bear, Tyrone Cannon, and David Rand, presented at the recent Schizophrenia International Research Conference.
From the paper:
The researchers used Mechanical Turk to study two groups of 500 people. They were asked to rate the accuracy of 12 fake news headlines as well as a set of real news headlines, and were also tested on four other measures: a shortened version of the actively openminded thinking scale, a measure of dogmatism (“The things I believe in are so completely true, I could never doubt them”), a measure of religious fundamentalism (“The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God”), and the Peters et al. Delusion Inventory (questions like “Do you ever feel as if there is a conspiracy against you?”) And they took the cognitive reflection test. Participants in the second group of people also took two additional tests. Complete article
It turns out that people who “endorse delusion-like ideation” are more likely to believe fake news — as are “dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists.”
People prone to psychosis are also more likely to believe fake news. Is there a certain kind of person who is more likely to believe fake news? Yes: “Belief in fake news was associated with increased endorsement of delusion-like ideation,” according to a working paper from Yale’s Michael Bronstein, Gordon Pennycook, Adam Bear, Tyrone Cannon, and David Rand, presented at the recent Schizophrenia International Research Conference.
From the paper:
Two studies with over 1,000 participants suggested that individuals who endorse delusion-like ideas (e.g., thinking that people can communicate telepathically), as well as dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists, are more likely to believe fake news.
These studies also suggested that two related forms of thinking may protect against belief in fake news: The first, actively open-minded thinking, involves the search for alternative explanations and the use of evidence to revise beliefs. The second, analytic thinking, involves deliberate thought processes that consume memory resources.
Reduced engagement in these forms of thinking partially explained the increased belief in fake news among individuals who endorsed delusion-like ideas, and fully explained increased belief in fake news among dogmatic individuals and religious fundamentalists. These results imply that existing interventions designed to increase actively open-minded and analytic thinking might be leveraged to help prevent the deleterious effects of belief in fake news.
The researchers used Mechanical Turk to study two groups of 500 people. They were asked to rate the accuracy of 12 fake news headlines as well as a set of real news headlines, and were also tested on four other measures: a shortened version of the actively openminded thinking scale, a measure of dogmatism (“The things I believe in are so completely true, I could never doubt them”), a measure of religious fundamentalism (“The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God”), and the Peters et al. Delusion Inventory (questions like “Do you ever feel as if there is a conspiracy against you?”) And they took the cognitive reflection test. Participants in the second group of people also took two additional tests. Complete article
The sources they cited as fake were supposedly debunked by either Snopes or similar skeptical web pages or analyzed in the 2016 election and proven to be false. This may be more reliable than some of the worst alternative media outlets like Alex Jones or Breitbart, however sometimes even they get things right that the mainstream media gets wrong, although they're far from what I would consider a reliable source.
This study seems to imply that they accept the mainstream narrative that it was Russia that was responsible for corrupting the election; however one clear problem with that is that mainstream media does far more to rig elections by only covering a small fraction of the candidates running for any given office. this conclusion isn't just a conspiracy it's confirmed by the public record, checking to see who's running and noticing that many of them never get any media coverage and mainstream media routinely act as if only those collecting donations from corporations or that are so popular they can't ignore are viable. This only turns out to be true because many honest candidates never get any name recognition & some of the most important news is only reported in alternative media outlets or good non-fiction books.
This raises major doubts about their judgement when deciding what's fake news and what's not. Not that I'm assuming that a large number of stories they used are likely to be true; my best guess is that they chose obviously flawed fake news that some propagandists have been pushing relentlessly, however I don't know what articles they showed this study group.
Another perhaps bigger problem is that they seem to have no explanation for why religious extremists are more likely to accept fake news, assuming that they got most of their stories close to the truth for the study. At least this article provides a link to the study they're citing which isn't behind a paywall.
This study says, "One such limitation is that cross-sectional mediation analyses, like the ones conducted in the present studies, are biased estimators of causal processes that likely unfold over time (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). This limitation qualifies the present studies’ support for the hypothesis that reduced engagement in analytic and actively open-minded thinking might explain the relationship between belief in fake news and delusion-like ideation. Future research could address this limitation by examining whether reduced engagement in analytic reasoning predicts both belief in fake news and the endorsement of delusion-like ideation in a longitudinal dataset or by experimentally manipulating engagement in analytic reasoning."
I didn't read Maxwell & Cole, 2007: Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation, which is the source they cite, and it's behind another paywall so the public doesn't have access to it without paying, and once you look at some of these studies most of them are clearly not worth paying what they charge. However, I have read other good research including some that was available over twenty-five years before the 2018 article and study, that could help explain why some people ware willing to trust demagogues.
It's a reasonably safe bet that the reason some people do such a bad job sorting through blatantly bad unscientific conspiracy theories or irrational religious beliefs, which have a lot in common with each other, is based on their early child rearing tactics from their parents and other care givers. Basically when children are young they develop behavior patterns that last a lifetime unless something changes them. This includes blindly trusting leaders or developing critical thinking skills to recognize lies or logical flaws, as well as emotional out bursts and even violence.
One of the most important contributing factors is often child abuse including use of corporal punishment, and emotional outburst when children don't obey parents or accept their beliefs without question, especially among many religious fundamentalists. These child rearing tactics are designed to teach blind obedience and lead to children that are more likely to go along with the crowd. Children that aren't raised in an authoritarian manner are more likely to develop critical thinking skills, do their own fact checking, and perhaps read more good non-fiction books that enable them to keep up with educational material or alternative news that mainstream media declines to cover.
The author of this study calls for future research to understand causes of this, which is always a good idea, but they also need to take advantage of research that already exists and good reporting the mainstream media ignore, you know, the research they seem to be stereotyping as fringe conspiracy theories like the irrational ones. I went into child rearing tactics and how they could be used either to develop critical thinking skills or to indoctrinate kids to follow leaders blindly more in Fundamentals of Psychology and Dobson’s Indoctrination Machine.
The sources that I used to come to my conclusions involve numerous good non-fiction authors and researchers that go back decades; a couple of the best ones that might help explain how abused kids are more likely to become irrational conspiracy theorists rather than rational ones that check their facts include Alice Miller author of "For Your Own Good" and Philip Greven author of "Spare the Child." Philip Greven explains that authoritarianism developed with the help of corporal punishment shows a "political obsession with order, control, and obedience- is rooted in violence and coercion." These are tactics of cult leaders and despite some of the studies that claim that some conspiracy theorists want to be unique many of them want to fit in with their own crowd which is often taught not to trust outsiders including them mainstream media, and often more rational people as well. this description may fit a large segment of Trump supporters.
One of the potential studies they might want to consider is asking people that believe in conspiracy theories how much non-fiction books they read, and what quality they are and comparing them to the quality or rationality of the conspiracy theories. This would require a lot of research that needs to be done in good faith, and no doubt that there will be a lot of people that disagree with conclusions of such a study no matter what the results but it could help understand more, assuming it's done well.
One thing to consider is that if I can find this academics work and recognize that early child hood child rearing tactics and education has a major impact on whether or not people can sort through rational and irrational conspiracy theories or not, why can't the academic world? Could it be ideological or cultural biases, or even a conspiracy to provide propaganda cover for other conspiracies? Without further evidence I wouldn't jump to that conclusion, but without evidence to rule it out I wouldn't do that either, especially since these would explain their reluctance to seek out the best research available to them and acknowledge that some of these conspiracy theories are rational and they should beware of additional ones.
There are many more good researchers into more rational conspiracy theories that often turn out to be true, perhaps one of the most famous ones is Noam Chomsky, although on at least one occasion when he was accused of being a conspiracy theorist he denied it, saying that his conclusions were rational based in information that's public knowledge, and a close look at some of his best books shows that he provides the source notes to back this up. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" also made a similar argument; however all three of them and many more good researchers expose activities that were once kept secret, meaning they were conspiracies when the activities took place; further more they also cite evidence that the establishment continues to conduct their activities in secret and that develops a pattern of behavior. the mainstream media rarely ever covers researchers like this but those familiar with alternative media or good library books that aren't promoted by the media might know there are many more including the following couple of articles examining misunderstanding of conspiracy theories, the second which claims that the stereotypes were intentionally created by the CIA:
In defense of conspiracy theories (and why the term is a misnomer) 09/12/2020 by David Coady
Before 2012, if you had voiced suspicions that the Australian government had been anything but open and honourable in dealing with East Timor – its newly independent but impoverished neighbour – you would likely have been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. But it was then revealed Australian Secret Intelligence Service agents had bugged East Timor’s cabinet office during treaty negotiations over oil and gas fields.
Yesterday’s conspiracy theories often become today’s incontrovertible facts. In the mid-1990s, journalist Gary Webb’s claims that CIA officials conspired with drug dealers bringing crack cocaine into the United States were dismissed by many as a prime example of a conspiracy theory. But the claims were true.
It’s reasonable to suppose many of the views that are now dismissed or mocked as conspiracy theories will one day be recognised as having been true all along. Indeed, the net effect of terms such as “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracism” is to silence people who are the victims of conspiracy, or who (rightly or wrongly) suspect conspiracies may be occurring. These terms serve to herd respectable opinion in ways that suit the interests of the powerful.
Ever since the philosopher Sir Karl Popper popularised the expression in the 1950s, conspiracy theories have had a bad reputation. To characterise a belief as a conspiracy theory is to imply it’s false. More than that, it implies people who accept that belief, or want to investigate whether it’s true, are irrational.
On the face of it, this is hard to understand. After all, people do conspire. That is, they engage in secretive or deceptive behaviour that is illegal or morally dubious.
Conspiracy is a common form of human behaviour across all cultures throughout recorded time, and it has always been particularly widespread in politics.
......
If, as I believe, the treatment of those labelled as “conspiracy theorists” in our culture is analogous to the treatment of those labelled as “heretics” in medieval Europe, then the role of psychologists and social scientists in this treatment is analogous to that of the Inquisition.
Outside the psychology and social science literature some authors will sometimes offer some, usually heavily qualified, defence of conspiracy theories (in some sense of the term). But among psychologists and social scientists the assumption that they are false, the product of an irrational (or nonrational) process, and positively harmful is virtually universal.
Whenever we use the terms “conspiracy theory”, “conspiracism” or “conspiracist ideation”, we’re implying, even if we don’t mean to, there is something wrong with believing, wanting to investigate, or giving any credence at all to the possibility people are engaged in secretive or deceptive behaviour.
One bad effect of these terms is they contribute to a political environment in which it’s easier for conspiracy to thrive at the expense of openness. Another bad effect is their use is an injustice to the people who are characterised as conspiracy theorists. Complete article
Before 2012, if you had voiced suspicions that the Australian government had been anything but open and honourable in dealing with East Timor – its newly independent but impoverished neighbour – you would likely have been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. But it was then revealed Australian Secret Intelligence Service agents had bugged East Timor’s cabinet office during treaty negotiations over oil and gas fields.
Yesterday’s conspiracy theories often become today’s incontrovertible facts. In the mid-1990s, journalist Gary Webb’s claims that CIA officials conspired with drug dealers bringing crack cocaine into the United States were dismissed by many as a prime example of a conspiracy theory. But the claims were true.
It’s reasonable to suppose many of the views that are now dismissed or mocked as conspiracy theories will one day be recognised as having been true all along. Indeed, the net effect of terms such as “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracism” is to silence people who are the victims of conspiracy, or who (rightly or wrongly) suspect conspiracies may be occurring. These terms serve to herd respectable opinion in ways that suit the interests of the powerful.
Ever since the philosopher Sir Karl Popper popularised the expression in the 1950s, conspiracy theories have had a bad reputation. To characterise a belief as a conspiracy theory is to imply it’s false. More than that, it implies people who accept that belief, or want to investigate whether it’s true, are irrational.
On the face of it, this is hard to understand. After all, people do conspire. That is, they engage in secretive or deceptive behaviour that is illegal or morally dubious.
Conspiracy is a common form of human behaviour across all cultures throughout recorded time, and it has always been particularly widespread in politics.
......
If, as I believe, the treatment of those labelled as “conspiracy theorists” in our culture is analogous to the treatment of those labelled as “heretics” in medieval Europe, then the role of psychologists and social scientists in this treatment is analogous to that of the Inquisition.
Outside the psychology and social science literature some authors will sometimes offer some, usually heavily qualified, defence of conspiracy theories (in some sense of the term). But among psychologists and social scientists the assumption that they are false, the product of an irrational (or nonrational) process, and positively harmful is virtually universal.
Whenever we use the terms “conspiracy theory”, “conspiracism” or “conspiracist ideation”, we’re implying, even if we don’t mean to, there is something wrong with believing, wanting to investigate, or giving any credence at all to the possibility people are engaged in secretive or deceptive behaviour.
One bad effect of these terms is they contribute to a political environment in which it’s easier for conspiracy to thrive at the expense of openness. Another bad effect is their use is an injustice to the people who are characterised as conspiracy theorists. Complete article
David Coady is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Tasmania, so I assume he considers himself one of the few exceptions from the academics world. He does make some very good points but he may be subtly going to the other extreme, by not considering that even though many conspiracy theorists are much more rational than the stereotype implies, other fit the stereotype, which is part of what makes the stereotype seem more credible.
There are also numerous claims that the CIA created or popularized the term conspiracy theory used in a selective manner, and perhaps some declassified documents to support this as indicated in the following article:
How the CIA Invented and Promoted ‘Conspiracy Theories’ to Discredit Controversial Views 09/06/2016 by Ron Unz
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar, and although the plot wasn’t any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as “crazy conspiracy theorists.” This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers—from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption—could objectively be categorized as a “conspiracy theory” but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good “conspiracy theories” and bad “conspiracy theories,” with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such. I’ve sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous “conspiracy theories” in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous “conspiracy theory” ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd “lone gunman” theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden’s arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don’t doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a “crazy conspiracy theorist” anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam hadnot been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association. Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book’s headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of “conspiracy theory” as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion. Complete article
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar, and although the plot wasn’t any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as “crazy conspiracy theorists.” This seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in the pages of our most respectable newspapers—from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local case of petty urban corruption—could objectively be categorized as a “conspiracy theory” but such words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories, whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good “conspiracy theories” and bad “conspiracy theories,” with the former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described as such. I’ve sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous “conspiracy theories” in the minds of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous “conspiracy theory” ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd “lone gunman” theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden’s arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq in 2003, polls revealed that some 70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of our World Trade Center. By that date I don’t doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a “crazy conspiracy theorist” anyone with the temerity to suggest that Saddam hadnot been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida Political Science Association. Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book’s headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of “conspiracy theory” as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion. Complete article
I'm not inclined to say whether or not either the Moon Landing or 9/11 was faked as a result of a conspiracy; there are major questions about both but if either were true then it would have to be a massive one, and further evidence would be required to support the theory and explain the details. However he does make a very good point about a small segment of society controlling the mass media.
One of the most fundamental principles of propaganda or indoctrination is that "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth," or at least it seems to, especially if there are no opposing views to challenge it. this is why we need diverse media, yet over 95% of mass media is controlled by six corporations owned by less than a fraction of 1% of the public made up mostly of multimillionaires and billionaires.
This is exactly what the first amendment should have prevented!
One of the stereotypes that some of these researches are promoting are that that conspiracy theorists all believe in a massive cabal to control them and conspire against the majority. by implying that most conspiracy theories are wrong they're trying to imply that this isn't true yet wealthy people control all large institutions including the news we hear and which candidates get name recognition enabling them to be elected and the economy which has a massive amount of income inequality and the entire establishment is, if anything trying to make it worse. A lot of these conclusions aren't based on a conspiracy theory at all, since the evidence to support it isn't secret!
However, there are plenty of things that are done in secret clearly indicating that some of it does involve conspiracy and if I speculated about what it was that would fit the definition of a conspiracy.
Ron Unz goes on to describe numerous declassified documents and forgotten history that's only recorded in low profile locations so his claims are quite rational, if not mostly or completely conclusive, which they might be. Anyone familiar with the history of the CIA may know that they often deal with the media, military and college professors or other academics. If this is true, then there's a strong possibility that many of the so-called Skeptics that have been debunking conspiracy theories have been working for the CIA as well, and this could also include some of the people conducting these social psychology studies.
One of the most well known of these skeptics is Michael Shermer, who claims to be a rational or scientific skeptic, and many media pundits and other academic researchers, including Neil deGrasse Tyson, seem to endorse this claim; however, even though some of his work may be scientific, or at least seem that way he routinely ignores inconvenient facts when they don't support his ideology and often makes blunders as absurd as the fringe believers he debates.
In Are Michael Shermer and Philip Zimbardo trying to be secular cult leaders? I cited Michael Shermer's debate with Jesse Ventura where he describes his book 63 documents, and in his article, Jesse “The Body” Ventura versus Michael “The Mind” Shermer he writes, "Presented in breathtaking revelatory tones that within lies the equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, what the reader actually finds between the covers are documents obtained through standard Freedom of Information Act requests that can also be easily downloaded from the Internet."
At the time I wrote my previous article I hadn't read this book and only covered it briefly, I've read it since, and my conclusions at that time were correct, they were documents that were declassified and available on the internet as Michael Shermer says, but they got little or no media coverage so the vast majority of the public wasn't aware of them, until they were promoted as part of the marketing of Jesse Ventura's book. Just because they were reported publicly doesn't mean that weren't about conspiracies, which they admit they were, and they were kept secret at the time they were carrying out the activities often at the expense of a large segment of the public.
This clearly establishes a pattern of behavior, and even though many of Jesse Ventura's other alleged conspiracy theories may be seriously flawed it does make it clear that government routinely lies to the people, even Michael Shermer partly admits it before trying to downplay it when he writes, "but just because politicians and their appointed cabinet assigns and their staffers sometimes lie (mostly in the interest of national security but occasionally to cover up their own incompetence and moral misdeeds), doesn’t mean that every pronouncement made in the name of a government action is a lie."
This is just the beginning of his spin, there's no doubt that governments get caught lying all the time and that an enormous amount of it is for incredibly corrupt reasons. Contrary to his claim that lies are "mostly in the interest of national security," many of them do the exact opposite, including the invasion of Iraq, which had already incited numerous retaliatory activities by the time he wrote this article in 2011, and he should have known it. Many good authors including Noam Chomsky do a much better job researching foreign policy than either Jesse Ventura or Michael Shermer and some of the best are also ridiculed as conspiracy theorists. Michael Shermer also cites some claims he attributes to Ventura which seem exaggerated, which is a common tactic, so he can claim or imply that it should be dismissed in it's entirety. For example I doubt if Jesse Ventura said that all things the government said were lies as Shermer implied in his statement above.
I also wrote several more articles about both Michael Shermer and Phillip Zimbardo including Philip Zimbardo, Lucifer Effect, Stanford Prison Experiment which was funded by the Office of Naval Research even though Zimbardo claimed he was a Vietnam protester. Some of his work researches indoctrination methods including efforts to control and manipulate both the guards and prisoners in this experiment. This experiment was part of many other experiments including the Obedience to Authority experiments by Satanly Milgram which the Office of Naval Research also supported indirectly.
These articles explain that this research could be used either to warn people how to recognize indoctrination tactics or to use the results to learn how to make the indoctrination tactics or Propaganda more effective. Regrettably it appears as if the military was far more concerned with indoctrinating their own troops to blindly obey orders in wars based on lies, while only a much smaller number of people, mainly in the academic world, learned how to avoid being subject to propaganda and manipulation.
The same could easily go for all these studies into conspiracy theories that could help whether to teach people to sort through them rationally or they can be used to develop more effective indoctrination methods to manipulate the masses. I don't know enough about most of the researchers conducting these studies but doubt if the evidence is as strong to indicate that they're intentionally trying to learn how to indoctrinate people, as it is with Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo; however that doesn't necessarily mean that others can't use the research to learn how to manipulate the masses.
This seems like far-fetched conspiracy but of course it's standard operating procedure in politics and occasionally they even admit it although they typically spin it to make it seem justified one example where this is most blatant is "Words That Work" by Frank Luntz who virtually confesses to sabotaging democratic process for clients. I went into additional details about how the political establishment routinely manipulates crowds and rigs elections in Psst, Elections Were Rigged By Oligarchy not Russia & Evidence Was Reported Before It Happened! Some of this is speculation of course but a lot of it is rational conclusions based on public information that can be verified independently.
One thing to consider is that if they really were interested in teaching people not to fall for irrational conspiracy theories, as the government and media seem to claim or imply, wouldn't they pursue a course of action to accomplish that goal? One effective solution to this problem would involve improving childhood education and teaching at risk parents better parenting skills so they can help children develop better critical thinking skills.
Of course another obvious way is to atop shrouding all their activities in secret and getting caught in real conspiracies; stop rigging the economy in favor of the wealthy few; stop fighting wars based on lies; and stop participating in many other scams.
Yet neither the government, the media or the academic world is doing any of these things, although there are some people encouraging it at the grassroots level! this isn't good enough to prove that these studies are conclusively being used to learn how to indoctrinate people, however I can't completely rule it out either and even if it's not true then declining to improve education or implement accountability for those in power is having the same results.
In many cases we do have enough evidence to determine that the official explanation for events doesn't always add up and indicates that there are some secret activities going on so it's not unreasonable for ordinary people to speculate about conspiracy theories!
UFO sightings and the Illuminati? Study finds conspiracy theorists surprisingly ordinary 11/29/2019
UFO SIGHTINGS, alien encounters and claims of the Illuminati may seem bizarre and outlandish on the internet but the people behind the popular conspiracies are far from “crackpots wearing tinfoil hats”, a researcher has claimed.
Researchers at the Australian National University (ANU) took a deep dive into online conspiracy forums to study the people who write them. The study, published in PLOS ONE, trawled through more than two billion Reddit comments to build a profile of conspiracy theorists. Surprisingly, the research found conspiracists, on the whole, tend to be pretty ordinary individuals.
According to ANU’s Dr Colin Klein, conspiracy theorists on Reddit's R/Conspiracy forum discuss a wide range of topics from UFOs to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
But Dr Kelin said the people who post about and discuss the conspiracies are not a group of “crackpots wearing tinfoil hats”.
Dr Klein said: “In the past before the rise of online forums like Reddit, we tended to only hear about the most extreme views, and those people tended to naturally be wary about talking to someone else about their beliefs.
“These massive online forums paint a very different picture.
"The enormous set of comments we examined show many r/conspiracy users actually have more 'sensible' interests.
"For example conspiracy theories about police abuse of power are common. That's not so crazy.
"These people might believe false things, but with good reason – because similar things have happened in the past.”
“It's very easy to look at conspiracy theories and think they're super wacky, and the people who believe in them are crazy, but it's actually much more continuous with a lot of things we do every day.
"Low-level theorizing goes on a lot in everyday life, I'm inclined to think the stuff you see online is just a strong outgrowth of that." Complete article
UFO SIGHTINGS, alien encounters and claims of the Illuminati may seem bizarre and outlandish on the internet but the people behind the popular conspiracies are far from “crackpots wearing tinfoil hats”, a researcher has claimed.
Researchers at the Australian National University (ANU) took a deep dive into online conspiracy forums to study the people who write them. The study, published in PLOS ONE, trawled through more than two billion Reddit comments to build a profile of conspiracy theorists. Surprisingly, the research found conspiracists, on the whole, tend to be pretty ordinary individuals.
According to ANU’s Dr Colin Klein, conspiracy theorists on Reddit's R/Conspiracy forum discuss a wide range of topics from UFOs to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
But Dr Kelin said the people who post about and discuss the conspiracies are not a group of “crackpots wearing tinfoil hats”.
Dr Klein said: “In the past before the rise of online forums like Reddit, we tended to only hear about the most extreme views, and those people tended to naturally be wary about talking to someone else about their beliefs.
“These massive online forums paint a very different picture.
"The enormous set of comments we examined show many r/conspiracy users actually have more 'sensible' interests.
"For example conspiracy theories about police abuse of power are common. That's not so crazy.
"These people might believe false things, but with good reason – because similar things have happened in the past.”
“It's very easy to look at conspiracy theories and think they're super wacky, and the people who believe in them are crazy, but it's actually much more continuous with a lot of things we do every day.
"Low-level theorizing goes on a lot in everyday life, I'm inclined to think the stuff you see online is just a strong outgrowth of that." Complete article
In all fairness when it comes to claims about UFOs, things that seem like paranormal or supernatural, then the common claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," is justified; however in some cases there may be some extraordinary evidence, at least enough to raise doubts about the official explanation. One of the clearest examples of this is massive megaliths that were moved thousands of years ago, many over a hundred tons or even seven hundred tons despite the fact that experiments to replicate this effort with primitive technology have failed miserably and shows that it should have been impossible, yet it was done.
Many theorists including those on Ancient Aliens on the History Channel have cited this as evidence for their theories that aliens have been influencing our society for thousands of years; although, an enormous amount of the claims they make on this show are seriously flawed and any rational person should be able to recognize it. This should raise doubts about why the mainstream media is presenting such incompetent research as educational. skeptics should be outraged, but they're no more scientific that the people on this show and are often denying that large institutions like the six corporations controlling almost all media are involved in a conspiracy.
Another major mystery might be how our technology has developed so fast over the past few decades, or going back to World War Two. One of the sources the Ancient aliens provides to explain this is Philip Corso author of "The Day After Roswell" who claims that he shared technology retrieved from captured crafts from aliens with large corporations. If true then this would begin to explain how technological advances sped up so much and with additional information it could explain how the megaliths were moved and much more.
But once again, without additional evidence this is still theory and we would have to consider other possibilities as well. However, we do have enough information to narrow it down to two possibilities, generally speaking; either there is something to the ancient aliens theory, with many details that need to be worked out; or there's a massive effort to make it seem as if there is when there isn't. If the latter is true then it would mean that the media is helping with this effort to mislead the public; if the former is true the media is still responsible for incredibly incompetent coverage of the subject letting obvious blunders go without correction.
Media often claim that they're not responsible for the beliefs reported by some of their shows but they routinely decline to cover some of the best scientific research, including how to catch these blunders, how to teach people to avoid violence by educating children better, and many other things.
Sometimes it really is a conspiracy; we just need more information to figure out which version is true!
The following are some additional sources or studies:
Is Stanton Friedman working for the CIA to refute reverse engineering claims?
Corruption or Bias in the American Psychological Association
Eli Roth’s Milgram/Obedience experiment much more extensive than most people realize
Definition of conspiracy theory: a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators
The Ancient Astronaut Theory – A Case Study 04/21/2019
“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of conspiracy theories 06/08/2013 Conspiracy theories, defined as allegations that powerful people or organizations are plotting together in secret to achieve sinister ends through deception of the public (Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999; Wood et al., 2012), have long been an important element of popular discourse.
conspiracy theory: 1. a theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event and instead credits a covert group or organization with carrying out a secret plot: One popular conspiracy theory accuses environmentalists of sabotage in last year's mine collapse. 2. a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group: A number of conspiracy theories have already emerged, purporting to explain last week's disappearance of a commercial flight over international waters. 3. the idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public: The more I learn about the activities of intelligence agencies, the less far-fetched I find many geopolitical conspiracy theories.
Wikipedia: Conspiracy theory A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[5] Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.[7][8]
Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report 12/26/1977
The Investigation Of The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy: Performance Of The Intelligence Agencies 04/23/1976
CIA Document 1035-960 Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report 1967
Flawed study on conspiracy theories comes up with semi-accurate conclusions
We Must Become The Media And The Scientists!
Are Michael Shermer and Philip Zimbardo trying to be secular cult leaders?
Shermer's The Mind of The Market 02/17/2008
Either Pseudo-skeptics can't handle the truth or they just might be involved in a cover-up.
25 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out to Be True 12/20/2018
15 Conspiracies That Turned Out To Be True 01/0/2020
Conspiracies That Turned Out To Be True
Too special to be duped: Need for uniqueness motivates conspiracy beliefs October 2016
Brexit and Trump voters are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories 12/14/2018
Why some people are more likely to believe wild conspiracy theories than others 09/27/2017
