Conspiracy Theorists May Really Just Be Lonely.

[Cattledog]

Conspiracy theorists are often portrayed as nutjobs, but some may just be lonely, recent studies suggest. Separate research has shown that social exclusion creates a feeling of meaninglessness and that the search for meaning leads people to perceive patterns in randomness. A new study in the March issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology connects the dots, reporting that ostracism enhances superstition and belief in conspiracies.

More at:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/conspiracy-theorists-may-really-just-be-lonely/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_MB_NEWS

[OBenario4]

1. Just some more satanization of people skeptical of governments official accounts. n/t

[ret5hd]

4. Need a friend?

[frazzled]

5. You can be skeptical of government accounts without being a conspiracist

A skeptic is doubtful that the true story is being told, but waits until all verifiable facts are in place to learn the true story.
A conspiracist responds to skepticism of an account by making up a theory about what happened—usually a narrative built around random bits of (often unverifiable) information—a story that has no more verifiable credence than the original.

Example:

Skeptic:
Teacher: Johnny, your story that the dog ate your homework is not believable. I'm going to call your mother to see if you really were working on your homework last night (or if you really even have a dog). When I find out the truth, we can determine the correct punishment and course of action.
Johnny: Please don't call my mom!

Conspiracist:
Teacher: Johnny, your story that the dog ate your homework is not believable. I see that you have mud on your shoes, therefore it's clear that you were off fishing and used the homework for bait in order to stuff your face with trout.
Johnny: I don't even have a fishing pole!
Teacher: The mud ... the lost homework ... it all adds up; don't lie to me.

[WinkyDink]

10. Sherlock Holmes would've gone with the "mud on your shoes" analysis.

[frazzled]

11. And that is why he was a fictional character

A product of the imagination (and a very entertaining one), but not a real entity. Newsflash: we live in the real world, where job number one is distinguishing fact from fiction.

[WinkyDink]

18. I think I'll allow science to have the last word here. Ahem:

http://www.pbs.org/program/sherlock-changed-world/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-obrien/sherlock-holmes-a-science_b_2549834.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://forensicoutreach.com/library/5-ways-sherlock-holmes-inspired-forensic-investigation/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sherlock-Holmes-Pioneer-in-Forensic-Science-1976713
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[snooper2]

16. Want to have discussion about it over a beer or five?

[DesertRat]

2. This is good reading. Thanks

[Shandris]

3. This is a cause/correlation thing, though.

It's only reasonable that it would be the outcasts who tend towards this more, as people who are well-liked have social 'connections' that holding an unpopular, non-accepted meme can jeapordize. People with few contacts have more time to think deeply about the meaning of things, see problems in official accounts, find discrepancies buried 10 to 20 links deep in otherwise normal-seeming documents, and so on. 'Weaponized autism' isn't being studied like wildfire because they want people to feel well-liked, you know.

There's a reason that the shamans of ancient societies were outcasts and not the most popular guy in town. Heck, the article even mentions the 'it can happen to anyone'. Well no kidding, once you don't have the television feeding you The Narrative and 5,000 people making certain you follow it OR ELSE, you're prone to coming up with more thoughtful commentary. It's no surprise that some of the people among those groups would be unstable or unable to differentiate between certain things. These are the ones everyone knows: the Reptilian people, the Flat Earthers, and so on.

[WinkyDink]

6. "Scientific American" thinks there is some "Unified Conspiracy Theory" rubric, under which all

people who have considered realities other than those posited by people in authority positions can be not only grouped but analyzed from afar?!

Oh, right; THAT'S scientific.

[OBenario4]

7. Exactly.

They've just created a wacko theory to bash people who believe in "wacko theories".

[DanTex]

8. Actually, "Scientific American" doesn't think anything.

It's a journal, and it reports on scientific research. Occasionally the scientific research it reports on runs contrary to the belief systems of certain people (see climate change, for example), in which case those people tend to lash out at anything they can in order to discredit the science.

[WinkyDink]

9. I am not one of "those people." Moreover, I obviously am referring to THIS ARTICLE, OKAY? And

FURTHERMORE, I am WELL AWARE OF THE JOURNAL, HAVING LIVED AS A SENTIENT BEING FOR 0VER 67 YEARS.

The esteemed SA took it upon itself to suggest that if one does not accept the "LHO acted alone" theory (that's what a scientist would call an unproven hypothesis, in this case one that was never tested in a court of law), say, one must believe in every other minority opinion on Big Stories, AND that all these "CT's" bear the same psycho-social traits, notably "loneliness."

And the studies used stories of "price fixing" and "office sabotage" as examples of "conspiracies" not to be credited? Who funded these studies, Exxon Mobil?

Now, if I were to tell you I believed the President of the United States was a Russian stooge, would that make me a sage or a CT nutcase?

[kcr]

12. Why would believing that make you a CT nutcase?

There is actual, substantial evidence of Trump's ties to and collusion with Russia. Same with the Oswald acted alone theory, which is why those who don't believe it and give all the half-baked reasons why are labeled CT.

[DanTex]

14. Umm, this article doesn't mention JFK at all.

In fact, it doesn't even take a position on whether the particular conspiracies are true. And, sure, sometimes there are elaborate cover-ups (e.g. Watergate). But this article simply examines a particular psychological characteristic that make peoples more likely to believe in conspiracies.

It also doesn't say that all conspiracy theorists bear "the same psycho-social traits", it just identifies one trait that is more likely to make people believe in conspiracies, namely loneliness.

[kristopher]

13. Maybe you're too harsh?

SciAm is a popular magazine that reports on science; doing a fair job of making it more accessible to non-experts. That said, we really can't put too much faith in the way any popular magazine or news outlet covers scientific research. However, if you are going to reject a piece of research, you should try to have some basis for your criticism. An example of a type of suspect research might be a study where the sample size was too small to support the findings as definitive. That is a factor here, but the way the authors express their findings is consistent with the sample size of 119 participants.

I got that number from a press release on the research written by the university of one of the researchers (Princeton). It extensively quotes the authors and is far more informative than the SciAm piece. It has also been approved by the study authors as accurate.

Let me know your opinion of the research after you read it.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-02-social-exclusion-conspiratorial.html

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

15. When first glanced at thread title I thought it said

Conspiracy Theorists May Really Just Be Loony

Well.. yeah

[Dr. Strange]

17. Yeah, that's what they want you to think.

But the truth is much deeper.