Printable View
Like a creep that goes around a neighborhood peering in windows, and then tries to formulate ideas about his neighbors, by what he sees. He often takes things out of context, comes to wild conclusions based on small sample sizes, and is often judgmental based on what he sees.
It seems to me that a lot of conspiracy theorists are not actually trying to reach conclusions about things, to gain knowledge (but going about it in flawed way, like using faulty logic or poor reasoning and empirical data to come to conclusions), but are actually guarding themselves against real conclusions, against knowledge, and against reality; the 'conspiracy theorist' constructions they generate are actually geared toward a denial of certain aspects of reality, supported by a kind of selective skepticism and an ability to endless, ceaselessly, appeal to doubt in order to ward off the threat of facing uncomfortable truths, ultimately to protect their ego against something that threatens their comfortable and assured self-image and the reflection of the world their ego is tied to - with the threat usually significant in some personal manner, which also explains the level of investment 'conspiracy theorists' have in their subject matter and the need for it to overtake their lives and seemingly entail an investigation which has no terminal point and forever allows them to hold any real conclusion in abeyance. It's a childish way of confronting painful, distressing, or anxiety provoking facts about the world, with a veneer of sophistication.
This view I am putting forth would actually be in contrast with the typical notion of 'paranoid' or 'paranoiac' thinking usually ascribed to the conspiracy theorist. The paranoiac, the paranoid psychotic, knows and holds with certainty their paranoid belief, and it is about them - paranoia is narcissistic in nature (I use this term in a technical way, a term of art, not the colloquial sense of calling someone you don't like or someone who is selfish 'narcissistic'), and the person with a delusional paranoid belief has themself at the centre. I can expand on this, but the typical conspiracy theorist seems to not really have much concern for, let's say, placing themselves as the subject of their narrative. If September 11, 2001 was an 'inside job', or a controlled demolition, and the story about Saudis hijacking planes a lie, there is no sense in which the conspiracy theorist has any role as the persecuted, as the passive subject under the persecution of some agency, for instance; they are merely onlookers, attempting to perceive in some active manner that which is beyond them without ever attempting to cross the threshold and be an agent in the narrative.
But if September 11, 2001 was a controlled demolition, isn't this a conclusion and thus contradicting what I was saying above? Well, kind of, but not really. The conspiracy theorist is never really *certain* of anything, except for one thing that is: the 'official story', or what they are 'supposed to believe', is able to be doubted. The Conspiracy theorist will pile up reasonable alternatives, plausible accounts, speculations, hypotheses, unreasonable theories, unfounded accusations and 'feelings', reflections of their own small world viewpoints, unquestioned assumptions, assertions, etc, without any real strong commitment to anything except a commitment to doubting the 'official story' or a commitment to the notion that underneath what appears to be the case, what appears to be factual reality, there is a murky and almost unreachable reality, one which may as well be without depth in its bottomless and and unreachable depths, where the truth is always tantalising - ever out of reach but giving off a sinister, alluring quality. If we can simply speculate and point in its direction, we have a small victory... Too bad, because the truth is just too ugly. That the US created and armed a militia to fight the USSR and the result was, years later, a radicalised reactionary group outraged over military bases amongst other things would commit a terrorist act against the US, and that control of oil reserves by Western monopolies could be of such importance... etc. How can the conspiracy theorist possibly comprehend this? How can they make these brute, stark facts fit within the coordinates of meaning that nest within? It is all just too much, it is too much of a burden. Best to forever defer ever really facing reality, best to devote oneself to an endless exegesis on the shadow world we can never truly know and ride that wave of unreasonable doubt to the end. After all, it makes you feel good and it is much more manageable that way, isn't it?
Have you seen Room 237?
As a sociologist, I think they are interesting and at times funny (in a dark humor sort of way) for sheer implausibility.
[QUOTE=maninthemacintosh1606;4577142]It seems to me that a lot of conspiracy theorists are not actually trying to reach conclusions about things, to gain knowledge (but going about it in flawed way, like using faulty logic or poor reasoning and empirical data to come to conclusions), but are actually guarding themselves against real conclusions, against knowledge, and against reality; the 'conspiracy theorist' constructions they generate are actually geared toward a denial of certain aspects of reality, supported by a kind of selective skepticism and an ability to endless, ceaselessly, appeal to doubt in order to ward off the threat of facing uncomfortable truths, ultimately to protect their ego against something that threatens their comfortable and assured self-image and the reflection of the world their ego is tied to - with the threat usually significant in some personal manner, which also explains the level of investment 'conspiracy theorists' have in their subject matter and the need for it to overtake their lives and seemingly entail an investigation which has no terminal point and forever allows them to hold any real conclusion in abeyance. It's a childish way of confronting painful, distressing, or anxiety provoking facts about the world, with a veneer of sophistication.
This view I am putting forth would actually be in contrast with the typical notion of 'paranoid' or 'paranoiac' thinking usually ascribed to the conspiracy theorist. The paranoiac, the paranoid psychotic, knows and holds with certainty their paranoid belief, and it is about them - paranoia is narcissistic in nature (I use this term in a technical way, a term of art, not the colloquial sense of calling someone you don't like or someone who is selfish 'narcissistic'), and the person with a delusional paranoid belief has themself at the centre. I can expand on this, but the typical conspiracy theorist seems to not really have much concern for, let's say, placing themselves as the subject of their narrative. If September 11, 2001 was an 'inside job', or a controlled demolition, and the story about Saudis hijacking planes a lie, there is no sense in which the conspiracy theorist has any role as the persecuted, as the passive subject under the persecution of some agency, for instance; they are merely onlookers, attempting to perceive in some active manner that which is beyond them without ever attempting to cross the threshold and be an agent in the narrative.
But if September 11, 2001 was a controlled demolition, isn't this a conclusion and thus contradicting what I was saying above? Well, kind of, but not really. The conspiracy theorist is never really *certain* of anything, except for one thing that is: the 'official story', or what they are 'supposed to believe', is able to be doubted. The Conspiracy theorist will pile up reasonable alternatives, plausible accounts, speculations, hypotheses, unreasonable theories, unfounded accusations and 'feelings', reflections of their own small world viewpoints, unquestioned assumptions, assertions, etc, without any real strong commitment to anything except a commitment to doubting the 'official story' or a commitment to the notion that underneath what appears to be the case, what appears to be factual reality, there is a murky and almost unreachable reality, one which may as well be without depth in its bottomless and and unreachable depths, where the truth is always tantalising - ever out of reach but giving off a sinister, alluring quality. If we can simply speculate and point in its direction, we have a small victory... Too bad, because the truth is just too ugly. That the US created and armed a militia to fight the USSR and the result was, years later, a radicalised reactionary group outraged over military bases amongst other things would commit a terrorist act against the US, and that control of oil reserves by Western monopolies could be of such importance... etc. How can the conspiracy theorist possibly comprehend this? How can they make these brute, stark facts fit within the coordinates of meaning that nest within? It is all just too much, it is too much of a burden. Best to forever defer ever really facing reality, best to devote oneself to an endless exegesis on the shadow world we can never truly know and ride that wave of unreasonable doubt to the end. After all, it makes you feel good and it is much more manageable that way, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Well said! Any evidence that contradicts these conspiracy theories is summarily dismissed. Attempts at debunking their argument with facts go unanswered, while any evidence which supports their argument, no matter how weak, is viewed as 'proof' of said theory.
...sometimes elected President.
[QUOTE=maninthemacintosh1606;4577142]It seems to me that a lot of conspiracy theorists are not actually trying to reach conclusions about things, to gain knowledge (but going about it in flawed way, like using faulty logic or poor reasoning and empirical data to come to conclusions), but are actually guarding themselves against real conclusions, against knowledge, and against reality; the 'conspiracy theorist' constructions they generate are actually geared toward a denial of certain aspects of reality, supported by a kind of selective skepticism and an ability to endless, ceaselessly, appeal to doubt in order to ward off the threat of facing uncomfortable truths, ultimately to protect their ego against something that threatens their comfortable and assured self-image and the reflection of the world their ego is tied to - with the threat usually significant in some personal manner, which also explains the level of investment 'conspiracy theorists' have in their subject matter and the need for it to overtake their lives and seemingly entail an investigation which has no terminal point and forever allows them to hold any real conclusion in abeyance. It's a childish way of confronting painful, distressing, or anxiety provoking facts about the world, with a veneer of sophistication.
This view I am putting forth would actually be in contrast with the typical notion of 'paranoid' or 'paranoiac' thinking usually ascribed to the conspiracy theorist. The paranoiac, the paranoid psychotic, knows and holds with certainty their paranoid belief, and it is about them - paranoia is narcissistic in nature (I use this term in a technical way, a term of art, not the colloquial sense of calling someone you don't like or someone who is selfish 'narcissistic'), and the person with a delusional paranoid belief has themself at the centre. I can expand on this, but [B][U]the typical conspiracy theorist seems to not really have much concern for, let's say, placing themselves as the subject of their narrative[/U][/B]. If September 11, 2001 was an 'inside job', or a controlled demolition, and the story about Saudis hijacking planes a lie, there is no sense in which the conspiracy theorist has any role as the persecuted, as the passive subject under the persecution of some agency, for instance; they are merely onlookers, attempting to perceive in some active manner that which is beyond them without ever attempting to cross the threshold and be an agent in the narrative.
But if September 11, 2001 was a controlled demolition, isn't this a conclusion and thus contradicting what I was saying above? Well, kind of, but not really. The conspiracy theorist is never really *certain* of anything, except for one thing that is: the 'official story', or what they are 'supposed to believe', is able to be doubted. The Conspiracy theorist will pile up reasonable alternatives, plausible accounts, speculations, hypotheses, unreasonable theories, unfounded accusations and 'feelings', reflections of their own small world viewpoints, unquestioned assumptions, assertions, etc, without any real strong commitment to anything except a commitment to doubting the 'official story' or a commitment to the notion that underneath what appears to be the case, what appears to be factual reality, there is a murky and almost unreachable reality, one which may as well be without depth in its bottomless and and unreachable depths, where the truth is always tantalising - ever out of reach but giving off a sinister, alluring quality. If we can simply speculate and point in its direction, we have a small victory... Too bad, because the truth is just too ugly. That the US created and armed a militia to fight the USSR and the result was, years later, a radicalised reactionary group outraged over military bases amongst other things would commit a terrorist act against the US, and that control of oil reserves by Western monopolies could be of such importance... etc. How can the conspiracy theorist possibly comprehend this? How can they make these brute, stark facts fit within the coordinates of meaning that nest within? It is all just too much, it is too much of a burden. Best to forever defer ever really facing reality, best to devote oneself to an endless exegesis on the shadow world we can never truly know and ride that wave of unreasonable doubt to the end. After all, it makes you feel good and it is much more manageable that way, isn't it?[/QUOTE]
Interesting take. One thing about which I wonder: does the conspiracy theorist not see themselves at the center of the narrative of the conspiracy theorist against The Institution (however we wish to define it)? Is part of their embrace of the conspiracy not only about finding an answer with which they are more comfortable, but also about establishing their view of reality as a mark of superiority over The Institution's influence as well as the inferior masses that accept The Institution's version?