portrait of a CT'er.

studiorat

Read this earlier and I must say it certainly rings a few bells.

1. Arrogance.
They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the "truth": sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness.
They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions.
For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. See also "sheelpe", "awakening" etc.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions.
Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy.
And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.


from: 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists.
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

digme

You need a theory first to be considered a ct'er and I haven't met many of them here.

nullzero

To be fair a lot of these characteristics can be equally applied to a lot of conspiracy skeptics, in fact everything from 1-8 could be said about both "sides".

To be honest, I'm probably in the middle of the "CTer's" and the Skeptics, scratching my head, wondering how you both find it necessary to beat each other over the head until one group agree's with the other..
People will believe whatever the hell they like, whether you like it or not. Look at religion, zero evidence for support the BS they all peddle in yet so many of us live in fear of what "god" thinks of what we're doing. Arse.
People have crazy idea's, you'll only drive yourself as crazy trying to change their minds for them, kind of like struggling in quick sand.

Anton.Mamyko

I certainly am not as irrational and as biased as a CT-ist but I do hold the view that the world is ducked up in almost every way and that you do not have to look for any specific "cover ups" or a "ct's" the whole thing is deceit to some extent...righT?!

to the over energetic CT-ists I would say;
Every revolutionary saw that the current system was immoral and believed he could do so much better and then ended up being a tyrant.
In other words-pace yourself and be open to all info and take all info with healthy cynicism.

mysterious

studiorat wrote: »

Read this earlier and I must say it certainly rings a few bells.

1. Arrogance.
They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the "truth": sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness.
They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions.
For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. See also "sheelpe", "awakening" etc.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions.
Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy.
And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.


from: 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists.
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

He who judges!.
Maybe Donna is more focused on labeling people and not looking at both sides of the situation. I'm not a Conspiracy theoriest. I'm more of a realist and someone who is researcher. But I find most Conspiracy theorist here to be quite ok and calm, considering that some people just come on, wreck havok and insult posters based on their beliefs. I find a few skeptics here ok and moderate I also respect a Conspiracy theorist not answering questions to someone who is dogmatic and demanding..

The above here can applied to some skeptics. I have an eerie feeling this will be closed soon. As its opening another can of worms.

Undergod

studiorat wrote: »

Read this earlier and I must say it certainly rings a few bells.

1. Arrogance.
They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the "truth": sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness.
They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions.
For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. See also "sheelpe", "awakening" etc.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw.
It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions.
Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy.
And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.


from: 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists.
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

Ah studiorat, is this deliberate ****-stirring? This in no way applies to all conspiracy theorists.

I'll point out the problem with number four is the misuse of the stock phrases. That goes for a few of them actually- behaviour which is not of itself annoying or harmful or illogical, just is used in a stupid way by debaters,

RoboClam

I agree that many of these aren't true to everyone on the forum. The tone of the article seems a little aggressive too.

But if I was to add something to it, I'd say it would be the innate ability of (some) CT'ers to somehow compare any topic to the nazi regime!

indough

RoboClam wrote: »

I agree that many of these aren't true to everyone on the forum. The tone of the article seems a little aggressive too.

But if I was to add something to it, I'd say it would be the innate ability of (some) CT'ers to somehow compare any topic to the nazi regime!

thats true of all forum talk though, it seems to be an internet exclusive phenomenon

RoboClam

indough wrote: »

thats true of all forum talk though, it seems to be an internet exclusive phenomenon

Good point. I'll revise my statement, "I'd say it would be the innate ability of anyone who's argument has no merit to somehow compare any topic to the nazi regime!".

When I see a Nazi argument, my brain shuts down.

EDIT: Godwin's Law!

indough

haha, yeah it does tend to kill discussion definitely

bonkey

A while ago, we had a "disinfo" thread, which was nothing but a shallow attack on skeptics.

This is nothing but the reverse.

Seriously...if all you guys want to do is insult each other, go find a one-sided forum where that is an accepted part of the culture. Alternately, get a blog so no-one can tell you what to do.

Thread closed.