Conformity

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrNIuFrso8I

I saw this and though you might like it. I studied this field for a year, and it profoundly affected the way I view any human action. Of course, many of you will identify with much of what it says, but what led to my posting the video were his questions on:

Do you think that some of you have jumped from one frying pan, into a smaller one? Do you criticise your own group?

Thanks.

loldog

I agree.

.

nyarlothothep

I also agree.

DrumSteve

me too...

those who shout loudest and whatnot...

Yitzhak Rabin

Well since everyone else agrees, I better agree too! :pac::pac:

MultiUmm

Found it hard to watch the video in full, the guy had such a monotonous voice, it really dragged on ...

Flamed Diving

MultiUmm wrote: »

Found it hard to watch the video in full, the guy had such a monotonous voice, it really dragged on ...

Perhaps you would prefer to read the papers?

Asch, S.E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgment. In H. Guetzkow (ed.) Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), pp.31-35.

L.Jenkins

An eye opener to say the least. I can relate to that in a way.

studiorat

So is conformity a good thing or a bad thing? Obviously certain hipsters and the 'wake-up' merchants like to think its bad.

But since it seems to be there , due to evolution or perhaps not, does conformity have it's value in society?

Flamed Diving

studiorat wrote: »

So is conformity a good thing or a bad thing? Obviously certain hipsters and the 'wake-up' merchants like to think its bad.

But since it seems to be there , due to evolution or perhaps not, does conformity have it's value in society?

Well, it's clearly both good and bad. Probably more good than bad, as it facilitates social convention. But the question that makes it relevant to this forum is whether CTer's are simply conforming to yet another social convention. I prefer how the author described it, as jumping from one frying pan into another, smaller one.

studiorat

Conforming to a non-conformist model as it were...

Torakx

I think that was a good watch.
I had seen a similar study before where 1 in 5 or 6 people were genuine test subjects the rest acters.
The person was asked to wait in a waiting room with the others for whatever reason.
After a few minutes smoke starts to trickle out from a door the other side of the room.It eventually keeps going until the room is really smokey.
The results were pretty similar also.Most subjects looked around for a signal for a response to the smoke but on finding everyone else ignoring it a fair majority decided to ignore it also.It was quite scary to see a grown person sit in a room with others and ignore a possible life threatening situation.I do wonder now did they know it was a test as that might have effected their judgement but i cant remember.

Do i think i jumped from one frying pan into another? yes for sure.
I used to be brainwashed to believe all sorts of crazy things.
Coming from that enviornment its quite easy to fall into another type of system designed to control your thinking.
The conspiracy movement has been hijacked by people exploiting this and thats probably why alot of people say "dont fall down the rabbit whole".

I think for the first year when i started looking into CT's i was also researching psychology and mind control on and off.During that time i fell down the rabbit hole :P
Alot of stuff i learned from psychology and NLP though helped me alot to be more self aware,i couldnt reccomend it enough just to get to know yourself for who you really are.
I realised most of my life up till then had been under other peoples control from past experiences.
Since then its not been easy finding a social group i can conform to
Also this video posted hints in a rather strong way what i have been refering to as people brainwashed or mind controlled.And if people had the scope to encompass the thread full of patents regarding tv and monitors combined with the theroies on mass media mind control you might have the reason the average person is reffered to by me as being a sheep,mind controlled,brainwashed etc.
Its quite apparent to me when i watch peoples behaviour even my own!
Many of my private jokes with friends can be catchphrases from family guy or southpark.Which is funny because what we are doing is stimulating an anchor (nlp) we have previously trained and it gets a laugh because it takes us back to that moment on a subconscious level and triggers a response automatically.
Think about that next time you laugh at something youve laughed at before more than 3 times all good comedians use anchors.And its a form of mind control.Its harmless maybe good on some levels but has a darker side for society i feel.Peoples critical judgement is being wiped away by tv education for the masses.In a social group like friends of a friend kind of thing i would ussually keep my mouth shut when i know an answer to a question or i would refrain from saying anything philosophical until i was with people that can handle thinking out of the box.
Its sad to see that their are not many people left that i can find who are able to talk with me about the simple things in life or the more complicated things like the tv patents with alpha waves and general topics like that with supposings galore.
Most people i meet are all the same with their thoughts beliefs and behaviours.Mostly predictable,i can tell when their lying,avoiding a question,distraction tactics etc and it kind of sets me to far apart from most people.But what if that is not the real people? I believe if everyone was made in school to learn the psychology and NLP subjects i read up on and actually put into a class called human behaviour studies/self awareness granting that it is set up right i believe most people would be more critical in their thinking and would do alot better for themselves and NOT jump into frying pans as it was put.
Society is evolving and each time it progresses more groups pop up to cover the latest fad or trend or just to be different.People are confused and sufferring imo from some kind of neurosis when they dress themselves/think like a certain stereo typical group,feeling that they are making a statement maybe or that they feel they belong with a group and arent alone.Im not sure exactly why but i see it happening and you do too.Ok maybe its some inbuilt component of the mind since we mostly grow up in a family enviornment we probably on a base level yearn company of a similar kind to us.


So a question i might have is would you sacrifice your friends and social groups/enviornments in this current social enviornemt to be yourself?

L.Jenkins

Time to develop ones individuality. Hermits aren't bad people after all but social rebels maybe.

douglashyde

Torakx wrote: »

I think that was a good watch.
I had seen a similar study before where 1 in 5 or 6 people were genuine test subjects the rest acters.
The person was asked to wait in a waiting room with the others for whatever reason.
After a few minutes smoke starts to trickle out from a door the other side of the room.It eventually keeps going until the room is really smokey.
The results were pretty similar also.Most subjects looked around for a signal for a response to the smoke but on finding everyone else ignoring it a fair majority decided to ignore it also.It was quite scary to see a grown person sit in a room with others and ignore a possible life threatening situation.I do wonder now did they know it was a test as that might have effected their judgement but i cant remember.

Do i think i jumped from one frying pan into another? yes for sure.
I used to be brainwashed to believe all sorts of crazy things.
Coming from that enviornment its quite easy to fall into another type of system designed to control your thinking.
The conspiracy movement has been hijacked by people exploiting this and thats probably why alot of people say "dont fall down the rabbit whole".

I think for the first year when i started looking into CT's i was also researching psychology and mind control on and off.During that time i fell down the rabbit hole :P
Alot of stuff i learned from psychology and NLP though helped me alot to be more self aware,i couldnt reccomend it enough just to get to know yourself for who you really are.
I realised most of my life up till then had been under other peoples control from past experiences.
Since then its not been easy finding a social group i can conform to
Also this video posted hints in a rather strong way what i have been refering to as people brainwashed or mind controlled.And if people had the scope to encompass the thread full of patents regarding tv and monitors combined with the theroies on mass media mind control you might have the reason the average person is reffered to by me as being a sheep,mind controlled,brainwashed etc.
Its quite apparent to me when i watch peoples behaviour even my own!
Many of my private jokes with friends can be catchphrases from family guy or southpark.Which is funny because what we are doing is stimulating an anchor (nlp) we have previously trained and it gets a laugh because it takes us back to that moment on a subconscious level and triggers a response automatically.
Think about that next time you laugh at something youve laughed at before more than 3 times all good comedians use anchors.And its a form of mind control.Its harmless maybe good on some levels but has a darker side for society i feel.Peoples critical judgement is being wiped away by tv education for the masses.In a social group like friends of a friend kind of thing i would ussually keep my mouth shut when i know an answer to a question or i would refrain from saying anything philosophical until i was with people that can handle thinking out of the box.
Its sad to see that their are not many people left that i can find who are able to talk with me about the simple things in life or the more complicated things like the tv patents with alpha waves and general topics like that with supposings galore.
Most people i meet are all the same with their thoughts beliefs and behaviours.Mostly predictable,i can tell when their lying,avoiding a question,distraction tactics etc and it kind of sets me to far apart from most people.But what if that is not the real people? I believe if everyone was made in school to learn the psychology and NLP subjects i read up on and actually put into a class called human behaviour studies/self awareness granting that it is set up right i believe most people would be more critical in their thinking and would do alot better for themselves and NOT jump into frying pans as it was put.
Society is evolving and each time it progresses more groups pop up to cover the latest fad or trend or just to be different.People are confused and sufferring imo from some kind of neurosis when they dress themselves/think like a certain stereo typical group,feeling that they are making a statement maybe or that they feel they belong with a group and arent alone.Im not sure exactly why but i see it happening and you do too.Ok maybe its some inbuilt component of the mind since we mostly grow up in a family enviornment we probably on a base level yearn company of a similar kind to us.


So a question i might have is would you sacrifice your friends and social groups/enviornments in this current social enviornemt to be yourself?

Very long post.

I'd like to point out that group behaviour isn’t brainwashing, it is just evolutionary. Either that or the monkeys in Dublin zoo are brain washed to.

Also, NLP is just a small slice of psychology that has been a fad for the last few years - it is nothing new and it is certainly not mind control.

Torakx

douglashyde wrote: »

Very long post.

I'd like to point out that group behaviour isn’t brainwashing, it is just evolutionary. Either that or the monkeys in Dublin zoo are brain washed to.

Also, NLP is just a small slice of psychology that has been a fad for the last few years - it is nothing new and it is certainly not mind control.

I guess it depends on how you interpret the words Mind Control.
When you trigger an anchor in someones mind arent you controlling the timing of that triggers activation thus controlling the action/thought pattern a person takes at a certain time?
And i tried to keep the post small but if i do like i did there people mis interpret my meanings.Sorry i know i ramble and dont explain well at all.
Group behavior to me is mind control by the group as in the groups behaviour can dictate your rational thinking and critical thought as the video pointed out(I havent checked how much rational/critical thought monkeys have compared to the human race,maybe you should do a study on monkeys and get back to me ).This to me is the group changing your mind or controlling its behaviour.
NLP is a fad nowadays and is bandied about and prostituted for money.
It has been used in ancient times by mystics and is just a general name for a technique of controlling other peoples minds to a certain extent.Hypnosis would be an extreme example of that.
Also NLP should really be called NP because it covers way more than just linguistics.Unless linguistic the word covers gestures,eye movements and bodylanguage,im not sure.

douglashyde

Torakx wrote: »

I guess it depends on how you interpret the words Mind Control.
When you trigger an anchor in someones mind arent you controlling the timing of that triggers activation thus controlling the action/thought pattern a person takes at a certain time?
And i tried to keep the post small but if i do like i did there people mis interpret my meanings.Sorry i know i ramble and dont explain well at all.
Group behavior to me is mind control by the group as in the groups behaviour can dictate your rational thinking and critical thought as the video pointed out(I havent checked how much rational/critical thought monkeys have compared to the human race,maybe you should do a study on monkeys and get back to me ).This to me is the group changing your mind or controlling its behaviour.
NLP is a fad nowadays and is bandied about and prostituted for money.
It has been used in ancient times by mystics and is just a general name for a technique of controlling other peoples minds to a certain extent.Hypnosis would be an extreme example of that.
Also NLP should really be called NP because it covers way more than just linguistics.Unless linguistic the word covers gestures,eye movements and bodylanguage,im not sure.

One of the greatest hypnotists today is Darren Brown and he openly states that while there are certain techniques in NLP that are relative to how henotheists’ work; ultimately it has no major influence on them (I'm assuming of course he is telling the truth)

As for mind control 'v' group behaviour: Mind control would mean that someone would lack free will, Group behaviour or psychology can influence people and make them perceive or believe certain things, it cannot however take away free will in the sense that if they wanted to stop a certain action (not inc. addiction) they could.

I’m not suggesting that mind control isn’t plausible; I’m saying that it has no relationship with psychology.

Attention, Desire and Action are the 101 fundamentals of Marketing Consumer Behaviour. By making someone desire a product does not mean you are brain washing them, you are however affecting their perceptions. By making them respond to their desire with an action, you are not controlling their mind, you are however influencing their behaviour.

Brown Bomber

IMO a good interview on CIA mind control projects

MUST LISTEN!!! Tonight’s program features a fascinating interview with Colin Ross, MD of http://www.rossinst.com as he discusses his research as a psychiatrist into the various government-run Manchurian Candidate/mind-control programs. THIS SHOW MUST BE SHARED WITH ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THE EXISTENCE OF THESE PROGRAMS AND HOW THEY PLAY A DIRECT ROLE IN OUR WORLD TODAY!
http://thelibertyhour.podbean.com/2009/12/10/the-liberty-hour-dec-10-2009-manchurian-candidate/#comments

DeBunny

"We are all individuals!" :pac:

Interesting video OP.
I liked the part about pattern seeking abilities. Our need to seek out patterns in life, as well as leading to break throughs in science, has also led to things like creationism and some of the more off the wall CTs.
Our in-built conformity creates a need for structure and predictability, and when confronted with the contradictory and random nature of life, it manifests itself in the belief that a higher power of some sort is controlling every thing.
It's like our own intelligence has tricked us into thinking that every thing is intelligently controlled.

Torakx

douglashyde wrote: »

One of the greatest hypnotists today is Darren Brown and he openly states that while there are certain techniques in NLP that are relative to how henotheists’ work; ultimately it has no major influence on them (I'm assuming of course he is telling the truth)

As for mind control 'v' group behaviour: Mind control would mean that someone would lack free will, Group behaviour or psychology can influence people and make them perceive or believe certain things, it cannot however take away free will in the sense that if they wanted to stop a certain action (not inc. addiction) they could.

I’m not suggesting that mind control isn’t plausible; I’m saying that it has no relationship with psychology.

Attention, Desire and Action are the 101 fundamentals of Marketing Consumer Behaviour. By making someone desire a product does not mean you are brain washing them, you are however affecting their perceptions. By making them respond to their desire with an action, you are not controlling their mind, you are however influencing their behaviour.

Derren Brown takes risks with peoples minds.Ive watched all his shows and while i find them facinating figuring out how he did everything i also find it very disturbing the possible consequences of his actions on willing participants ...some not so willing at the start.

I think my point when mentioning mind control with conformity was that certain aspects of our enviornment assist us in being alot more conforming and predictable.Also allowing us to be more suggestable.I consider this to be more than what should normally be present so would consider it a form of passive mild control.adding to that the natural want for us to be part of a group..at least i think its natural ..also possible we gained this from our enviornment but i havent checked up on that recently.

Flamed Diving

DeBunny wrote: »

"We are all individuals!" :pac:

Interesting video OP.
I liked the part about pattern seeking abilities. Our need to seek out patterns in life, as well as leading to break throughs in science, has also led to things like creationism and some of the more off the wall CTs.
Our in-built conformity creates a need for structure and predictability, and when confronted with the contradictory and random nature of life, it manifests itself in the belief that a higher power of some sort is controlling every thing.
It's like our own intelligence has tricked us into thinking that every thing is intelligently controlled.

Exactly. If one was living in complete ignorance of science, it would be a fairly logical conclusion, when you think about it.

studiorat

DeBunny wrote: »

"We are all individuals!" :pac:

I'm not...

But I do concurr with the notion that we all seek out patterns all the time. It would seem to be one of the reasons most of us enjoy Art, Music and so many other similar things...

DeBunny

Brown Bomber wrote: »

IMO a good interview on CIA mind control projects

MUST LISTEN!!! Tonight’s program features a fascinating interview with Colin Ross, MD of http://www.rossinst.com as he discusses his research as a psychiatrist into the various government-run Manchurian Candidate/mind-control programs. THIS SHOW MUST BE SHARED WITH ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THE EXISTENCE OF THESE PROGRAMS AND HOW THEY PLAY A DIRECT ROLE IN OUR WORLD TODAY!
http://thelibertyhour.podbean.com/2009/12/10/the-liberty-hour-dec-10-2009-manchurian-candidate/#comments

Torakx wrote: »

I think my point when mentioning mind control with conformity was that certain aspects of our enviornment assist us in being alot more conforming and predictable.Also allowing us to be more suggestable.I consider this to be more than what should normally be present so would consider it a form of passive mild control.adding to that the natural want for us to be part of a group..at least i think its natural ..also possible we gained this from our enviornment but i havent checked up on that recently.

Sorry guys but I think you're missing the point. Other than the power you have over your own mind, the video says nothing about mind control.
Rather than ask your selves the difficult questions that the video throws up, you've gone looking for something you want to find, something that isn't even there.
By missing the point of the video you've proven it.

Flamed Diving

DeBunny wrote: »

Sorry guys but I think you're missing the point. Other than the power you have over your own mind, the video says nothing about mind control.
Rather than ask your selves the difficult questions that the video throws up, you've gone looking for something you want to find, something that isn't even there.
By missing the point of the video you've proven it.

Super post.

Torakx

I was discussing comformity.And also participated in the first question asked by the OP.I dont think i can say if im balanced enough that will show in my posts.So i havent missed the point its just that i can see links between behaviour and television in regards to comformity and this borders and touches on mind control as i described my thoughts on it.Dont think i was very far off the reality of our situation.
Theres a thread with info or CT's on Tv and its effects on our social enviornment and behaviour which i had in mind when talking about suggestion and group comformity.I would love to see a test done on people who dont watch tv and people who do.I think critical judgement would be much higher in the former group,its just a hunch at the moment but one based on things ive been looking into.
I can see where the rest of you are coming from i just have a firm belief in the things i have seen reproduced.

DeBunny

Torakx wrote: »

I was discussing comformity.And also participated in the first question asked by the OP.I dont think i can say if im balanced enough that will show in my posts.So i havent missed the point its just that i can see links between behaviour and television in regards to comformity and this borders and touches on mind control as i described my thoughts on it.Dont think i was very far off the reality of our situation.

Sure, you made a token effort to address the OP (which is more than any other CTer here was brave enough to do), but it was mostly in relation to mind control conspiracies rather than in relation to you as a conspiracy theorist, which was the point of the OP.

Yes I can see links between social conformity and television but to go from that to mind control is a massive leap and a wonderful demonstration of the pattern seeking abilities/needs that the video discussed. By looking for the patterns you wanted find you proved the point of the video, thus missing the point.
I hope I'm not coming across too harsh here but you blatantly missed the point of the OP.

Theres a thread with info or CT's on Tv and its effects on our social enviornment and behaviour which i had in mind when talking about suggestion and group comformity.I would love to see a test done on people who dont watch tv and people who do.I think critical judgement would be much higher in the former group,its just a hunch at the moment but one based on things ive been looking into.
I can see where the rest of you are coming from i just have a firm belief in the things i have seen reproduced.

Again, you're going off topic in an effort to look for the patterns you want to find instead of being objective. A good scientist, journalist or researcher doesn't go looking for the answers they want find. They go where those answers lead them, rather than trying to shift the answers to suit their needs.

I would agree with you on the possible results of such a test on TV viewers and non viewers but this is because because non viewers are inherently non conformist by the fact that they choose not to watch TV and nearly every one else complies with the social norm. You would shift the results of such a test to suit your need to find patterns.

One of the points of the video was, that if people want to find a particular answer they will.
As indicated by your posts, you have an urge to seek out conspiracies. If you want to find a conspiracy you'll find one. If you're objective and rational you'll find what the answers point to.
Sometimes the answers might point to a conspiracy but usually you'll find that life is an incredibly random series of events with no rhyme or reason behind any thing.

Unfortunately there's no wizard behind the curtain pulling all the levers. Life is a lot more complicated.

Yitzhak Rabin

But the OP doesn't and shouldn't just apply to CT'ers. Those who disbelieve most CT's(such as myself) can be just as guilty of conformity as anyone else. When you sorround yourself with like-minded people, you can be just as guilty of group think as anyone else.

Take for instance climate change. The vast majority of people accept that it is happening. How many accept that because they have been told that it is true. How many have genuinely investigated for themselves. I would say most haven't. Of those that have looked into it, how many actually read the raw papers and data, as apposed to looked at a few documentaries. Probably not many. I doubted climate change for a while, when I saw things like the 'great climate change swindle' etc. That is what prompted me to look into it, and it is by having read the papers, and questioned my position that I realised that CC is very real.

Basically, what I am saying is, that it is very easy to criticise the other side and accuse them of being conformist, and just spouting the same lines that they heard, or read on a CT website. However, we are all guilty of conformity and group think to a certain degree. A true skeptic, is someone who looks at their own side and position, and questions that.

the_syco

conformity

[emo]I'll disagree, as I'll wear different, unique clothes[/emo] which are all the friggin same. Everyone who wants to be different can only be so much different, and before long, others who wanted to be different, shall be the same as them.

Look at pirates of ye olde. Different to all, but would band together as a group.

Emo's claim to be different, and they may be, but when everyone is different, you'll find that they are in fact the same as others. Nothing beats a giggle at 200 sameface emo's marching through Dublin, with each and everyone belivin they are different to everyone else, but at the same time, we see that they have conformed to one look.

Can't listen to the video at the moment, but will do so later.

Torakx

Dont know why people are presuming i missed the point.The Op clearly asked the questions "Do you think that some of you have jumped from one frying pan, into a smaller one? Do you criticise your own group?"
I answered yes to the first question quite clearly and continued to give a very good example of ( i thought) oh how i was making my way out of "the frying pan".
I have been known to criticise people i have previously agreed with if thats what is ment by my group.I have agreed with alot of people here so im finding it hard to find my group on this forums.....maybe that can be used as yet another example of the one i was trying to explain in my first long post.It very much so relates with conformity i think and is of a personal nature.Im known here as a bit of a conspiracy theoriest i suppose as i have theorized and posted a few kind of original ones

I thought i could have typed yes, yes to both questions and added another post count to my name whooped dee doo lol
But i prefer to share in a discussion and really appreciate it when others do too.
Maybe i shared too much as every time i post somebody seems to mis interpret my meanings lately especially when i say mind control.Should i use passive suggestion aided by trance inducing technology instead? that just turned my general use of the word mind control for the current topic into ..thats like 7 more words instead of mind control.
I dont mind posting so much to explain myself better but you guys mis interpreting should either try and no be so focused on stereo types when i use words like mind control and look at what i am getting at unless you wish to ignore me or have to read a very long explanation for everything i feel you might mis-interpret covered in lots of bold words to make my points clear.
I realise the real definition of mind control may not incorperate willing victims eg. people who watch tv too much.
But I hope you know what i mean when i use the word mind control to discuss the giving up of ones critical judgement to a group because of sublte social suggestions.The test was after all designed to try get the subject to change his/her mind while told to answer the questions as best they can.
Its not that i dont agree with the OP questions.Infact it is a very good question and i liked the video too.I dont even remember who the OP is as i ussually focus on the topic and my thoughts on it.So i guess i could be a good example of an anti conformist?

the_syco

Just listened to it. He sounds like the Yatzee person.

DeBunny

Torakx, I realise you answered Flamed Diving's questions and I acknowledged this in my previous post. I still feel you missed the point of the video.

By relating the video to mind control, or "passive suggestion aided by trance inducing technology" (both of these phrases suggest a conspiracy) you made a connection that isn't there.
The video has nothing to do with mind control. It's about how individuals allow themselves to be influenced by peer groups and how they seek out the answers they want find rather than being objective.
By making the leap to mind control you gave a demonstration of the pattern seeking needs discussed in the video. You found what you wanted to find.

Brown Bomber

DeBunny wrote: »

Sorry guys but I think you're missing the point. Other than the power you have over your own mind, the video says nothing about mind control.
Rather than ask your selves the difficult questions that the video throws up, you've gone looking for something you want to find, something that isn't even there.
By missing the point of the video you've proven it.

You need to read my post. I made no reference to the OP, did I? Perhaps it wasn't the most appropriate place to post the link but Torax had mentioned mind control as I was reading the thread, that made me remember an interview I listened to recently which I though might be interesting to him.

I don't actually need a youtube video to tell me what conformity is.

And this thread is yet more compartmentalising of the users here to insult us a group.

I posted this a couple of days ago on another thread here as a challenge to a another skeptic who was also trolling

Originally Posted by Brown Bomber
I'd really like to see you go beyond pseudo-skepticism, if you can that is.

Your basic premise is that you are rational and everyone here is irrational. You've compartmentalised posters here into an irrational "paranoid" group and you've placed yourself into the rational mainstream group.

All you have done is demand unobtainable evidence and resorted to mockery. Hardly a credible pursuit I'm sure you would agree.

For you to gain any credibility and demonstrate that your mainstream views are based on actual scepticism (seperating falshoods from truth) and conclusions you have realised YOURSELF, not realised by your social circle.

IF and I think it is a big IF that you aren't a victim of groupthink (which I personally think so based on your posts) then you should be able to do one of two things.

Consider it a test:

1. Defend a non mainstream belief you hold (you must have some based on your high opinion of yourself) .

2. Share what beliefs you are skeptical of that other skeptics are not.

This shouldn't be a problem if you are as smart and rational as you believe yourself to be and you think for yourself.

This was a test of conformity/non-conformity. He declined. So to start pretending that the users here are part some deluded conformist imaginary group is pure bollox.

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this thread is yet more compartmentalising of the users here to insult us a group.

So to start pretending that the users here are part some deluded conformist imaginary group is pure bollox.

To be fair, I don't think the OP singled out any particular group. Everyone is susceptible to group think, regardless of where you stand on this forum. I include myself as someone who can get caught up in conformity occasionally, in that I will dismiss a CT'ers claim as outlandish, and accept a fellow skeptics rebuttal as sound, as it backs up my own held views.

It is actually much harder to stop and really examine each post based on its merits, and try and put aside preconceived notions of a users agenda, or previous posts.

Also, the labels we assign each other I find are very counterproductive. Like how the proponents of CT's use the term skeptic with such derision. Surely anyone who is interested in truth would call themselves a skeptic an be proud of the label?

I am going slightly off topic here, but another thing I often found strange was how when someone here posts a CT, often they become aggressively defensive of their idea. They show absolute contempt for those who question them. I find this approach silly. For instance, I am currently writing a report about the feasibility of introducing a smart grid with V2G electric car capacity for Ireland, so I proposed the idea in another forum and specifically looked for dissenting opinions. I welcomed criticism as it could only strengthen my original idea by refining it, or in the worst case allow me to realise I was wasting my time.

.....Anyway, bottom line is we are all guilty of conformity to some degree, and its probably as a result of our pattern seeking ape brains.

Brown Bomber

yekahs wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think the OP singled out any particular group.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Well, it's clearly both good and bad. Probably more good than bad, as it facilitates social convention. But the question that makes it relevant to this forum is whether CTer's are simply conforming to yet another social convention. I prefer how the author described it, as jumping from one frying pan into another, smaller one.

yekahs wrote: »

Everyone is susceptible to group think, regardless of where you stand on this forum. I include myself as someone who can get caught up in conformity occasionally, in that I will dismiss a CT'ers claim as outlandish, and accept a fellow skeptics rebuttal as sound, as it backs up my own held views.

Agree 100%

yekahs wrote: »

It is actually much harder to stop and really examine each post based on its merits, and try and put aside preconceived notions of a users agenda, or previous posts.

Again I agree completely with your assesment.

yekahs wrote: »

Also, the labels we assign each other I find are very counterproductive. Like how the proponents of CT's use the term skeptic with such derision. Surely anyone who is interested in truth would call themselves a skeptic an be proud of the label?

ha, running out of ways to say I totally agree. Wish I just thanked the post now instead;)

Before I posted here I wasn't even aware that there was a group calling themselves "skeptics". They even meet up and talk about how enlightened they are every now and again;). Thing is though you came out on the right side of the labels. Skeptic has positive purely connotations while conspiracy theorist has auto negative connotations. A lot of the time it would be deserved on either side, but you have many skeptics who aren't sceptical, merely conformists and yes men and many people in the conspiracy theorist labelled bracket who are genuinely and healthily sceptical. There should be no need for those in the middle ground of both sides to be hostile to each other. UNfortunately, IMO Machiavellian threads like this only drives the wedge further.

I

enno99

i think the reference to the smaller pan was directed at the minority which would be ct.s

DeBunny

Brown Bomber, why don't you actually watch the video to see where I'm coming from? It would make things a lot easier all round.

I am obviously not trolling nor am I making an attempt to insult people. The fact that you are accusing me of this says a lot. Not to mention that it proves some of the points made in the video.
You are obviously not open to criticism. The fact that you made no reference to the OP shows this, further proving the point of the OP.

It would very convenient for you if I was trolling, but unfortunately for you I am asking valid questions and scrutinising the behaviour of CTers. All of which is perfectly reasonable and would be welcome in any valid field of research.

CT research, if it wants to be taken seriously and shake off it's negative connotations, could learn a lot from the likes of engineering research. For example, Yekah's attempts to look for criticism in his own research. How many CT researchers would be brave enough, or have enough objectivity to do this? You conveniently avoided this part of Yekah's post.


I think you're confusing the word group with organisation. Thirty year olds are a group, atheists are a group, vegans are a group, people who wear brown shoes are a group and yes, even conspiracy theorists are a group. None of the above are organised or agree on a single consensus, but they all have something in common. In general CTers as a group are un-open to criticism, as is the case with your posts.

When it comes to me questioning my group, well, to be honest you could count me as one of your own, wahey! I find CTs fascinating. I started a thread here looking for CTs that had been proven. I think there is a lot of questions to answered in regards to 911, the Iraq war was obviously a conspiracy. But I don't get emotionally involved, as so many other CTers do. I don't confuse theories and speculation with fact. I make an effort not to take offence when my views are challenged.

I also don't accept the pessimistic world view that so many CTers seem to have. For all the sinister CTs there just as many, if not more, people conspiring to the make the world a better place.
Like it or not, life is getting better. Freedom and prosperity are at the highest they have ever been in the history of mankind. Sure it's not perfect and there's always a few dips but the trend is onwards and upwards. For example, 100 years ago, there were many diseases that killed rich men. Now a rick-shaw driver in the slums of Bombay can afford penicillin and other drugs to cure the diseases that would have killed those rich men of 100 years ago.


You mentioned hostility, you are the only one here who has been hostile. If you want conspiracy theories to be taken seriously you have to be open to criticism, but if you somehow confuse people looking for frank and open discussion for being Machiavellian () then I won't hold my breath.

Brown Bomber

DeBunny wrote: »

I am asking valid questions and scrutinising the behaviour of CTers. All of which is perfectly reasonable

Everything else to one side for a minute this is where we differ most I think.

What gives you the right to scrutinise the behaviour of CTers?
That is not what this forum is for is it?

I think the charter backs me up on this

Please don't use sweeping generalisations which indirectly attack or belittle other posters here. Posts which are insulting to those who believe conspiracies / the mainstream, for example, may be considered to be insulting to other posters, and as such will not be tolerated.

DeBunny

"Every thing else aside" . . . . How convenient. Again you're avoiding the difficult questions and claiming you're being victimised. Even if I wasn't a CTer, which I am, I would be well with in my rights to scrutinise CTer behaviour.
Evidently you are not open to criticism. You mistake criticism of your views for a personal attack. You avoid the questions and whine about your feelings being hurt. Then you wonder why CT research isn't taken seriously?

You deliberately take offence in order to avoid scrutiny. In all other areas of research scrutiny and criticism is welcome and even, as in Yekah's case, sought after. But for some reason CT research has special protection. Your post further strengthens my point about CTers not being open to criticism and involving their emotions when their views are scrutinised. Thanks.

Seriously .... stop trying to martyr yourself and lets have a proper conversation. You're just re-enforcing the stereotype of a typical CTer.


So . . . . have you watched the video yet? If you have any objectivity you'll be amazed at how you've proven all its points.

[EDIT]

you're welcome here as long as you treat everyone else with respect.

Found this in the charter. I've been nothing but respectful. You on the other hand have accused me of trolling and attempting to cause offence, you also called my views bollix.

Brown Bomber

DeBunny wrote: »

"Every thing else aside" . . . . How convenient. Again you're avoiding the difficult questions and claiming you're being victimised.

No. "everything else aside for a minute" which is completely different but feel free to missattribute my posts if it helps make your case:rolleyes:

DeBunny wrote: »

Even if I wasn't a CTer, which I am, I would be well with in my rights to scrutinise CTer behaviour.

You can do whatever you like. However, this is not supposed to be the platform to do it. It is in the charter.

DeBunny wrote: »

Evidently you are not open to criticism. You mistake criticism of your views for a personal attack. You avoid the questions and whine about your feelings being hurt. Then you wonder why CT research isn't taken seriously?

Really? None of what you just posted actually happened

DeBunny wrote: »

You deliberately take offence in order to avoid scrutiny. In all other areas of research scrutiny and criticism is welcome and even, as in Yekah's case, sought after. But for some reason CT research has special protection. Your post further strengthens my point about CTers not being open to criticism and involving their emotions when their views are scrutinised. Thanks.

How on earth does what I just posted (ignoring the fact that you once again misinterpreted it) have any bearing WHATSOEVER ON ANY OTHER POSTER HERE? I represent myself and nobody else. Please answer this

DeBunny wrote: »

Seriously .... stop trying to martyr yourself and lets have a proper conversation. You're just re-enforcing the stereotype of a typical CTer.

No. You are misinterpreting my posts because your judgement is clouded by pre-concieved notions of what a "CTer" is/does/thinks. This is very clear to me.

DeBunny wrote: »

So . . . . have you watched the video yet? If you have any objectivity you'll be amazed at how you've proven all its points.

I told you, I already know what conformity is I don't need a youtube video to tell me what to think. Wasn't the challenge I laid down before this thread came about a test of conformity?


I had no interest in posting in this thread at all, I was just sharing a link with Torax until you jumped to conclusions on my post.

DeBunny

If I have pre-concieved notions of a typical CTer then, unfortunately, you've just reinforced these notions. Why not prove me wrong?

Not that I needed it, but you've just further reinforced all my points.

The video obviously isn't a dictionary definition of conformity. Why not just watch it?

Brown Bomber

DeBunny wrote: »

I am obviously not trolling nor am I making an attempt to insult people. The fact that you are accusing me of this says a lot. Not to mention that it proves some of the points made in the video.

I didn't mean to imply that you were trolling. What I tried to make clear that the purpose of these threads are clear, to get peoples backs up. That is what i consider trolling

DeBunny wrote: »

You are obviously not open to criticism.

You feel you know me well enough from some anonymous posts on the internet to make a qualified judgement on my personality????

DeBunny wrote: »

The fact that you made no reference to the OP shows this, further proving the point of the OP.

The fact that I did negates your point.

DeBunny wrote: »

CT research, if it wants to be taken seriously and shake off it's negative connotations, could learn a lot from the likes of engineering research. For example, Yekah's attempts to look for criticism in his own research. How many CT researchers would be brave enough, or have enough objectivity to do this? You conveniently avoided this part of Yekah's post.

What is "CT research" and "CT researchers"????

Taken as a whole this paragraph makes little sense to me.

DeBunny wrote: »

When it comes to me questioning my group, well, to be honest you could count me as one of your own, wahey!

DeBunny wrote: »

I find CTs fascinating. I started a thread here looking for CTs that had been proven. I think there is a lot of questions to answered in regards to 911, the Iraq war was obviously a conspiracy.

Mainstream views now though to be fair. Hardly going out on a limb.

DeBunny wrote: »

But I don't get emotionally involved, as so many other CTers do. .

Unsubstantiated generalisation

DeBunny wrote: »

I also don't accept the pessimistic world view that so many CTers seem to have.

More unsubstantiated generalisations. FWIW I am the most optimistic person I know, have been since I was a kid.

DeBunny wrote: »

You mentioned hostility, you are the only one here who has been hostile. If you want conspiracy theories to be taken seriously you have to be open to criticism, but if you somehow confuse people looking for frank and open discussion for being Machiavellian () then I won't hold my breath.

Look I am sure you mean well but your in general terms your discussing a stereotype which doesn't exist and in doing so your insulting half the posters here with every broad brushstroke and generalisation you make. Nobody here knows enough about anyone else to formulate conclusive opinions of each other. I wasn't trying to have a go at you, it was the troll threads that according to the charter have no place here, for good reason as they bring these generalisations to the fore.

DeBunny

It seems no matter what I do you'll find some way to find offence at some thing.
Nothing I said was an attack on you or CTers, and guess what? Generalisations do not amount to insults so stop making an effort to be insulted.

You are deliberately taking offence in order to avoid the issue.

What did you think of the video?