The psychological payoff of refusing to consider "conspiracy theories"

[taffboy gwyrdd]

The psychological payoff of constantly knocking "conspiracy theories"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/september11

This is a very sober piece in response to a Charlie Brooker rant (not his first) against those who question the official 911 narrative.

A very common, and somewhat smug approach is for those that believe the US government (read those last 4 words again) to try and psychoanalyse people they have never met rather than neccessarily look at some of the knowns and unknowns of the case.

So "conspiracists" like to feel "special" or "superior" or "cant handle" reality and want to construct a false and simplistic version.

This piece counters that argument, while accepting there is some truth in it:

Brooker's line belongs to a mini-genre of attempts to explain the public's willingness to entertain conspiracy theories in psychological terms. Indeed he is very close to that stern rationalist Melanie Phillips, who has decided that, in the absence of religion, conspiracy theories satisfy "our desperate need to make order out of chaos".

The conspiratorial world view does have its consolations. But so does Brooker's. There's a certain pleasure and drama in declaring that the world is driven by incompetence and error, and that things are more or less as they seem. You can preen yourself on how well-adjusted you are, how you haven't fallen for that stuff about lizards, or Illuminati. You have learned to live without magic. You're saying "I don't believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories", but you are signalling that you are sceptical and rational and that you don't have personal hygiene issues. There's a psychological pay-off for both the cock-up and the conspiracy theory of history.

 

[danny la rouge]

Charlie Brooker is an unfunny Guardian columnist trying to be funny. I never read him. It is even more unlikely that I'd read a response to one of his columns. I respectfully recommend this approach.

 

[MullahNasrudin]

I though that piece hit the nail on the head. Brooker is criticising the conspiracy theorists for being certain (and smug) about their ideas that explain the world in simplistic terms.

But he's just as certain (and smug) that the world is chaotic and no-one is in overall control.

Funnily enough, I saw Brooker in town last week -- he was dressed from head to toe in some sort of designer khaki and looked 'well weapon'. He was in the company of a woman who I would guess is a producer working for his TV company Zeppotron.

Charlie Brooker is the real Nathan Barley and I claim my five pounds.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I think Brooker absolutely rocks as a matter of fact. ScreenWipe was one of the best series on TV last year and I dont know why the Beeb aint brought it back.

He just happens to be a bit wrong on this, and Im mildly disappointed at MullahNasrudins description of his dress sense.

The other night I was talking to a cartoonist who I really respect, It was quite a broad discussion and I thought Id try and gently skirt round 911 - knowing it can really get peoples backs up. Suddenly he became venomous, he said he hadnt looked into it, he couldnt be bothered and then (he was pissed to be fair) started leering that I must think it was "jews". Its not the first time Ive experienced this kind of odd knee-jerk approach, though usually it is online.

These boards are rife with the same approach. I dont mind people discussing this or that from different angles, but the amount of vile insults that come from people on this issue always struck me as peculiar.

There are lots of reasons for it I guess, but there seems to be a degree of thought censorship on the part of people that would never ever be like that with other issues.

 

[butchersapron]

"Brooker's line belongs to a mini-genre of attempts to explain the public's willingness to entertain conspiracy theories in psychological terms" - this same theme, of the public embracing conspiracy theories on 911 reappears towards the end of the piece "Melanie Phillips and Charlie Brooker will doubtless continue to heap scorn on an irrational public." The assumption being of course that 'the public' are on the side of the loons/are loons. I don't think that's true at all. I think the vast majority fo the public do not buy into any of the various conspiracy schemes, and see the 911 events pretty much along the lines of the official narrative. That's why people like you catch so much flak taffboy, because very few people agree with you or take the calims you and your comrades make seriously. Not becasue the public agree with you.

It's also a transparent 6th form debating trick, attempting to phrase your case so that rather than it standing on its own merits it relies on an appearnce of majority agreement with you - and so to disagree with you is to spit in the faces of the public.

The banality that lies at the heart of the article ('some conspiracies do not happen') isn't really enough of an argument for believing any old tosh either - in fact, it's a dissapointing example of what he criticised Brooker for - scorning the public and their intellectual capabilities. That some conspiracy theories (not that there's any need to call normal political functioning consp[iracy theory (see another 6th form sleight of hand there) take place, he seems to argue means that he can pat the little people on the head when they dribble out the hologram theory etc saying well what else could the little darlings believe under such conditions...

 

[danny la rouge]

I think Brooker absolutely rocks as a matter of fact. ScreenWipe was one of the best series on TV last year and I dont know why the Beeb aint brought it back.
.

Because he's an irritating twat, and was getting death threats every time he moved face muscles?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Butchers

I agree that most people arent onside with the "conspiracists" and that term itself is unhelpful in that it is mis-used.

I also think a case needs to be examined on its own merits. Which is why this article is getting at something true - many people will decry a "CT" because it is a "CT" - fitting a preconcieved notion of what that means. A meme is out there now that does indeed equate CTs with holograms and the like. It is not based in fact, but neither is knee-jerk anti CT-ism.

What you allude to as the "normal workings of politics" could itself be a CT.

Elites probably conspire to rig economic or war events, coups etc. Well, actually its conspiracy fact.

The article cites the very basic case of the Iraq war lies. Thas just scratching the surface of the concocted lies of the controlled media, be they racists, warmongering or any other kind of lies.

The active word in "conspiracy theory" is "theory". Garner some facts towards demonstrating the theory and it becomes a "conspiracy possibility". Proove it beyond reasonable and you are on to "conspiracy fact".

It goes without saying that most things known to be "conspiracy facts" started out as "conspiracy theories" - the Iraq lies are perhaps a sewn up example of that. It is still shocking to see the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld forcefully denying saying things they directly said. They know the Goebellian model that lies become truth when repeated enough. Details that turn up later dont figure in the public mindset so much.

This is the anniversary of Jean Charles De Menezes death. The states first instint was to lie. It is not a conspiracy THEORY that the police and papers lied about his clothing, running, wires etc. it is a blunt fact.

What type of state treats us like we are that stupid? The type of state that many "radicals" so quickly rush to defend if one dares to suggest that secret services aint always working for the best.

 

[frogwoman]

i can't take seriously anyone who calls Melanie Phillips a "stern rationalist" joking or not.

She is the one who thinks that weapons of mass destruction did exist in iraq and that the british and american governments were involved in a conspiracy with the arabs to move them to Syria!

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

LOL

I have only just seen the "sticky" atop this board.

Due to the fact that they cause huge quantities of timewasting, posted threads relating to "conspiracy theories" regarding 911, London bombings etc in this forum will be summarily deleted unless they offer new information - please note that "new information" here does not cover new theories or anything apart from actual new, verifiable, credibly sourced facts.


Now, that might be fair enough of itself, but hang on - are CTs the only issue that involve repetition and time wasting?

How about banning threads for endless leftist naval gazing and revealing the sacred mystery that capitalism is a bit crap? How many of those offer "new information"?

"All moderating decisions are final"

Fair enough, its a privately own and run board.

"Argument regarding this policy will be deleted and persistent offenders banned"

Again, thats a private decision but it does raise questions about censorship on a board that is usually pretty devoid of it. Why is analysing, for example, a state account of terror events so utterly utterly remis?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

i can't take seriously anyone who calls Melanie Phillips a "stern rationalist" joking or not.

She is the one who thinks that weapons of mass destruction did exist in iraq and that the british and american governments were involved in a conspiracy with the arabs to move them to Syria!

She is certainly stern, and she thinks she's rational. That rates 60 to 70% of the description. I detest her though, there are few things worse than slightly intelligent people passing themselves off as virtually genius.

 

[ddraig]

censorship would ve instant deletion and banning of any posters

 

[frogwoman]

She is certainly stern, and she thinks she's rational. That rates 60 to 70% of the description. I detest her though, there are few things worse than slightly intelligent people passing themselves off as virtually genius.

She's fucking mental whether she "thinks" she is or not

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

She's fucking mental whether she "thinks" she is or not

innit

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

censorship would ve instant deletion and banning of any posters

The policy says threads will be deleted and does threaten banning.. I dont know if its happened. I dont much care, I can see a need to do it if there got too many threads or someone is a persistant troll on any issue, not just CTs.

But there is easily room for an all purpose 911 thread I would have thought.

I gather it is a rather important historical event.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

There's certainly room for all of the 911 threads anyone might wish. You can probably guess exactly where that room is though.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

There's certainly room for all of the 911 threads anyone might wish. You can probably guess exactly where that room is though.

Regardless of your mod status, do you recognise its historical significance and people might want to discuss aspects surrounding the event?

I know you indicate in the Sticky that you dont really want this policy discussed or criticised but why would (what may be) endless vacuous 911 threads so different from (what may be) endless vacuous threads about the SW chuffing P?

 

[danny la rouge]

To be fair, there have been many, many threads discussing the events surrounding 9-11. One I started in the TV forum turned into one. And most amusing it was, too.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Regardless of your mod status, do you recognise its historical significance and people might want to discuss aspects surrounding the event?

I know you indicate in the Sticky that you dont really want this policy discussed or criticised but why would (what may be) endless vacuous 911 threads so different from (what may be) endless vacuous threads about the SW chuffing P?

Because they're stupider and they last longer and they attract worse lunatics and they multiply.

Actually we have had restrictions on SWP threads at times.

 

[fela fan]

I though that piece hit the nail on the head. Brooker is criticising the conspiracy theorists for being certain (and smug) about their ideas that explain the world in simplistic terms.

But he's just as certain (and smug) that the world is chaotic and no-one is in overall control.

Exactly.

Good name by the way...

 

[fela fan]

These boards are rife with the same approach. I dont mind people discussing this or that from different angles, but the amount of vile insults that come from people on this issue always struck me as peculiar.

There are lots of reasons for it I guess, but there seems to be a degree of thought censorship on the part of people that would never ever be like that with other issues.

Hence your hints in the thread title.

I find it always interesting in a psychological aspect. I have my own understandings of this phenomenon...

 

[HackneyE9]

You should read the introduction to Robin Ramsay's "Conspiracy Theories" - explains how and why it's a term of abuse.

The problem with the anti-CT bridage, to whom I would add Simon Hoggart, who is obsessed with it, is that it's not a zero/sum game.

Thus I can believe there are unanswered consiracies arouond JFK, RFK, MLK but I don't believe there are around UFOs, Diana, 9-11 and the moon landings.

Surely it's more "reassuring" to believe that a lone nutter kiled JFK for no reason, than that other forces killed the president of the US and got away with it for 40 years? Which is quite worrying, IMO. And doubly so for his brother and MLK.

 

[fela fan]

The assumption being of course that 'the public' are on the side of the loons/are loons. I don't think that's true at all. I think the vast majority fo the public do not buy into any of the various conspiracy schemes, and see the 911 events pretty much along the lines of the official narrative. That's why people like you catch so much flak taffboy, because very few people agree with you or take the calims you and your comrades make seriously. Not becasue the public agree with you.

You think the vast majority of the public don't buy this or that eh?

Firstly i presume you're presuming upon the british public?

Coz that just is not the case in other countries, nor i suspect, britain either. There's a very healthy scepticism amongst the british public, if not the government and various urban posters, towards the actions of the USG on the world stage.

On what basis do you claim the 'vast' majority of the public accept the 'official narrative'?? British or everyone.

I think you've fucked up with your spokesman-type role on this topic.

 

[fela fan]

It's like the political language Orwell spoke of. Pat phrases and euphemisms to hide the reality of life. Those that speak of it hide behind the fixed meanings of these phrases (conspiracty theorist; liberal; commie; insurgent), and those that hear it access the same fixed meaning. Debate is shut down by such phrases.

The heart of the issue is denied all by intransigent thinking. Language has been used to stifle free opinion. It is the british way. Conforming, and rules, are the mainstay.

But, the question remains, why do posters get so agitated by threads like these? And this frequently occurs well before any of the threads deteriorate. They begin that decaying process.

Political language is well worth exploring, as orwell did. You can see it a mile off: when someone arrives with a personal put-down. Forget the actual debate. That's politics. It's ugly.

 

[danny la rouge]

Thus I can believe there are unanswered consiracies arouond JFK, RFK, MLK but I don't believe there are around UFOs, Diana, 9-11 and the moon landings.

There are, of course, conspiracies. They do happen. And there are cover ups. And cock ups. And governments do lie.

However, in modern usage, a Conspiracy Theory is a set of bizarre beliefs which will admit of no contrary evidence, and which builds ever more weird and wonderful stories to "explain" away the facts.

WTC 7 is a case in point. On first glance, there is footage of a tower apparently collapsing in a suspiciously uniform way. Anyone with normal curiosity will want to know more. However, even cursory glance at the evidence soon shows there is nothing odd going on. First, the famous footage is only from one side; the fire, smoke, and buckling structure at the back is not in the famous footage. Second, it had been hit by huge chunks of sky scraper and burned for hours ... and so on.

Any rational person will soon see there is no conspiracy. The Conspiracy Theorist, however, is not satisfied with facts, and, undaunted by evidence, constructs an elaborate plot unhindered by simpled minded fools such as Occam.

It is this mindset that people disdain when they say they don't hold with Conspiracy Theories.

 

[editor]

Coz that just is not the case in other countries, nor i suspect, britain either. There's a very healthy scepticism amongst the british public, if not the government and various urban posters, towards the actions of the USG on the world stage.

Is that the same British public you were describing as "supine" a while ago?

 

[fela fan]

However, in modern usage, a Conspiracy Theory is a set of bizarre beliefs which will admit of no contrary evidence, and which builds ever more weird and wonderful stories to "explain" away the facts.

On the contrary, i believe the term 'conspiracy theory', and all its lexical cousins, says more about the speaker than his/her intended listeners.

It is they who are espousing fixed ideas, not necessarily the people they deride. This is the interesting psychological angle to the topic.

 

[fela fan]

Is that the same British public you were describing as "supine" a while ago?

You dug a quote of me up from two and a half years ago...???!!!

 

[bluestreak]

The psychological payoff of refusing the consider conspiracy theories is that you never find yourself agreeing with people who believe that there are two suns, that jews eat babies, that 20foot lizards live inside major public figures, that despite galactic distances we appear to live on a celestial main road, or that immigration policy is about removing the white man from the face of the planet.

 

[fela fan]

The psychological payoff of refusing the consider conspiracy theories is that you never find yourself agreeing with people who believe that there are two suns, that jews eat babies, that 20foot lizards live inside major public figures, that despite galactic distances we appear to live on a celestial main road, or that immigration policy is about removing the white man from the face of the planet.

Well, whatever label you could send my way, i can assuredly confirm that i've never even talked about any of those things, never mind thinking how to react to them.

Conspiracy carries lots of connotational baggage. And language as used by people is always psychologically influenced. The people who use these fixed-meaning terms are taking steps to avoid having to defend their own theory that it was most certainly, must have been, without any argument, the 'official narrative', that the US authorities engaged in this huge cock-up. This is simply the truth, the fact, the non-CT view. Any other view is 'bonkers'.

Such a strong view! So political!

 

[bluestreak]

Fortunately I am blessed with critical faculties, so I need neither to believe the official version nor the bonkers versions.

You may be aware that there are many, often mutually exclusive versions of the conspiracy. They range from relatively sane but lacking any evidence, to having evidence that is at odds with other versions that also have evidence, through to scientifically impossible or improbable. Given that there are so many varients to choose from, a wise man would steer clear of choosing one I would suggest.