This interesting, at least to me anyway, article by Dr. Kevin Barrett | PressTV |, posted by CLN “Conscious Life News”, is a must to be displayed here. It is nice to be placed in the sane category by some experts.
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more
conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than
conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the
negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic
wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss
historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists
todo (sic) not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”
Of course, regular readers of this blog will be well aware of my beliefs regarding the JFK assassination, 9/11 attacks and the current global warming debacle, being issues decidedly suspect in the validity of the “official” explanations.
Read the complete article here.
Also important is the fact that there are detractors who argue that this ‘Press TV’ authored article is basically propaganda and not supported by facts. I refer to the second ‘Related Articles’ item below. As they suggest, read it and make up your own minds.
However, please keep in mind that, just as they claim relevance of Iran influence on Press TV articles, this detraction is written by an employee of an organization whose mission statement is:
“Centreground Political Communications is a global communications consultancy providing insight and analysis of policy and public opinion, communications strategy development, campaign planning and execution.
Built around a team of senior strategists who worked with Prime Minister Tony Blair, we help our clients to find the centre ground of public opinion, understand it and win it convincingly to their cause.” (My emphasis).
So, there you go – you figure it out! As an aside, I have every confidence in the honesty and credibility of CLN. ‘Tony Blair’, not so.