Why do people believe conspiracy theories?

[muir]

A bigger but associated idea in relation to conspiracy theories, in relation to any theory like it pretty much, whether its labelled leitmotif, Weltanschauung, metanarrative, is not simply why people believe them but what consequences it has.

The result of exposing the forces subverting our political and economic system is a lack of faith in the corrupted government and a reassertion of the rights of the people...hence all the protests around the world

If we are to wrestle control off the psychopaths who are destroying our economy and our environment then we need to reassert ourselves so truth seeking and truth speaking is a necesary part of that process

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=4108]Radiant Shadow[/MENTION] (I mentioned you since you were interested in shamanism.)

Joseph Campbell did some comparative work with Dr. John Perry on schizophrenia and its relation with Jungian mythological archetypes on the collective unconscious.

According to my thinking, they were the universal, archetypal, psychologically based symbolic themes and motifs of all traditional mythologies; and now from this paper of Dr. Perry I was learning that the same symbolic figures arise spontaneously from the broken-off, tortured state of mind of modern individuals suffering from a complete schizophrenic breakdown: the condition of one who has lost touch with the life and thought of his community and is compulsively fantasizing out of his own completely cut-off base.

This leans towards an investigation into how primitive societies had dealt with issues of schizophrenia and shamanic healing practices.

Dr. Perry and Mr. Murphy introduced me to a paper on "Shamans and Acute Schizophrenia," by Dr. Julian Silverman of the National Institute of Mental Health, which had appeared in 1967 in the American Anthropologist, and there again I found something of the greatest interest and of immediate relevance to my studies and thinking. In my own writings I had already pointed out that among primitive hunting peoples it is largely from the psychological experiences of shamans that the mythic imagery and rituals of their ceremonial life derive. The shaman is a person (either male or female) who in early adolescence underwent a severe psychological crisis, such as today would be called a psychosis. Normally the child's apprehensive family sends for an elder shaman to bring the youngster out of it, and by appropriate measures, songs, and exercises, this experienced practitioner succeeds. As Dr. Silverman remarks and demonstrates in his paper, "In primitive cultures in which such a unique life crisis resolution is tolerated, the abnormal experience (shamanism) is typically beneficial to the individual, cognitively and affectively; he is regarded as one with expanded consciousness." Whereas, on the contrary, in such a rationally ordered culture as our own-or, to phrase the proposition again in Dr. Silverman's words, "in a culture that does not provide referential guides for comprehending this kind of crisis experience, the individual (schizophrenic) typically undergoes an intensification of his suffering over and above his original anxieties."

Then he gives a case study.

Igjugarjuk was a Caribou Eskimo shaman of a tribe inhabiting the North Canadian tundras. When young, he had been visited constantly by dreams that he could not interpret. Strange unknown beings came and spoke to him; and when he woke he remembered all so vividly that he could describe to his friends and family exactly what he had seen. The family, disturbed, but knowing what was happening, sent for an old shaman named Peqanaoq, who, on diagnosing the case, placed the youngster on a sledge just large enough for him to sit on, and in the depth of winter-the absolutely dark and freezing Arctic winter night-dragged him far out onto a lonely Arctic waste and built for him there a tiny snow hut with barely room for him to sit cross-legged. He was not allowed to set foot on the snow, but was lifted from the sledge into the hut and there set down on a piece of skin just large enough to contain him. No food or drink was left with him. He was instructed to think only of the Great Spirit, who would presently appear, and was left there alone for thirty days. After five days the elder returned with a drink of lukewarm water, and after another fifteen, with a second drink and with a bit of meat. But that was all. The cold and the fasting were so severe that, as Igjugarjuk told Rasmussen, "sometimes I died a little." And during all that time he was thinking, thinking, thinking of the Great Spirit, until, toward the end of the ordeal, a helping spirit did in fact arrive in the form of a woman who seemed to hover in the air above him. He never saw her again, but she became his helping spirit. The elder shaman then brought him home, where he was required to diet and fast for another five months; and, as he told his Danish guest, such fasts, often repeated, are the best means of attaining to a knowledge of hidden things. "The only true wisdom," lgjugarjuk said, "lives far from mankind, out in the great loneliness, and can be reached only through suffering. Privation and suffering alone open the mind of a man to all that is hidden to others."

In his article on shamanism Dr. Silverman had distinguished two very different types of schizophrenia. One he calls "essential schizophrenia"; the other, "paranoid schizophrenia"; and it is in essential schizophrenia alone that analogies appear with what I have termed "the shaman crisis." In essential schizophrenia the characteristic pattern is of withdrawal from the impacts of experience in the outside world. There is a narrowing of concern and focus. The object world falls back and away, and invasions from the unconscious overtake and overwhelm one. In "paranoid schizophrenia," on the other hand, the person remains alert and extremely sensitive to the world and its events, interpreting all, however, in terms of his own projected fantasies, fears, and terrors, and with a sense of being in danger from assaults. The assaults, actually, are from within, but he projects them outward, imagining that the world is everywhere on watch against him. This, states Dr. Silverman, is not the type of schizophrenia that leads to the sorts of inward experience that are analogous to those of shamanism. "It is as if the paranoid schizophrenic," he explains, "unable to comprehend or tolerate the stark terrors of his inner world, prematurely directs his attention to the outside world. In this type of abortive crisis solution, the inner chaos is not, so to speak, worked through, or is not capable of being worked through." The lunatic victim is at large, so to say, in the field of his own projected unconscious.

This is in accord with my belief of 'conspiracy theorizing' to be a manifestation of paranoid schizophrenia, or as I said earlier in this thread, "emotionally stunted individuals in the world who need to project their anxieties into a form of social paranoia as a defense mechanism."

The psychologist who has best dealt with these, best described and best interpreted them, is Carl G. Jung, who terms them "archetypes of the collective unconscious," as pertaining to those structures of the psyche that are not the products of merely individual experience but are common to all mankind. In his view, the basal depth or layer of the psyche is an expression of the instinct system of our species, grounded in the human body, its nervous system and wonderful brain. All animals act instinctively. They act also, of course, in ways that have to be learned, and in relation to circumstance; yet every species differently, according to its "nature." Watch a cat enter a living room, and then, for example, a dog. Each is moved by impulses peculiar to its species, and these, finally, are the ultimate shapers of its life. And so man too is governed and determined. He has both an inherited biology and a personal biography, the "archetypes of the unconscious" being
expressions of the first. The repressed personal memories, on the other hand, of the shocks, frustrations, fears, etc., of infancy, to which the Freudian school gives such
attention, Jung distinguishes from that other and calls the "personal unconscious." As the first is biological and common to the species, so this second is biographical, socially determined, and specific to each separate life. Most of our dreams and daily difficulties will derive, of course, from the latter; but in a schizophrenic plunge one descends to the "collective," and the imagery there experienced is largely of the order of the archetypes of myth.

This article is a reprint of a chapter in Campbell's book, Myths to Live By. The chapter, not the entire book, is available online here: http://www.mindspring.com/~berks-healing/campbell-schiz.pdf

 

[muir]

All these people speak about the same thing but they use different language

So Jung would talk about the unconscious mind and the collective unconscious

Shamans would talk about the spirit world

Magicians would talk about the astral realm

UFOlogists might talk about different dimensions

Icke would talk about the 'cosmic internet' and so on

So there are two ways to go regarding these matters

You can go the way of dismissing dreams and altered states of consciousness as 'unscientific' and 'schizophrenic' and 'irrational' and so on and all these terms are heavily loaded with negative connotations in our society

OR

You can go the other way of realising that for as long as man has been around he/she has been experiencing dreams and altered states of consciousness as part of his/her everyday life and that not only is there a connection between that inner world and our outer 'physical' world but that by working with the visions we can bridge the gap between our conscious and unconscious minds

here's the thing...a lot of human creativity comes from the unconscious mind...all the best art...all the best music, poetry, myths, stories, paitings and so on are all birthed from the unconscious mind and that the very things that help us to better understand ourselves and which add colour and interest to our lives are these things born of this relationship with our unconscious mind

Even science these days is now, at its cutting edge, beginning to explore the ideas that mystics have been talking about for millenia for example the holographic universe idea

Many scientists even had their break through ideas through dreams

The problem in our current society is that a group of people who fear human creativity have sought to block people off from their relationship with the unconscious mind...more in my next post

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

I don't think you understand at all what I just said or what I'm trying to tell you.

 

[muir]

The roman catholic church were one of the main groups seeking to detach people from their unconscious mind. All thoughts coming from the unconscious mind have been demonised and laden with guilt causing all sorts of mental health problems

The catholic church did this to stop people having their own spiritual experiences for exampole through the use of entheogenic plants

This involves the use of these plants to alter consciousness to a state likened to schizophrenia but unlike schizophrenia it brings benefits to the persons life as it allows insights into the human condition

Schizophrenia is a debilitative condition due to its prolonged nature but also because it is not advantageous in a heavily regulated society where access to the unconscious mind is demonised

Now these matters are relating to the spiritual and the magickal and are not directly related to the phenomena of 'conspiracy theorising'

For example there are many people who are not exactly what some would define as 'irrational', 'tree hugging', 'airy fairy' types who are leaking information about government cover ups for example Julian Assange or Edward Snowden or Chris Hedges or Noam Chomsky...none of which would be described as schizophrenic but whcih nonetheless are discussing conspiracies

What does sometimes happen however is that people who have developed a greater relationship with their uncosncious mind then often begin to see the world in a different way. Once they begin questioning why they feel out of synch with the world they begin a journey of exploration looking for answers as to why the world is the way it is

This then leads them to the writings of peope like Noam Chomsky, Chris hedges, John Pilger and so on

The person then finds out that their suspicion that the world is not quite how it should be is then supported by the writings of these intellectuals and journalists and academics who are saying that yes indeed the world is being shaped by unscrupulous people with nefarious agendas usually revolving around maintaing heavily unequal societies

The government likes to try and call people who expose its lies 'crazy' but those that are aware of the government lies know that people like Daniel ellsberg, noam chomsky, julian assange, edward snowden and so on are not crazy but in fact just aware of what the government is upto

So exploring what the government is doing does not make someone a 'paranoid schizophrenic' lol it makes them a responsibile citizen who believes that an aware and knowledgable citizenry should act as a check and balance on the abuses of power of government

Arguably the insane people in terms of managing to delude themselves are the people who are unable to acknowledge the criminal behaviours of powerful people despite increasing numbers of stories of corruption in high places now pouring into the mainstream news on a daily basis proving the sanity of the 'conspiracy theorists' more with each new scandal

 

[muir]

@muir

I don't think you understand at all what I just said or what I'm trying to tell you.

Well what it appears like to me is that you are missunderstanding what Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung were saying and that you are trying to make a blanket statement that anyone who questions the offical government line is a paranoid schizophrenic who is emotionally stunted lol and is speaking the truth as a defence mechanism

because in a deluded society...to speak the truth makes you an outcast

 

[Matt3737]

Well what it appears to me like is that you are missunderstanding what Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung were saying and that you are trying to make a blanket statement that anyone who questions the offical government line is a paranoid schizophrenic who is emotionally stunted lol and is speaking the truth as a defence mechanism

because in a deluded society...to speak the truth makes you an outcast

[MENTION=6042]Izan[/MENTION] and I already had that discussion in which you have conveniently forgotten about:

I didn't generalize to all. I acknowledge that there are things that I am either undecided about or decidedly incorrect about. I didn't define what constitutes a 'conspiracy theory' or not, simply that they exist and my belief as to why. I am though, as you might have assumed, more conservative against most of what might be deemed a conspiracy theory although I still have the decency to acknowledge that I am potentially incorrect whereas the worst brand of conspiracy theorists show little to no respect for others' interpretations.

Edit: To be clear, just in case, for those 'horse shit' theories (as you say) that pop up my explanation follows....emotionally stunted individuals who project anxiety onto other people to serve as scapegoats.

You will simply dismiss this as you are so want to do.

 

[muir]

@Izan and I already had that discussion in which you have conveniently forgotten about:

You will simply dismiss this as you are so want to do.

No....what i am dismissing is the one size fits all blanket dismissal of people who question the government

Look man....you need to realise how dangerous that is to do that

I am not being melodramatic to use the word 'dangerous' either

It is ABSOLUTELY vital that we as a society do not make the public space a hostile place to people who want to expose the abuses of power

Not only our own freedoms, jobs, economy, safety, health and so on are dependent on the public being able at this time in history to tackle the corruption at the top of our society but also the people who are being abused and murdered by the corrupt people at the top of our society rely on the abuses being stopped

if you think that an individual theory that someone is presenting to you is nonsense then you have a right to say so but to say that all theories are by default insane if they do not correlate with the official government line is extremely dangerous for our society

if you think an individual who is telling you a theory might be crazy then you are welcome to think that but to brand all people do not agree with the offical government line on matters 'crazy' is extremely dangerous behaviour because it shuts down dialogue in our society that needs to happen if we are to prevent abuses of power

Take each theory and each theorist as they come, but to tar them all with broad stroke statements is....well i can't even find the words to describe what that is frankly....i'll go with dangerous

 

[Matt3737]

No....what i am dismissing is the one size fits all blanket dismissal of people who question the government

You don't understand because you do not want to understand. I agree with you, because I said exactly as much and yet you still think otherwise.

I didn't generalize to all.

 

[muir]

You don't understand because you do not want to understand. I agree with you, because I said exactly as much and yet you still think otherwise.

I am very happy to give you a fair hearing but what i cannot wrap my head around is the amount of energy people expend trying to attack conspiracy theorists when they expend ZERO energy attacking the government and corporations who are the real cause of their problems

So...what's you theory man...i'm all ears

 

[Matt3737]

I am very happy to give you a fair hearing but what i cannot wrap my head around is the amount of energy people expend trying to attack conspiracy theorists when they expend ZERO energy attacking the government and corproations who are the real cause of their problems

Why does everything have to be about 'attacking' something?

 

[muir]

Why does everything have to be about 'attacking' something?

It doesn't...you don't war for peace you peace for peace and so on...

What i am saying is that a lot of people expend a lot of energy attacking people who are trying to discuss whats going on when those same people expend no energy on trying to make a positive change to the world

That behaviour is worse than burying the head in the sand because it is actually fighting the very truth that would set them free

I said i can't wrap my head around it but that's not entirely accurate...i do understand what it is...its peoples defence mechanisms coming up to face challenges to their currently held perceptions...i call it 'self policing' when people do the work of the powerful and shut down people that are actually on their side

Its like starving peasants attacking other protesting peasants thereby saving the fuedal lord from having to do the work of suppressing challenges to their power so that they can sell the grain for a healthy profit instead of feeding the hungry (see irish potato famine)

They rely on it...its called 'divide and conquer' and its why they sow the seeds of discord all the time amongst the general populace who are then unwilling to unite in common cause thereby keeping themselves in poverty and drudgery

if you shut down truth telling then you are doing the work of the government and powerful interests for them whether you consciously realise it or not

 

[Mary Shelley]

That behaviour is worse than burying the head in the sand because it is actually fighting the very truth that would set them free

The problem there is that when we don't agree on the truth, we also don't agree on the harm.

As an example, I think it's quite harmful to tell people that vaccines are part of a government conspiracy and that they cause autism, infertility, or AIDS. The negative consequences of this lie are deep and far reaching. So, while it would be nice to "bury my head in the sand" (and just ignore or dismiss conspiracy theorists as fringe lunatics), occasionally some of their stories gain traction, go "viral", and cause severe harm en masse. When we see that this is happening and stand by in silence, we become accomplice to this harm.

 

[muir]

The problem there is that when we don't agree on the truth, we also don't agree on the harm.

As an example, I think it's quite harmful to tell people that vaccines are part of a government conspiracy and that they cause autism, infertility, or AIDS. The negative consequences of this lie are deep and far reaching. So, while it would be nice to "bury my head in the sand" (and just ignore or dismiss conspiracy theorists as fringe lunatics), occasionally some of their stories gain traction, go "viral", and cause severe harm en masse. When we see that this is happening and stand by in silence, we become accomplice to this harm.

Well i'm going to take it that you are speaking with the best intentions in mind

I'm going to ask you to try and understand that i am also speaking with the best intentions

At the moment your perceptions are that the people who run big pharma and the government mean well

My perception is that the people behind big pharma and the government do not mean well

One of us is wrong

before you pass any judgement regarding which one of us is wrong can i please request that you watch the last documentary that i posted in the vaccine thread?

It contains not only many testimonials from parents and children but in between these are also interviews with doctors and scientists who explain the dangers of vaccines

The issue is not as simple as whether or not you think vaccinations as a technology can be used in a beneficial way the issue is more complicated than that because it has been clouded by various influences not least of which is MONEY

The government has passed laws to protect big pharma from being sued....it has been given special dispensation from the legal system thereby removing the accountability that is supposed to keep wrongdoing in check...they're not accountable

Also in the documentary are segments of congressional hearings that you might find interesting

So all i ask is that before you dismiss my concerns over the unholy trinity of government, big pharma and regulatory bodies such as the CDC, is that you give the evidence i am presenting a fair hearing

If you do not look at it then in my eyes your objections to my postition on the matter are simply a biased, subjective view not informed by both sides of the debate

[video=youtube;fVwLo3lmKyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVwLo3lmKyo[/video]

 

[Mary Shelley]

At the moment your perceptions are that the people who run big pharma and the government mean well

My perception is that the people behind big pharma and the government do not mean well

This is inaccurate. My perception is that corporations are in business to make a profit. They are in essence required by law to attempt to make a profit so I think it is a well founded perspective.

I don't find personification and anthropomorphism of corporations nor of governments to be beneficial to an objective view of the world. Just as an atheist is neither for nor against gods, I am neither for nor against these corporations and governments. But I do think that what you've hit on a defining trait of conspiracy theorists.

 

[muir]

This is inaccurate. My perception is that corporations are in business to make a profit. They are in essence required by law to attempt to make a profit so I think it is a well founded perspective.

I don't find personification and anthropomorphism of corporations nor of governments to be beneficial to an objective view of the world. Just as an atheist is neither for nor against gods, I am neither for nor against these corporations and governments. But I do think that what you've hit on a defining trait of conspiracy theorists.

Atheists actually are denying god....i think you mean agnostics

I'm not sure what you're meaning regarding the corporations....are you referring to corporate personhood?

What i am saying is that the regulators AND the government are corrupt and therefore when big pharma do not behave with the best interests of the public at heart there is no one to protect the public because the regulators and the government and big pharma are all in bed together

This same problem occured in the financial markets where it transpired that the regulators such as the Financial Services Authority have been asleep at the wheel (or more correctly they have been turning a blind eye) as have the government allowing multiple scandals to continue and flourish into much larger problems such as the housing crash of 2008

Regulators in many areas are being proven to be no more than a sham because they have been hijaked by big money interests allowing those interests to make money in ways that are extremely harmful to the wider public

 

[dogman6126]

A bigger but associated idea in relation to conspiracy theories, in relation to any theory like it pretty much, whether its labelled leitmotif, Weltanschauung, metanarrative, is not simply why people believe them but what consequences it has.

That's a good question. Personally I do agree that it does serve a purpose. It helps to come up with ideas that are unconventional, and are sometimes correct. As for the rest of their ideas, really its a small scale thing all around. They like to spread misinformation about so many things which obviously confuses the truth, but for those of our population that are actually educated, its not a problem. However, a lot of people (at least the ones that I know) recognize conspiracy theorists as too eccentric to be a reliable source of information, even though they themselves might not be educated on the subject. I would almost think someone looks into conspiracy theories because they almost want to believe it.
Really, I think conspiracy theorists do a lot of screaming and yelling, but of the people I know, they know better than to fall prey to conspiracy theorists smooth words and emotional videos. However I don't know a lot of people, and the people I consider friends are all people who are in college which is of course a biased sample.

 

[the]

One thing conspiracy theorists have in common is that they know where all the longest articles are at online, and to prove their ideas they will cut and paste to no end.

 

[dogman6126]

Even science these days is now, at its cutting edge, beginning to explore the ideas that mystics have been talking about for millenia for example the holographic universe idea

Oh, I'm interested in this. Please, can you tell me where mystics a thousand years ago were talking about quantum theory and the interactions of subatomic particles? I would be very much impressed.

Many scientists even had their break through ideas through dreams

Sure they had breakthrough ideas, but compare those break through ideas in dreams to the number of dreams that are complete fantasy. Its a matter of probability, nothing more.

 

[muir]

That's a good question. Personally I do agree that it does serve a purpose. It helps to come up with ideas that are unconventional, and are sometimes correct. As for the rest of their ideas, really its a small scale thing all around. They like to spread misinformation about so many things which obviously confuses the truth, but for those of our population that are actually educated, its not a problem. However, a lot of people (at least the ones that I know) recognize conspiracy theorists as too eccentric to be a reliable source of information, even though they themselves might not be educated on the subject. I would almost think someone looks into conspiracy theories because they almost want to believe it.
Really, I think conspiracy theorists do a lot of screaming and yelling, but of the people I know, they know better than to fall prey to conspiracy theorists smooth words and emotional videos. However I don't know a lot of people, and the people I consider friends are all people who are in college which is of course a biased sample.

Lol

so conspiracy theorists are uneducated!

That's their problem is it?

Wow you have got some serious learning to do man

Oh and by the way i have 2 degrees and a bunch of extra qualifications and sometimes to get wise we actually have to unlearn some fo the stuff the system puts in our heads

Education often means indoctrination...so education is not the final word

What do you have?

There ARE however missinfo agents out there...absolutely!

They are put there by the government and the big money interests

The chinese government have an army of propagandists called the '50 centers' because they are paid 50 cents for each pro-government post they make online

The israeli government recruits students to post pro-zionist propaganda online

The US pays military people who to go onto chatrooms using multiple usernames

In the US this came in the wake of a paper written by a government advisor called Cass Sunstein. here's some info from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

"Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[SUP][30][/SUP] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[SUP][30][/SUP] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups."
The authors declare that there are five responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."
Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[SUP][30][/SUP] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators[SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][32][/SUP] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[SUP][33][/SUP] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.

So yes there are missinfo agents out there which is why people should question theorists and also do their research

A snake oil salesman does not like to be questioned because they are trying to sell you thin air (well oil...but you know what i mean)

So if you suspect a theorist is a missinfo agent then question them and research into their claims

This is advised even in academia to cross reference sources and to check for bias especially when reading historical documents

Did you know any of that stuff? before you blasted out your opinion onto the internet?