New Studies: ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ Sane; Government Dupes Crazy, Hostile
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
minority.
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent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.”
