Who believes in conspiracies? New research offers a theory

submitted by [deleted] from eurekalert.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]i_cansmellthat 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

"Hart hopes the research advances the understanding of why some people are more attracted to conspiracy theories than others."

Once they know why we are attracted to conspiracy theories, they will make sure to limit that attraction. This study is a conspiracy. /s

But seriously, who funds these studies?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I think that these conducted to try to find ways to condition evidence theorists who are looking into conspiracy's and "reform" or "condition" these folks back into complacency.

It used to be easy to suppress evidence theorists before the internet, because they could be ignored. Now they are trying to understand them to better develop strategies.

[–]magnora7 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Well the term "conspiracy theorist" was pushed by the CIA through the media starting in 1969, to delegitimize people who questioned the JFK assassination. They heavily associate "crazy person" with "conspiracy theorist" even though "conspiracy" is a legal term that essentially means the same as collusion.

Now I see OP posting dozens of articles with the word "conspiracy" in the headline every day, and running 2 conspiracy subs, almost as if with the intent to make saidit look like a "conspiracy website" so people will ignore it.

Part of the reason we made saidit was to get away from being forced to post anything controversial in /r/conspiracy. That word is used to delegitmize real discussions that need to be had. By framing them as "conspiracies" instead of just actual news, it re-frames the conversation in an unhelpful way.

Am I alone in seeing it this way? Maybe OP isn't doing this intentionally, but it's beginning to seem like it.

[–]i_cansmellthat 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I do agree with you in that if the word "conspiracy" is in the majority of titles when one comes to the opening page of the site, saidit will come across as a conspiracy website. Factual (or speculative) content that doesn't mesh with mainstream should be openly viewed and discussed without the crazy conspiracy theorist label. People seeking that will quickly go elsewhere if confronted by 10 articles titled with conspiracy.

That said, it could be that OP is just very enthusiastic and this is his/her thing. Maybe they didn't think about the implication of so many conspiracy related articles being linked.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I agree with your analysis and I've talked with OP and made my concerns clear. Hopefully they'll see why it's not helpful and change the wording of their contributions.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Hey man. I think OP is trying to do some kind of sociological study or tracking on how "conspiracy theorist" is viewed by MSM or society, although I completely see and agree with your perspective too. Maybe some of this is our bad for showing it on home when it's more of an s/all thing. The hot algorithm loves new posts, so the archiving stuff use case can really take over s/home

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Maybe I was too hard on OP. Hopefully we'll come to some compromise

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well I think we have approaches figured out for a more curated home page if we decide to go that route. With more traffic and upvotes, the problem might just fix itself too.

(just speaking to mass posting overwhelming the home page which I think is bound to happen)*