Stay with me on this, as it leads to a point a little closer to home. Back when the Iraq War was on everyone’s mind, studies done indicated that civilian casualties were extremely high – perhaps as many as 1.2 million overall. At that time – it’s still going on.
Here’s what happened: The sources of the studies were viciously attacked, and reasonable people concluded that such numbers could not possibly be true.
No other studies were done, of course. No counter-evidence was offered. Mere denial became the reasonable intellectual position regarding casualties inflicted on another country by the emperor. End of story.
Lizard put up a link at 4&20 Blackbirds that cited a study done by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK) that concluded that people who hold “conspiracy theories” tend to be more reasonable and thoughtful than those who believe official stories about some events.
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,
according to an article that Lizard linked at Before It’s News.”
I’ve known this from the beginning just based on my own encounters. But who believes a conspiracy theorist? Think about it – refusal to look at evidence, anger and hostility and ridicule against those who do, is not a thoughtful way to go through life. That is not the typical skeptic of 9/11, one not wedded to official truth, not claiming to know the whole story, and having a better overall historical perspective.
Anyway, follow the link. Draw your own conclusions.
Here’s what prompted me to write this. Polish Wolf quickly chimed in,
Those sound like truly atrocious social scientists/psychologists. First, to a take online comments as a representative sample of anything whatsoever, and second, to posit that the beliefs of a majority of people have any bearing on the plausibility of those beliefs.
That’s what triggered my memories of the Iraq casualty deniers – in essence he’s saying “I’ve got nothing of my own to counter this, but what you’ve got is not good enough. After all, I don’t like what they concluded. And oh, yeah, I’m not going to think about it any more.”
I’ve encountered this again and again … there is so little credible evidence to support such theories as Oswald or 19 Arabs that a thoughtful person should be embarrassed to hold such beliefs. But in a thought-controlled environment all of the social pressure favors mindless following. Skeptics are subject to abuse and ridicule. In public life, mere mention of doubt about official truth will end a career.