- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies.
A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook.
“Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says.
His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence.
A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman.
Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says.
“Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says.
Swami’s finding that 9/11 conspiracy believers frequently spoke with likeminded individuals supports the notion that “conspiracy thinkers constitute a community of believers,” remarks historian Robert Goldberg of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Goldberg has studied various conspiracy theories in the United States.
Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts.
Over the past 50 years, researchers and observers of social dynamics have traced beliefs in conspiracy theories to feelings of powerlessness, attempts to bolster self-esteem and diminished faith in government. Some conspiracy beliefs — such as the widespread conviction among blacks that the U.S. government concocted HIV/AIDS as a genocidal plot — gain strength from actual events, such as the once-secret Tuskegee experiments in which black men with syphilis were denied treatment.
Swami and his colleagues administered a battery of questionnaires to 257 British adults, including a condensed version of a standard personality test. Participants came from a variety of ethnic, religious and social backgrounds representative of the British population.
Most participants expressed either no support or weak support for 16 conspiracy beliefs about 9/11. These beliefs included: “The World Trade Center towers were brought down by a controlled demolition” and, “Individuals within the U.S. government knew of the impending attacks and purposely failed to act on that knowledge.”
Much as Swami’s team suspected, beliefs in 9/11 conspiracy theories were stronger among individuals whose personalities combined suspicion and antagonism toward others with intellectual curiosity and an active imagination.
A related, unpublished survey of more than 1,000 British adults found that 9/11 conspiracy believers not only often subscribed to a variety of well-known conspiracy theories, but also frequently agreed with an invented conspiracy. Christopher French of Goldsmiths, University of London, and Patrick Leman of Royal Holloway, University of London, both psychologists, asked volunteers about eight common conspiracy theories and one that researchers made up: “The government is using mobile phone technology to track everyone all the time.”
The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.
“It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says.
Swami now plans to investigate attitudes of British volunteers to conspiracy theories about the July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in London.
Found in: Behavior and Humans
- Goldberg, R. 2001. Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America. Yale University Press:New Haven, CT.
- Swami, V., et al. In press. Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi:10.1001/acp.1583


http://patriotsquestion911.com/Counterterrorism_Veterans.pdf
USA to legalize all narcotics and banned drugs tommorow and all evil doers vanish. They can't do it because too much money to much money to be made.
For example explain the near free fall speed of WTC 7, the eutectic steel found by FEMA, the nano-thermite found in the dust, the initial antenna drop of WTC 1 and much more that are overlooked by mainstream and cannot be explained with a gravity driven "collapse". The ONLY method of destruction that explains ALL evidence is a controlled demolition. Try using the scientific method and see if you can explain any other way that made the three towers "collapse". Do you really think the hundreds of professional engineers on ae911truth,org are all jumping to conclusions based on limited evidence? I think its just the opposite.
Had the author analyzed inconsistencies and false statements contained in the “911 Commission Report” and the NIST Report, we would be in a better position to evaluate just what exactly the Bush Administration knew about the impending attacks, when they learned it, and what response (or lack thereof) they took to keep America safe.
This study by Bower, like the 911 Commission Report, was a complete waste of time!
Viren Swami has not published yet! What kind of way is this? Mr.Ted Goertzel is completely distorted to the point of not being able to present his articles vertically.
http://crab.rutgers.edu/%7Egoertzel/CapitalPunishmentHomicide.pdf
This is typical disinformation and it probably works for 90% of the people reading it. Who is paying for this kind of flimsy studies is what I'd like to know! Conspirations are permanent tools of power. People lie more than they tell the truth. Cheating is the norm. And that is how you get the biggest depression in history. Enjoy!
Ask someone who believes in the official story if they believe the government's pancake theory for how the buildings collapse and they will say, "yes, I do." Then tell them, "well, actually, the government backed off of that theory because they realized it couldn't be true." And they will say, "oh, well, whatever, the new explanation is is fine. They wouldn't lie about such a thing." So, who is jumping to conclusions off of the least amount of evidence?
Bin Laden's relatives were flown out of the country while all other air traffic was shut down after the attacks. Even the main stream media reports this to be the case. How come no Bin Ladens ended up being waterboarded in Guantanamo? They could be plucked from wherever they are living to this very day... how come they aren't?
http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=676
Bruce Bower, take the time to read that entire article, and feel free to comment on it. I think it will do you some good.
just moon gazing
-----------------------------
Regarding the comment of Richard Olson:
No one alleged that 9/11 was an accident. It was a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy of Bin Laden. The article addresses why some people prefer to think that their government had a conspiracy over the fact that an enemy had a conspiracy.
Regarding the comment by Oak Ridge:
One does not just pick up people and waterboard them based on their last name.
I also think that an analysis of the type of events that provoke conspiracy theories would be useful. It seems to me that these events always contain a large amount of government secrecy, deception and outright lies. For example, the way the death count from the World Trade center attacks started high and then dropped as time went by. In any other disaster the count starts low and increases as more information comes out. Is it any wonder that this sort of behavior triggers an overreaction among some people? I am not even sure that I would classify their behavior as entirely inappropriate.
Of course, some people have experienced more of this than others. The forums and websites which have seen these "debates" have seen more examples. If the comments here follow their example, expect a record number of comments on this article. Wear hip-boots.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
You will easily find the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluding:“The Committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that president John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy". What percentage of "conspiracy theorists: are merely better informed?
Skeptics share an optimistic conviction that they can find (know) “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change...
EVERYONE surrounds themselves with "likeminded friends" (i think this is in part the definition of friendship!), including "skeptics"...
Anyone who grew up seeing the replay in black and white over and over again would know one gunman killed JFK.
It is just strange how his brains ended up on the trunk of the car and Oswald was up and behind...
Science trumps lies.
Some conspiracy theories carry more weight than others.
Yes, folks who backed Hoover did try to turn over FDR.
There are only a couple reasons to commit a conspiracy..
power, greed.. perhaps a cover up?
A conspiracy only takes two, so "grand conspiracies" are rather less likely than smaller conspiracies.
As Oliver North knows, you don't want to have your secretary shred the evidence. It is important to build a circle if one was to commit a conspiracy.
I find the implosion theories highly improbable when simply turing OFF the fire pumps and setting a large diversion, like a couple airplanes woud be just as effective.
And instead of having a bunch of people of all levels involved, just ignoring a pending attack would do just as well too.
So complex theories are silly, especially in this day and age when people communicate so quickly.
Simple theories might have a bit more validity, if one follows the science and the human nature to go after money and power.
Of course, those with money and power have the money to pay for studies too.
Proper Research would question: What are the characteristics of those who trust the King's truth dispite centuries of evidence that Kings lie. What are the characteristics of those who would trust a president even after the president kills a million people in a war based on lies?
Which group is rational? Those who question authorities, or those who think Kings and presidents can do no wrong?
Would you like to be someone with intellectual curiosity who asks questions and engages in hypothesis exploration and testing,
Or would you rather be a religious cultist, with simplistic faith based thinking, blindly following authorities.
"It is not a sign of a healthy mind to be well-adjusted to a sick society" - R.D.Laing
Are the steel and concrete still conspiring to make sure we never know the tons of steel and concrete on every level? Can psychologists understand the conservation of momentum?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=21925.0
The laws of physics don't give a damn about conspiracies. Explain that to the Swami.
Dolores Bentham
myspace.com/ny911truth facebook.com/mannyrevolution educating the masses.
This implied separation or division constructs barriers to inhibit open, rational discussion of the evidence. Instead these constructed barriers result in casting dispersions or falsely characterizing (as goofy, faith-based believers) those who question the official version (9/11).
Conversely, bringing up other subjects of controversy (JFK or ETs) serves to distract from what is the most essential evidence in the case of 9/11,
for example,
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess-2.htm
or the massive quantities of melted steel at ground zero reported by many numerous, reputable witnesses--however, we can just say they were kooky too, right?
To attack the character of the person, without sufficiently addressing the evidence, is known as Ad Hominem argument and is an invalid debate tactic.
So together let's examine evidence by the scientific method without insulting, ridiculing, mocking, condescending, or patronizing each other:
Observation--large quantities of melted steel, collapse near free-fall speed, and steel melting before collapse to name only a few observations
Hypothesis--observations indicate controlled demolition
Experimentation--chemical analysis of steel and dust samples
Conclusions--evidence supports controlled demolition hypothesis, therefore pancake collapse is not likely
This is an example of a reason-based thought process.
My question is why does Science News choose to publish this article? As a subscriber of several years I find it totally out of place with the magazine's mission. In a single stroke they have attempted to wave away a well-supported line of evidence by characterizing a group as a whole to represent individuals. 9/11 is arguably the most important historical event of the last several decades and deserves better than this obvious, lazy bias masquerading as important cutting edge science. Why not publish a balanced story covering the aforementioned article, also? I would be impressed! As it stands I will not be renewing my subscription.
Peace
Thoughtfully,
DM http://www.wirelesswatchblog.com
Please login or register to participate.