In this Psychology Today article, Conspiracy Theories are explained
as the brains natural response to excessive and faulty repeated
stimulation due to an overabundance of irrelevant or extraneous
data which is viewed as threatening. In other words a mental disorder.

Interesting reading.



http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200501/conspiracy-theories-explained

Dude.

It's written by a psychologist.

They always rationalize everything with the 'drug-them-up' mentality.

Schizophrenia? Seriously??

Conspiracy Freaks compared to Schizos? WOW!

That's a sad, sad, sad leap..

If you've never actually met a schizo..
..and go by what the douche just said..

Ok, yes, I can see it being a possibility.

However, I do believe she is referring to the flipping psycho theorists and not the average 'the government is against' type.

While sometimes their beliefs seem a little far-stretched, I wouldn't, in any means refer to them as schizo. Period.

Really.. Dopamine?

As a former mental patient, I can assure you, most of them are not schizos and this may apply to a few, I still believe that this is not a reliable answer to cover 'all' or even a majority of 'Truthers' Conspiracy theorists, or wtf ever else name you want to come up with.

Most schizos are completely incoherent and wouldn't even be able to fully process a true conspiracy even if it was in front of their face. But a psychologist labeling anything as a disorder sounds like a conspiracy in itself lol.

It's a good way to increase their business and aid the stupid pharmaceutical companies and drug businesses. xD

It was a good read.

However.

I hate psychologists.

They have that 'drug them up' mentality I will always hold spite for.

I think it was just an extreme example. It does seem to me that there
are aspects of the Conspiracy Theorist mentality which appears to be
the brain trying to make sense out of non-existent threats so I found
it interesting.

The mind receiving an excessive number of jibberish warnings seems to
build up elaborate far-fetched imaginary explanations which other people
find ludicrous since there is no real evidence to back any of it up.
Yet, only the extreme all-inclusive conspiracy is large enough to
encompass the vast set of erroneous mental noise signals in the
conspiracy theorist's brain. So they believe in them even in the
absence of any real factual evidence and when there is plenty of real
factual evidence which contradicts their conspiracy theory!





No great love for pill-pushers here either tho.



The Real Slim-Shady! Heh!

http://youtu.be/OGk2qmDmvT8

Interesting yes...

And sorry if I came off bitter..

But hearing a psychologist put a disorder on something..

GAH!

Makes me wanna strangle my cat (who I adore) with a shoe lace. >/

I think inductive bias is a very accurate description of their thought process in coming to a deductive conclusion.

Assumptions leading to an outcome based on information they have never encountered.

The average truther has no experience in designing or demolishing a building.

Yet the assumption that the government has to be responsible based on what they "saw" or read is the only "plausible" conclusion.

"Buildings just don't collapse at free fall speed into their own footprint"..

How do you know that?

It's what I saw on youtube..

A biased, deductive conclusion based on assumptions of given data that is not common knowledge accurately sums it up..

"The big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions. Forget the politicians. The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the state houses, the city halls. They got the judges in their back pockets and they own all the big media companies, so they control just about all of the news and information you get to hear. They got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying. Lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else, but I’ll tell you what they don’t want. They don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interests. That’s right. They don’t want people who are smart enough to sit around a kitchen table and think about how badly they’re getting f*cked by a system that threw them overboard 30 ****in’ years ago. They don’t want that. You know what they want? They want obedient workers. Obedient workers, people who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork." George Carlin

..kind of a broad generalization..

I remember reading that on one of the threads here in Mingle.

Even though she did try to show pictures; her belief didn't seem to be too inaccurate IF you don't know much about EVERYTHING involved in a building.

Thick a** metal beams.
Impact was far towards the top.
Reenacting said scenario with some jenga blocks.

All could lead you to believe that:

"A building cannot fall into his own footprint."

Where your defense is, apparently, 'How do you?'.
Well, how do you know it can?

The only true way to discover the truth would be two keep building a tall scraper the same exact way, then crash a few dozen planes into it.

Say you try this ten times..

You would only need it to repeat itself once for your statement to be legit.

Even then...

Ten straight failures wouldn't make her right.

So, how do you know?

Have much experience slamming planes into the side of buildings?

o.o

Now you have stepped into the realm of statistical bias..

Your conclusion that the only way to know the truth is to build a building and fly a plane into it is not going to produce the same results.

Statistical bias proves that the more you do something over and over that has any margin of error the overall margin of error in your tests is squared. Its called bias-variance decomposition.

You do not have the ability to control all the variables. Therefore, your first test will have a large margin of error or random variables. Every test performed after will increase that overall margin of error squared.

So if your first test has a margin of error 10% then second test increases that margin to 100%.

A couple of random variables are..

You would have to start with the fact that the buildings were over 30 years old.

You would have to find the exact same materials used and you have to know exactly what and where things were in each office on the damaged floors..

You would have to know the exact mass/acceleration of the plane. Impact angle and the exact spot it struck the building.

You will never re- create the exact sequence when the fuel tanks ruptured or how the fuel dispersed throughout the rest of the building.

Impact, fuel dispersal , and office contents are critical in your re-creation attempts..

It is basically impossible to re-create the events as happened with your building and plane scenario.

Nice try though..

Most mental disorders are normal functions of the brain taken to extremes.


Not at all. This is where knowledge of the laws of physics allow a deconstruction without having reenact the disaster.

Engineers, and physicists have done just that and the collapse models accurately demonstrate how this took place without any demolitions.

This is exactly the problem, you have amateurs who think they have the mental tools required to guess an outcome. Mathematics with the help of physics, chemistry, and engineering is what is needed, not armchair guessing games and intuitive foresight.

actually a Psychologist can't prescribe you any drugs!
Not even an Aspirin,let alone Psychoactive Drugs!
Psychologists are not Physicians

..whatever you say bro.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory#Psychological_origins

Psychological origins

According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others; a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another.[31]

Psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part. Some research carried out at the University of Kent, UK suggests people may be influenced by conspiracy theories without being aware that their attitudes have changed. After reading popular conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, participants in this study correctly estimated how much their peers' attitudes had changed, but significantly underestimated how much their own attitudes had changed to become more in favor of the conspiracy theories. The authors conclude that conspiracy theories may therefore have a 'hidden power' to influence people's beliefs.[32]

Error margin? Seriously?

That's what you are going with?

*sigh* So simple minded..

First off..

The entire statement was theoretical.
Your entire response, proved my point.

Second.

It doesn't matter what the error margins would be anyway, even if you could get the same materials, had them aged etc etc.. because..

You just need it to collapse once into its own footprint.

Thus, realistically, you could use modern day materials to prove that a building can fall into it's own footprint. Period.

Because her argument was "It is not possible. A building cannot collapse into it's own footprint."

Therefore, you could stack Legos and throw a tiny matchbox plane into it a few times to see if, at any point, that building collapses straight down like he said it can't.

Because there is only one thing you are trying to prove.

Can a building collapse into it's own footprint.

That's your objective.

Plane angle? Seriously?

Yeah..

Nice try is straight on brudda.

..yeah, thank you.

..whatever you say bro.


Just to clarify.

My psychologist tries to write me scripts, legally, all the time.

Because.

The Military is the exception to your ideal rule.

I, as a former man of service, was handed to a psychologist because of my mental illness history. They are allowed, by law, to write prescriptions.

Further more, even f a regular psychologist can't write prescriptions, there is usually someone not too far away who can, and they will for that psychologist.

Just saying so I didn't come off like a douche.

WOW... What a reply..

Let's just disregard scientific principles and build lego structures..

To think all those guys that spent their entire lives hypothesizing and having their results peer reviewed could have just come up with a child's toy set and all the wonders of physics could have been explained with it.

But I am the one that is simple minded..

I like the way you think..

..obviously you are.

Far more than even I gave you credit for.

Because you did not grasp one single point I made.

That's your fault.
Not mine.

Not to mention..

My 10 year old son even grasps what I'm trying to say.

Just saying..

Yeah, dude..

I have no problem grasping your points.

You don't make a scientific case to a truther with lego sets and a complete disregard for scientific method.

That is what they do..

And that is the obvious point you don't get..

*sigh*

Yes.
You can.

I have a whole bunch of Truthers on my FB.

I've actually gotten them to stfu with a set of legos.

Not to mention..

That was rhetorical, or theoretical if you want.

Use science, go for it, I never said disregard it completely.

You have one objective.

Prove that a building can collapse into its own shadow.

Your argument was to reconstruct the entire tower using the exact same lay-out and structure. That's ridiculous.

Using legos.. Cheaper, more efficient, and easier to rebuild until their heart is content IF in fact, a building cannot collapse like that.

You don't need to know the precise angle it hit.
Hit it from every angle if you truly think it is not possible, it will not matter, will it?

Or do you doubt your own theory and, in fact, believe it isn't possible?