Subject: Conspiracy Theorist Psychology

A 2013 article from Slate magazine titled  "Conspiracy Theorists Aren’t Really Skeptics: The fascinating psychology of people who know the real truth about JFK, UFOs, and 9/11" contains these key sections:

Conspiracy chatter was once dismissed as mental illness. But the prevalence of such belief, documented in surveys, has forced scholars to take it more seriously. Conspiracy theory psychology is becoming an empirical field with a broader mission: to understand why so many people embrace this way of interpreting history. As you’d expect, distrust turns out to be an important factor.

and

The strongest predictor of general belief in conspiracies, the authors found, was “lack of trust.”

and

More broadly, it’s a tendency to focus on intention and agency, rather than randomness or causal complexity. In extreme form, it can become paranoia. In mild form, it’s a common weakness known as the fundamental attribution error—ascribing others’ behavior to personality traits and objectives, forgetting the importance of situational factors and chance. Suspicion, imagination, and fantasy are closely related.

The more you see the world this way—full of malice and planning instead of circumstance and coincidence—the more likely you are to accept conspiracy theories of all kinds. Once you buy into the first theory, with its premises of coordination, efficacy, and secrecy, the next seems that much more plausible.

and

Psychologists and political scientists have repeatedly demonstrated that “when processing pro and con information on an issue, people actively denigrate the information with which they disagree while accepting compatible information almost at face value.” Scholars call this pervasive tendency “motivated skepticism.”

Conspiracy believers are the ultimate motivated skeptics. Their curse is that they apply this selective scrutiny not to the left or right, but to the mainstream. They tell themselves that they’re the ones who see the lies, and the rest of us are sheep.

This would seem to apply to True Believers, also.  True Believers tend to think they are the only ones who can see the TRUTH, and the rest of us are just ignorant sheep.

The September 2013 issue of PSY-PAG (Psycology Post-Graduate Affairs Group) Quarterly is a special issue devoted to "The psychology of conspiracy theories."  The 56 page magazine contains these articles about conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists.

"An introduction into the world of conspiracy" - Christopher Thresher-Andrews

"Towards a definition of ‘conspiracy theory’" - Robert Brotherton

"A review of different approaches to study belief in conspiracy theories" - Anthony Lantian

"The psychology of conspiracy theories blog - http://www.conspiracypsychology.com"

"Has the internet been good for conspiracy theorising?" - Michael Wood

"The detrimental nature of conspiracy theories" - Daniel Jolley

The second PSY-PAG article on the above list, "Towards a definition of 'conspiracy theory'" poses an interesting question:

The claim that members of the US government were complicit in the attacks of September 11, 2001, for instance, is generally branded a conspiracy theory (e.g. Dunbar & Reagan, 2006; Grossman, 2006), yet the label is rarely applied to the claim that members of al-Qaeda secretly planned and executed the attacks. The two claims both postulate a successful conspiracy to commit the attacks.  Why is it that, in popular discourse, the term conspiracy theory is applied to the former but not the latter?

One amusing answer is:

The situation has been likened to attempting to define pornography – a task which forced US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stuart to conclude simply, ‘I know it when I see it’ (Byford, 2011).

But, the more comprehensive and useful definition is in this statement:

I define conspiracy theory as an unverified claim of conspiracy which is not the most plausible account of an event or situation, and with sensationalistic subject matter or implications. In addition, the claim will typically postulate unusually sinister and competent conspirators. Finally, the claim is based on weak kinds of evidence, and is epistemically self-insulating against disconfirmation.

In other words, a "conspiracy theory" is typically implausible, sensationalistic, gives the conspirators super-abilities, is based upon weak evidence, and is so vague that it cannot be easily disproved.

The article also contains this:

Conspiracy theories are unverified claims.
Conspiracies have occurred throughout history, and occur in some form every day – in politics, organised crime, insider dealing, scams, and so on. Philosopher Charles Pigden points out that ‘if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory which posits a conspiracy, then every politically and historically literate person is a big-time conspiracy theorist’ (Pigden, 2007, p.222). However, this is not how the label is commonly used. The term usually refers to explanations which are not regarded as verified by legitimate epistemic authorities. The theory may be regarded as indisputably true by those who subscribe to it, but this belief is invariably at odds with the mainstream consensus among scientists, historians, or other legitimate judges of the claim’s veracity.

I couldn't have said it better myself.  It certainly fits ALL the conspiracy theories related to the anthrax attacks of 2001 that I've heard during the past 12+ years.

Another article from 2013, this time from Scientific American Magazine, is titled "Insights into the Personalities of Conspiracy Theorists," and it begins with this:

Conspiracy theories and scientific theories attempt to explain the world around us. Both apply a filter of logic to the complexity of the universe, thereby transforming randomness into reason. Yet these two theoretical breeds differ in important ways. Scientific theories, by definition, must be falsifiable. That is, they must make reliable predictions about the world; and if those predictions turn out to be incorrect, the theory can be declared false. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, are tough to disprove. Their proponents can make the theories increasingly elaborate to accommodate new observations; and, ultimately, any information contradicting a conspiracy theory can be answered with, “Well sure, that’s what they want you to think.”

I think those three articles are enough to confirm that I'm not the only one who views "conspiracy theorists" as outside of the norm.  Conspiracy theorists tend to think of themselves as part of the majority, but, as I've written many times, they are just a fringe group that the vast majority of the public doesn't take seriously.  I don't see anything in these articles that disagrees with what I've been saying about conspiracy theorists for 12+ years.  

On the other hand, anarchist Alex Jones indicates he has a study which shows that conspiracy theorists are sane, and government dupes are crazy.   I found it by doing a Google search for conspiracy+theorist+majority.

Ed

Subject: Summing up Anthrax Truther Arguments

The past 12 years of arguing with Anthrax Truthers have been summarized in the past 24 hours in a debate with DXer/Anonymous.

DXer wrote HERE:

Adnan El-Shukrijumah is the anthrax mailer

I researched his claim and found he had no real evidence to support it.  It even appeared that his suspect was in Afghanistan at the time of the anthrax letter mailings.

DXer responded HERE with this argument:

Is there any evidence in the thousands of detainee interrogations — after announcing his intention to his mom upon 9/11 that he was coming to the US — that he did not come? … that he was he was still in Afghanistan at the time of the anthrax mailings? No

So, DXer wants the FBI (or me) to prove that his suspect was NOT in the U.S. at the time of the attacks.

I argued that the FBI has infinitely more evidence that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer than DXer has against the person he believes sent the anthrax letters.

DXer responded HERE with this attack on the FBI:

But it’s not like the FBI Agents spend all their time rummaging around for a man’s semen-stained panties so that the prosecutor then can threaten to call his family in front of a grand jury to ask about problems at home.– and then close the case and declare victory upon his suicide.

That's pretty much how our arguments have gone for the past 12 years.  Only his attacks are usually upon me.

These same basic arguments are used by all Anthrax Truthers.   The only difference with DXer is that he buries his arguments inside an endless stream of meaningless blather.

Ed

Subject: Putting 2 and 2 together

Conspiracy theorists and True Believers have once again demonstrated how they think.  Just look at their theories about the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.  Each theorist has a different theory.

But, most of all, they show how they start with a theory and then find things to support that theory, ignoring any fact or evidence that contradicts their theory.  How else could someone connect a Muslim terrorist attack in Pakistan that involved a peddler's fruit cart to the fact that there was a cargo of fruit aboard Flight MH370, and conclude that the two events are evidence that Muslim terrorists hijacked MH370?

Here are some examples of Anthrax Truthers putting 2 and 2 together to get 739 or 395 or 55 or 38 or 1,233,754: 

1.  Ivins couldn't have made the spores at USAMRIID using standard procedures.  Everyone is required to follow procedures at USAMRIID.  Conclusion: Ivins must have been innocent.

Counter argument: Ivins didn't follow standard procedures.

2. Ivins didn't have time to make the spores.  It takes months to make that many spores.  Conclusion: Ivins must have been innocent.  

Counter argument: Ivins used spores from his lab trash that were already made. 

3.  I believe the spores were weaponized with silica.  I believe Ivins didn't know how to weaponize spores with silica.  Conclusion:  Ivins must have been innocent.

Counter argument:  The spores were NOT weaponized with silica.  They contained natural silicon.  

4.  Ivins could not have used the lyophilizer to dry the spores without contaminating the entire area. The lyophilizer was too big to move into a BSL-3 suite.  Conclusion: Ivins must have been innocent.

Counter argument: The spores were air dried.  The lyophilizer was not needed.

5.  Ivins seemed like a nice guy who couldn't hurt a fly.  Ivins was a blabbermouth, so he couldn't have sent the anthrax letters without telling other people about it.  Conclusion: Ivins must have been innocent.

Counter argument:  Ivins routinely did things and even committed crimes he didn't tell others about.  

Ed

Subject: Belief-based arguments

What we seem to really need is to have is one of Dr. Ivins' co-workers try to argue his or her beliefs against the solid facts which show that Ivins was the anthrax killer.  Such a conversation might go something like this:

Believer: The case against Bruce Ivins is full of holes.

Researcher: What makes you say that?  Like what?

Believer: It would have been impossible for Dr. Ivins to have grown all the spores in all the letters in shaking flasks without someone noticing what he was doing.  Even with the shakers running 24-hours a day, it would have taken him about a year!

Researcher: But, the facts say that the spores weren't grown in shaking flasks.  They were grown in autoclave biosafety bags in a corner somewhere - probably in his lab.

Believer: What facts?

Researcher: First of all, the spore powders contained traces of agar.  You use agar when growing spores in plates.  You do not use agar in shaking flasks.  Secondly, there was no sign of the kind of growth media they use in shaking flasks.   Thirdly, the spores showed signs of growing "under stress," which occurs when they grow at less than the ideal temperatures in an incubator.

Believer: Where did you read that?  They didn't say that in the Amerithrax Investigative Summary.

Researcher: It's in the supporting documents.   The University of Maryland assisted with the testing, and they found traces of agar in both the New York Post and the Leahy powders.

Believer: It would still have taken a lot of plates and a lot of time, wouldn't it?  People would have noticed.

Researcher: No, it wouldn't and they wouldn't. Growing spores on plates was part of Ivins' job.  He would inoculate about 180 plates a day when preparing for challenges.  And, according to the National Academy of Sciences, it would only have taken 463 plates to grow all the spores in all the powders.  Ivins used 546 plates for some mice tests shortly before the attacks.  If you leave those plates in autoclave bags for a week or two, you'll have all the spores needed for the letters.  And, if anyone noticed the autoclave bags lying around, they didn't say anything, because Ivins was known to leave such things lying around for weeks.  They'd grown used to it.  So, no one ever said anything.  And, he used flask RMR-1029 as the source for the seed spores, so the spores on those plates would be exact matches to what was in the letters.

Believer:  But Ivins would have had to dry the spores.  Ivins didn't know how to dry spores, and he couldn't possibly have used the lyophilizer that was located in Suite B3.

Researcher: That's just more nonsense.  Every microbiologist knows how to dry spores.  They all know that if they leave a Petri dish inoculated with anthrax alone, in a couple weeks it will be covered with DRY spores.  Like everything else, anthrax spores will dry all by themselves if left exposed to the air.  Ivins could dry all the spores he needed in 2 and a half hours inside the bio-safety cabinet in his lab.  He could speed up the drying process by adding heat.  He certainly didn't need a lyophilizer.  The FBI and DOJ only mentioned the lyophilizer because Ivins lied and claimed he didn't know how to use it.  Plus, they could not prove that Ivins did NOT dry the attack spores using the lyophilizer.  The idea that Ivins wouldn't have known how to clean up after himself is just more nonsense.

Believer:  But, but, but, there are people who claim the spores were weaponized with silica.  Ivins didn't know how to do that.

Researcher: The spores were NOT weaponized with silica.  Silicon from the growth media gets absorbed into spore coats when spores are grown at room temperature.  Ivins grew the spores at room temperature in autoclave bags in a corner of his lab.  It's just crazy to assume that because it is the standard procedure at USAMRIID to grow spores in an incubator at higher temperatures, that a microbiologist like Ivins wouldn't know that spores can also grow at room temperatures.  There's testimony from witnesses who looked at plates Ivins left around inside autoclave bags for weeks, and those plates were covered with dry or nearly dry anthrax spores.  And, any competent microbiologist knows that if you let spores dry in the open air they can aerosolize all by themselves and kill you.  Nature makes them that way.

Believer: There's no proof that Ivins knew that silicon would be absorbed into spore coats from the growth media.

Researcher: So what?  Ivins made the spores in flask RMR-1030, and 6 percent of those spores had the same silicon signature as the attack spores.  So, there IS proof that Ivins could create spores with that silicon signature -- even if he didn't know what he was doing.  It's so easy to do that he could do it unintentionally.

Believer:  Well, I don't care what the facts say, I'm going to believe what I want to believe.

Researcher:  Yes, I know.

Ed

Subject: Meaningless questions

Here are some recent questions posted to start a thread on Lew Weinstein's blog:

"Who Was The Only Person In [Redacted] Spoke To About The Dried Aerosol Project?  Was the sample that Dr. Ivins says he was told was from Iraq — but wasn’t — actually from the dried aerosol project that had been launched at USAMRIID unbeknownst to Dr. Ivins? Who brought it to him? Where did it come from? Who worked alone on the dried aerosol project in Building 1412 and what does he or she say about the research? Was virulent Ames ever made into a dried powder in Maryland or Virginia?  Why did the FBI keep evidence of John Ezzell’s dried powder from the NAS?"

More questions from other threads in the same blog:

"Into what weapons did Yazid Sufaat attempt to load anthrax?  Why is Ivins’ polygraph not disclosable under FOIA?  Why doesn’t the FBI offer America a credible story? Why don’t we know who is responsible for the 2001 anthrax attacks?"

These questions pose some other questions:  If you do not expect anyone to answer your questions, why ask the questions?  Is it just to show ignorance?  How many thousands of such questions have you asked?  How many of the questions have been answered?  If you want answers, why ban people who might have the answers from answering?  If you are asking the questions of people who do not read the blog, who do you think will answer?

Ed

Subject: Certainty

“Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.”
― Benjamin Franklin

“One of the few certainties in life is that persons of certainty should certainly be avoided.”
― Willy Russell, The Wrong Boy  

“Positive, adj.: Mistaken at the top of one's voice.”
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary 

“There is no such uncertainty as a sure thing.”
― Robert Burns, The Works of Robert Burns  

“At the core of all well-founded belief lies belief that is unfounded.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty 

The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers.
Erich Fromm
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/certainty.html#uMExZaKHqRbXtHth.99

"The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers."
― Erich Fromm

"To teach how to live without certainty and yet without being paralysed by hesitation is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can do for those who study it."
― Bertrand Russell

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 


Ed

Subject: Truthers

After years of observations, here are some common traits that appear to apply to all Anthrax Truthers:

1.  They all believe the government is wrong in saying Bruce Ivins was the anthrax killer.

2.  They all believe that they know "the truth," which is that someone other than Bruce Ivins did it.

3.  They cannot make any kind of meaningful case against whomever they think did it.

4.  They cannot provide evidence which proves their theory is better than the government's.

5.  They can only argue that the evidence against Ivins is not convincing to them.

6.  They do not seem to understand circumstantial evidence.

7.  They claim that the evidence against Bruce Ivins "isn't really evidence."    
 
8.  They do not fully agree with any other "truthers" about details of their own beliefs.

9.  Many "truthers" totally disagree with other "truthers" about who sent the anthrax letters. 

10. They endlessly seem to argue that beliefs and opinions are more important than facts.

11.  When presented with evidence that they are wrong, they ignore it and continue to just believe what they want to believe. 

12.  They believe their standards for evidence are the only acceptable standards for the world.

Example:

"Anonymous" has recently claimed once again HERE that the T in "NEXT" in the media letter was not highlighted. Here is what he wrote:

It is a FACT that the "T" in next has not been shown to have been double-lined and so the entire code was crock.

Here is an enlargement of the T in "NEXT" in the media letter:

Compare that T to the ones "Anonymous" doesn't seem to dispute, the T's in the two spellings of the word "TO" in the media letter, especially the T in the second "TO" below:

Can there be any dispute that the horizontal line in the T in NEXT is traced over in way that is virtually identical to the T in the second TO in the image above?  Isn't it perfectly clear that the horizontal lines in the T's in DEATH are NOT traced over the way the other T's are traced over?   

Example:

In a post HERE, R. Rowley quoted my point #5 in an earlier post and wrote his response:

5. It's a FACT that the message in the media letter CAN be decoded to be either "PAT" or "FNY" or both.
----------------------------
And literally hundreds of thousands(if not millions) of other things, rendering it worthless.

In other words, unless there is only one way to interpret "PAT" and "FNY," and that evidence points directly to Bruce Ivins, then the evidence is worthless.

Example:

In a post HERE, "Max" wrote this about the decoding of the hidden message in the media letter:

The FBI found nothing. There is no message.

PAT is not a message.
FNY is not a message.

What is Max's reasoning?  Try to make sense of this:

If you want to claim otherwise, then you need to show that you expected to find PAT before the "decoding". Of course, nobody did.

He appears to be saying that a person needs to expect to find "PAT" is the decoded message before they decode the message, otherwise "PAT" is not the decoded message?  Who but a "Truther" would think that kind of reasoning makes sense?

13.  When you attempt to get a "truther" to explain what he means, he either disappears or he changes the subject. 

Ed