Re: conspiracy theory

From: Andrew S. LORD(SED) (A.S.Lord@shu.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Jul 19 2001 - 08:38:09 BST

  • Next message: Kenneth Van Oost: "Re: Memetic vulnerability: was: Faking It" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id IAA29858 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:36:59 +0100
Message-id: <fc.005b8ff100ddf5d03b9aca006b7b0e95.ddf709@amazon.shu.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 08:38:09 +0100
Subject: Re: conspiracy theory
To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "Andrew S. LORD(SED)" <A.S.Lord@shu.ac.uk>
References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FA0@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FA0@inchna.stir.ac.uk>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    hi
     i found a good book on this kind of thing by Micheal Shermer
    called why people believe wierd things (1997)- he doesn't uses the word meme (foreword by Gould
    may be the reason)

    i have some pet meta-conspiracy theories of my own and im interested in their structure (similar to
    urban myths) as i want to be able to make this kind of sfuff up - here are some things that come to
    mind about CTs:
    1. they seem to be plausable (at least not beyond the realms of possibility)
    2. they need to be not the most obvious scenario
    3. they need to be in the interest of some powerful party's agenda - and not some accident
    4. it is not in that party's agenda to have it made publically known - maybe some stated agenda
    hides their real one
    5. they need to be instantly dismissable in most peoples view -that is, those who dont stop to
    think about it
    6. they need to be unfalsifyable - cant be proved one way or another
    7. an absence of evidence "proves" that the evidence is being covered up

    please elaborate

    i dont know about the psychology of a conspiracy theorist (if this is such a class of person) but
    from talking with some seems that paranoiacs/alcos/schitz are most subseptable and they tend to
    take the unfalsifyable as true - im more inclined to believe that gulibility and CT are more based
    on epistememes than personality (if seperable)

    try an experiment - pretend (for a bit) that you actually believe in one - say Princess Diana's
    assasination - and notice what you experience

    &e

    BTW - i cant say any more here because they are monitoring my communications :-x

    ===============================================================
    This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
    Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
    For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
    see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 19 2001 - 08:41:06 BST