--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: > > Well I knew this all along but now it's official: :-D > > Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK > suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled > "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than those who accept the > official versions of contested events. > > http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/
One of the comments was pretty interesting: "Dear Dr. Barrett-As one of the authors of the first study cited in this article I feel compelled to point out that you misinterpreted the relative proportions of conspiracist and conventionalist comments. That count is only of PERSUASIVE comments - comments which could be interpreted as an attempt to argue for or against a particular interpretation of 9/11. There were many comments not included in this count that were not written to persuade - for instance, a comment reading "I'm glad they finally got Bin Laden so the 9/11 victims can rest in peace" or similar would not be counted toward the cited total, even though it implicitly endorses the conventional account.It is interesting that there were more persuasive conspiracist than persuasive conventionalist comments, though I wonder if this is in part an artefact of the mainstream news websites espousing the conventional account in the main body of the news stories, which obviates the need to repeat it persuasively in the comments."
