"20 REASONS" REVISITED - a different perspective on conspiracy communities

[Guest]

I won’t guarantee this will be my final post since I’ve reneged on that guarantee before, but it shall serve as my magnum opus for the time being. If it makes you seethe with anger – either at me or the author I quote – this may tell you more about yourself than about me or the author, a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the Open University in the UK who has written extensively about conspiracy communities. His approach, as I’ll explain, is different from the typical one of identifying a “psychological profile” of those who are drawn to conspiracy communities.

I challenge you to take a minute or two to read what he says. Unless you’re too far down the rabbit hole even to peek out, it should make you think and perhaps bring a slightly different perspective to the discussions here.

Those who might profit most will find it boring and insufficiently “JFKA-related,” but it is very JFKA-related. If you think the JFKA conspiracy community is simply about researching and debating facts until the dark truth of the assassination finally emerges, you’re right in only the most superficial sense (if at all). You're still in conspiracy kindergarten. It’s about much more (and perhaps much less) than that, which is why my long involvement with diverse conspiracy communities has been very valuable to me.

As I’ve stated previously, in recent years I’ve become more interested in the epistemology, psychology and dynamics of conspiracy communities of all types and their related internet forums than in the particular subject matter. I’ve been a member or observer of several such communities for decades and have, through diligent effort, largely escaped the rabbit hole of uncritical, gee-whiz acceptance. I’ve obviously had a longstanding interest in the JFKA and do return here periodically to discuss JFKA substance, both for the mental exercise and perhaps to expose in small doses how much conspiracy “research” is shoddy, agenda-driven pseudo-research and raw speculation by agenda-driven pseudo-researchers (not all of it, of course, but way too much).

This post was prompted by the current “20 REASONS” thread, which I found unintentionally humorous. As the author I quote below discusses, a tactic of conspiracy communities is to attempt to demonstrate – at least to themselves - that they are the “rational, critical-thinking” members of society and that there is “something wrong” with those of us who are “BLIND” to the dark truths they so clearly see, not just in relation to the JFK conspiracy but “MANY OTHERS” as well.

The following passages are from a chapter entitled “Beyond belief: the social psychology of conspiracy theories and the study of ideology” in a 2014 book, Rhetoric, Ideology and Social Psychology: Essays in Honour of Michael Billig. The author of the chapter is Jovan Byford. You can find it online at https://oro.open.ac.uk/39494/1/Byford_conspiracy%20theories.pdf.

Byford is critical of the “psychological profile” approach to conspiracy thinking, as exemplified in the articles I linked in the 20 REASONS thread. Contrary to what the author of the 20 REASONS thread suggests about non-conspiracists, all researchers agree that conspiracy communities include many educated, sane, high-functioning individuals with no obvious mental pathologies. (There does seem to be an emerging psychological profile of those who are drawn to conspiracy communities, but it’s an inexact science.)

Byford focuses on what he calls the ideology and rhetoric of conspiracy communities – what I might call their epistemology and dynamics. He brings a broader and even historical focus to how conspiracy communities work. See if the following passages resonate with you in terms of what you observe here and throughout the JFKA conspiracy community.

[With the psychological profile approach], researchers interested in cognitive factors have explored issues such as peoples' (lack of) awareness of their own susceptibility to conspiracy theories (Douglas and Sutton, 2008), whether or not conspiracy theorists exhibit a bias towards seeking big causes to explain big effects, or whether they are, for example, susceptible to “biased assimilation” – the tendency to uncritically accept evidence supporting a pre-existing view and reject disconfirming information (e.g., McCauley and Jacques, 1979, Butler et al., 1995, McHoskey, 1995, Leman and Cinnirella, 2007, Leman, 2007).

Byford then contrasts the broader focus of Michael Billig:

Billig (1978, p.314) argues that “when looking at the social psychological dynamics of so bizarre an outlook as the conspiracy theory, it is easy to overemphasize its eccentricities at the expense of noticing what is psychologically common place.” It is unnecessary, he argues, “to assume that the conspiracy theorist has a completely different cast of mind from the average person and that it must be described from a uniquely psychological perspective. History has shown that at times large numbers of both educated and uneducated people have embraced the conspiracy outlook.” For this reason, explaining what distinguishes believers from sceptics might be far less important than accounting for how, why and when everyday thinking becomes contaminated by the characteristics of the “conspiracy mentality.” This is especially so given that belief in conspiracy theories tends to ebb and flow, with their popularity rising or falling in response to specific social conditions or political events (see Byford and Billig, 2001, also Byford, 2011).

The conspiracy theorist is always arguing against conventional explanations of politics, but also against other versions of the conspiracy theory (Billig, 1989). Talking about conspiracy theories is therefore an act of advocacy, replete with arguments and counter-arguments, accusations and justifications. This argumentative, rhetorical dimension of the conspiracy theory is accentuated by the fact that conspiracy theorizing is more often than not a shared endeavor and a social activity. It is performed through organizations, movements and campaigns, or increasingly through jointly produced websites and internet forums where claims and arguments are continuously exchanged, debated, evaluated and modified.

The notion of ideology, or more precisely, ideological tradition lies at the core of Michael Billig’s approach to conspiracy theories (see especially Billig, 1988). As he rightly argues, there is much more to conspiracy theories than a simple attitudinal position, or the claim that an event in history was the outcome of collusion or a secret plot. Anyone who has had the opportunity to engage with conspiracy theories about 9/11, the origins of AIDS or the machinations of the Bilderberg group, the Illuminati or Jews will have realized that conspiracy theories are also intricate and often enthralling stories.

What is more, a striking feature of conspiracy theories is that they often sound remarkably alike. Tales of conspiracy – whether expounded in London, Moscow, Teheran or Beijing – and regardless of whether they purport to explain a political assassination, the cause of a disease or a financial crisis are marked by a distinct thematic configuration, narrative structure and explanatory logic, as well as by the stubborn presence of a number of common motifs and tropes (see Billig, 1989, Byford 2011).

The rhetorical style and the explanatory logic of the conspiracy theory have also been shown to persist over time. The worldview which defines contemporary conspiracy culture and the distinct manner of expression through which it is articulated, bears a close resemblance to that found in the writings of 19th and 20th century conspiracy theorists. Conspiracist interpretations of the 2008 financial crisis draw on the same armory of arguments and tropes which were used to interpret the Great Depression of the 1930s. The 9/11 Truth movement relies extensively on the interpretative framework established in the 1940s, when the opponents of Franklin D. Roosevelt accused him of allowing Pearl Harbor to happen in order to create a pretext for taking America to war. Throughout post-communist Eastern Europe, criticism directed at the supposedly seditious and sinister activities of western non-governmental organizations and human rights activists is similar to the late 18th and 19th century anti-Illuminati and anti-Masonic rhetoric.

These resemblances point to the fact that the rhetorical style of conspiracy theory forms part of, and helps to sustain, a distinct ideological tradition of explanation which dates back to the early, anti-Illuminati conspiracy treatises of Augustine Barruel and John Robison, published after the French Revolution (Roberts, 1974). This tradition consists of an evolving corpus of ideas, arguments, “facts,” “revelations” and “proofs” pertaining to the alleged world plot, which have been referred to, cited, quoted and perpetuated by successive generations of conspiracy theorists.

The ideological tradition of the conspiracy theory is kept alive by the tendency among conspiracy writers to regurgitate, revamp and apply to new circumstances the body of knowledge, the explanatory logic and rhetorical tropes expounded in texts, books or pamphlets written and published by conspiracy theorists in the past (Byford and Billig, 2001). One reason for this is that conspiracy theorists always deal with imperfect evidence: they are concerned with matters that are inherently secret, and which the most powerful forces in the world are supposedly working hard to suppress. Because they cannot offer incontrovertible evidence for their claims, writers will tend to rely on the work of other conspiracy theorists, past and present, and invoke their authority as a substitute for direct proof.

Furthermore, a conspiracy-based explanation of a significant political event cannot be reasonably conceived as historically isolated. The conspiracy theory is a view of the world not only as it is at present, but also as it always was. Hence, specific plots need to be, and invariably are, imagined as links in a longer chain of conspiracies. When locating current plots and schemes within the centuries-long line of conspiratorial activity, conspiracy theorists draw on the work of their predecessors and place their own discoveries and revelations about the present within a broader tradition of explanation (see Billig 1978 and Byford 2011 for a more detailed account of this dynamic).

Importantly however, the ideological nature of the conspiracy tradition does not mean that it is static or prescriptive. One of the central motifs of Billig’s writing on ideology (Billig, et al., 1988, Billig, 1990) is that ideology is not “a complete, unified system of beliefs which tells individuals how to think.” Rather, it involves arguments, debates and clashes which reflect its essentially “thinking nature” (Billig, et al., 1988, p.2). Conspiracy theories are no different. In fact, the rhetorical and argumentative nature of conspiracism has been instrumental for its survival as an ideological tradition. The main force behind this permanent process of evolution and change has been the need to make conspiracy theories more plausible, acceptable, and pertinent in response to changing social and political circumstances.

Conspiracy theorists are, and always have been surrounded by sceptics who place them under pressure to modify their theories in the direction of greater plausibility. The threat of ridicule, which has been hanging over purveyors of conspiracy theories from the outset, makes anticipating and reacting to potential or actual charges of irrationality, paranoia or prejudice, an essential feature of the conspiracy theorist’s endeavor. This is especially so given that conspiracy theorists always, if only implicitly, address an audience beyond the conspiracist community. They seek to convert the masses, but also to satisfy their need to be recognized by the very mainstream that they consistently reject and accuse of being in the pockets of powerful conspirators.

The evolution of the conspiracy culture, therefore, entails the continuous creation of novel and more convincing ways of stating conspiratorial claims. Yet at the same time, the connection with the past persists and is often manifested through no more than a loose pattern of “interpretative habits, implicit in a stream of assertions or arguments” (Cubitt, 1993, p.2) or in barely noticeable, but ideologically significant, “half-hinted allusions” (Billig, 1988).

Byford concludes with criticism of mainstream media sources and even the psychological research community to confront the historical roots and negative effects of conspiracy communities:

Conspiracy theories, as social beliefs, are sustained also by the notion that while conspiracy-based explanations might not be true, they nevertheless constitute a legitimate view for people to hold. …  This position, which is often espoused by mainstream publishers, sections of the media and public figures with little history of adherence to conspiracism, is completely sidestepped in the recent psychological research. And yet, it is crucial because it helps foster a “climate of opinion about the boundaries between acceptable and nonacceptable opinion” (Billig, 1987, p.133). What is more, it does so in way that gives conspiracy theories an air of respectability, and converts a matter of established historical fact into a matter of opinion and belief.

Related to the issue of boundary markers of opinion is a recent development in conspiratorial rhetoric, namely the tendency among conspiracy theorists to articulate their position in the form of a question (see Aaronovitch, 2008, Byford 2011). Rather than purporting to have a definitive answer about the causes of an event or a series of events, conspiracy theorists will claim to be “merely” posing a set of questions. They will usually hint at some inadequacy in the official non-conspiratorial explanation, and call for a “rational” and “informed” debate in a way that alludes to a hidden “truth” that is yet to be uncovered or demonstrated. However, as I have argued elsewhere (Byford, 2011), the motif of “just asking questions” is rhetorically designed to open up the space for conspiracy theories while allowing those asking the questions to retain the aura of respectability. Furthermore, the “’it is not a theory’ theory” (Aaronovitch, 2008) shifts the burden of proof onto the sceptics and seeks to cajole the mainstream into a “debate” with the conspiracy theorist, which invariably enhances the latter’s status and esteem.

This stance of political “neutrality” is made possible by the researchers’ general reluctance to engage with conspiracy theories themselves, with their ideological dimensions and historical legacy. Conspiracy theory as a specific tradition of explanation should not be confused with the broader discourses of suspicion (the so-called “routinized paranoia,” see Knight, 2000, p.73) which permeate modern society, or with enquiries into genuine instances of corruption or cover-up (for a detailed account of this distinction see Byford, 2011). Especially as, for the past two centuries, conspiracy theories have played a notable role in shaping public perceptions of history and politics, and have done so all too often as a feature of political ideologies and projects whose role in history has been far from positive. Conspiracism has been the staple ingredient of discriminatory, anti-democratic and populist politics and a trademark of the rhetoric of oppressive regimes (see especially Cohn, 1967). This is a legacy that conspiracy theories have not been able to shake off (Billig, 1978). What is more, the irrefutable logic of conspiracy theories gives them a distinct self-isolating quality. Conspiracy theories can only lead to more conspiracy theories, and never to genuine solutions to social problems. For that reason alone, they cannot be ideologically neutral.

B-O-R-I-N-G - right? Has nothing to do with us - right? We're different - right? Harvey and Lee is solid historical research - right? Mark Lane and David Lifton were honest seekers of historical truth, almost American heroes - right? All the assorted conspiracies at Kennedys & King are real - right? The fact that half the community members are also 9/11 Truthers is irrelevant - right? Uh-huh, check check check.

Well, I tried.

[Mark Ulrik]

Hi

[David Von Pein]

http://educationforum.com / Why Did Lance Payette Do This Very Silly Thing? Maybe He'll Explain Here Before He Leaves For Good

 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

http://educationforum.com / Why Did Lance Payette Do This Very Silly Thing? Maybe He'll Explain Here Before He Leaves For Good

 

He had a petulant tantrum, David. Ultimately, he didn’t have confidence in his postings or conviction to his own ideas. Looking back on his exchanges, he likely felt that they didn’t portray him in the best light. I think the real low point for him was being exposed as a conspiracy theorist. He implied that there were Russian infiltrators here on the forum. His evidence was that not everyone had a filled in bio on their profile. A fair few of us found that rather a wild, ill thought out judgment from Lance. It was pointed out that he wasn’t practicing what he preaches. He had become the spreader of misinformation that he claimed to detest. I should imagine he found that rather humiliating. It should have been illuminating.
 

He is back, because he still feels bitter about the situation, that’s his ego/narcissistic personality IMO. I think it makes no odds to most of us whether he is contributing or not, there no significance. Of course this is only my opinion, some may feel differently. 
 

 

[Greg Doudna]

36 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

He is back, because he still feels bitter about the situation, that’s his ego/narcissistic personality IMO. I think it makes no odds to most of us whether he is contributing or not, there no significance. Of course this is only my opinion, some may feel differently. 

Chris the public psychologizing personally of others in public is irritating and ad hominem. It is irritating because in all likelihood you don't know what you are talking about, which is a generic problem in the whole enterprise of shoot-from-the-hip psychoanalysis of others' motives. How do you know what goes on in other peoples' heads that you so easily label and characterize ("bitter", etc.). How is someone supposed to respond to that? It is unfalsifiable, there is no good response. It is a conversation stopper, shuts down discussion of content.  

If I were to guess why Lance left (I don't know, only a guess), some nasty person instead of engaging on topic substantively went after Lance citing some allegation of his legal career years earlier dug up from the internet, nothing to do with JFK assassination discussion (and from the little I heard of it, the allegation itself went nowhere but it should not have to be Lance's burden to defend himself on that on this forum since it has zero to do with anything related to topical matters), and the sheer nastiness of that became too discouraging. No poster should have to put up with that. Maybe that wasn't the reason but it would not surprise me that that kind of ad hominem would drive anyone away.  

Instead of doing this weaponized psychoanalysis of others when you disagree with someone, this ad hominem, why not address the substance of what Lance is talking about. 

What Lance offers is much needed and is good and healthy to be considered and discussed.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Chris the public psychologizing personally of others in public is irritating and ad hominem. It is irritating because in all likelihood you don't know what you are talking about, which is a generic problem in the whole enterprise of shoot-from-the-hip psychoanalysis of others' motives. How do you know what goes on in other peoples' heads that you so easily label and characterize ("bitter", etc.). How is someone supposed to respond to that? It is unfalsifiable, there is no good response. It is a conversation stopper, shuts down discussion of content.  

If I were to guess why Lance left (I don't know, only a guess), some nasty person instead of engaging on topic substantively went after Lance citing some allegation of his legal career years earlier dug up from the internet, nothing to do with JFK assassination discussion (and from the little I heard of it, the allegation itself went nowhere but it should not have to be Lance's burden to defend himself on that on this forum since it has zero to do with anything related to topical matters), and the sheer nastiness of that became too discouraging. No poster should have to put up with that. Maybe that wasn't the reason but it would not surprise me that that kind of ad hominem would drive anyone away.  

Instead of doing this weaponized psychoanalysis of others when you disagree with someone, this ad hominem, why not address the substance of what Lance is talking about. 

What Lance offers is much needed and is good and healthy to be considered and discussed.  

Oh really, Greg? Do you believe that people in glass houses should not throw stones?

I was stigmatised with potentially being on Vladimir Putin’s payroll, because I did not have a fully completed biography on my profile here and because I did not share the jingoistic ushering in of WWIII. Then I cast my mind to the patronising tropes repeatedly lavished on those making the case that there was a conspiracy in the JFKA case. The idea that someone questions the magic bullet theory and then they are called a UFO enthusiast is not conducive to any kind of constructive debate. You’d like to see more of that, ok. 
 

Regarding psychologising people from the hip, as you call it. It’s hardly that when you have such a depth of linguistic evidence here on the forum. Those paying attention would pick up on small details, providing they have the EQ and understanding to interpret them. Even though some try to hide who they are, things often let slip inadvertently. 
 

If you want to be a champion of decorum on the forum, then I think your criticism needs to be more even handed IMO. 
 

 

[Matthew Koch]

 I was looking back at Chris's list and I didn't see Family Connections that could be #22 after Gregs suggested #21(Some people reject conspiracy theories because they believe them not to be true based on their assessment of the evidence) 

Seems to me that Lance is here to defend his Elite family's honor since Conspiracy Theorists accuse the United Fruit Company and Allen Dulles of some pretty nefarious activity. To me that explains the Oxymoronic Lawyer that charges people with conspiracies yet doesn't believe in them.. and says things in regard to Oswald not having a Trial "Too bad Hitler didn't either" That is why I think he deleted his  comments do to Confirmation bias, Group think, Cognitive dissonance, double think, Patriotism of the flag, Religion, Intelligence quotient, relevant life experience, and the cabal post were deleted and Hi and Bye with mention to the edit were inserted to cover up those fallacies.

 

[Paul Brancato]

1 minute ago, Matthew Koch said:

 I was looking back at Chris's list and I didn't see Family Connections that could be #22 after Gregs suggested #21(Some people reject conspiracy theories because they believe them not to be true based on their assessment of the evidence) 

Seems to me that Lance is here to defend his Elite family's honor since Conspiracy Theorists accuse the United Fruit Company and Allen Dulles of some pretty nefarious activity. To me that explains the Oxymoronic Lawyer that charges people with conspiracies yet doesn't believe in them.. and says things in regard to Oswald not having a Trial "Too bad Hitler didn't either" That is why I think he deleted his  comments do to Confirmation bias, Group think, Cognitive dissonance, double think, Patriotism of the flag, Religion, Intelligence quotient, relevant life experience, and the cabal post were deleted and Hi and Bye with mention to the edit were inserted to cover up those fallacies.

 

Matthew - why would you choose to post that here? 

[Charles Blackmon]

6 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Hi

lol

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

 I was looking back at Chris's list and I didn't see Family Connections that could be #22 after Gregs suggested #21(Some people reject conspiracy theories because they believe them not to be true based on their assessment of the evidence) 

Seems to me that Lance is here to defend his Elite family's honor since Conspiracy Theorists accuse the United Fruit Company and Allen Dulles of some pretty nefarious activity. To me that explains the Oxymoronic Lawyer that charges people with conspiracies yet doesn't believe in them.. and says things in regard to Oswald not having a Trial "Too bad Hitler didn't either" That is why I think he deleted his  comments do to Confirmation bias, Group think, Cognitive dissonance, double think, Patriotism of the flag, Religion, Intelligence quotient, relevant life experience, and the cabal post were deleted and Hi and Bye with mention to the edit were inserted to cover up those fallacies.

 

So, what you are saying is; that Lance has an inherent bias, through family connections, which should probably make us question his ability to be impartial. Whether consciously or unconsciously, he may be defending his proud heritage. 

Of course, he may not be, he may just be motivated by truth. I do think it may be difficult to separate the two. In such a situation a person may consider recusing them self. 
 

[Charles Blackmon]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

that’s his ego/narcissistic personality IMO.
 

 

I wasn't going to be the one to point out the obvious. Thank you!!

[David Von Pein]

.......

Edited February 26, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

........

Edited February 26, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

Having read Lance’s piece quoting an Open University professor from the UK I have the following thoughts. 
 

- I have outlined my list if biases and psychological conditions which inhibit a person when trying to critically think. 

- I don’t think Lance has considered that employees of state institutions have an implicit bias, which consciously or unconsciously prevents them from being impartial.

- If government is being accused of conspiracy; its simply highly unlikely that an employee of a state institution will speak against the authority that has not only provided them with a lucrative living, a position of authority and status, but, the state can take that away. 

- Jordan B Peterson is one of the exceptions who dared speak against government in Canada recently, and now they are threatening him with removal of his license to practice psychology. I could cite other professors in a similar boat. Its injurious to go against the grain.
 

- In contrast; It’s often rewarding to write about topics that government promotes/supports. In the UK we have had concerted campaign to highlight what they call the dangers of conspiracy theorists, that has been conducted between government and MSM, some of which is state owned media.
 

- It is also worth noting that there is an awful stigma to raising any thoughts of a conspiracy, it does make a person ‘persona non grata’. This is thanks to weaponised linguistics, and the use of a slur cultivated by the CIA to deflect criticism of the Warren Commission (Circa 1965). I note that Lance uses this particular slur as much as possible.  
 

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

23 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

- I don’t think Lance has considered that employees of state institutions have an implicit bias, which consciously or unconsciously prevents them from being impartial.

- If government is being accused of conspiracy; its simply highly unlikely that an employee of a state institution will speak against the authority that has not only provided them with a lucrative living, a position of authority and status, but, the state can take that away. 

 

This is BS!  Chrissake Chris! You're living in a bubble! From what I've heard, Lance is a consultant to a county  government. Can't you tell the difference? It sounds like you're not at all aware of the many levels of government that there are. I've known people who have worked at Local, County and Federal levels. Do you honestly think everyone  who works in such  a local capacity would really be in danger of losing his job if he believed in the JFKA conspiracy, and posted on an online forum?

 

Besides you're being presumptuous to know to what extent Lance earns his living with the county, or how much authority he really has to lose.

I would call this a false case in Chris's asserting of a Lance lapse of critical judgement.