According To American Criminal Profiles Are Conspiracy Theorists Or Terrorists More Likely To Be

What are the common traits of a conspiracy theorist?

The conspiracy believers tend to be political extremists with an overly simplistic world view,they are also (obviously) not as smart as they think they are and lack critical thinking skills, the Dunning Kruger effect is significant in these people, they lack the knowledge to comprehend how ludicrous their beliefs are.Lacking critical thinking skills they do not check their beliefs against reality, they arrogantly and dumbly think that their beliefs are self evidently correct, they are puzzled as to why others do not see the world in the same simplistic way as they do and cannot accept the reality that the world is a complicated place, less predictable than they can comprehend. As a result rather than accepting that reality is messy and confusing they would rather believe that the most likely answer to anything that they don't understand must involve a massive conspiracy of some sort, usually and very implausably involving many thousands of people. Research from VU University Amsterdam, published in Social Psychology and Personality Science, indicates that political extremism is a common factor in those who believe in conspiracy theories"Conspiracy beliefs feed into a core feature of political extremism, namely a desire to make sense of societal events through a set of clear-cut assumptions about the world."This in turn "induces them to perceive evil conspiracies as causal explanations for various events," http://spp.sagepub.com/content/e...

Why are some people prone to believe conspiracy theories? Do they feel special or smarter? What exactly make them believe outrageous things, even if they don't pass the common sense test?

Why are some people prone to believe conspiracy theories?Usually because of the scientific method. They have evidence that draws conclusions that differ from the stories those in power want people to believe.If those in power do something, maybe unpopular or even criminal; then they will most likely create a story that causes people to not assign blame to them.Do they feel special or smarter?Yes they do. Because truth has a special quality that is beyond social opinion.What exactly make them believe outrageous things?“Outrageous” means shocking. In other words there is a pre conceived cognition in the mind that is shocked by the new information that does not agree with the picture already contained. Like if all the people believe the earth to be flat, and a sailor comes home and tells you that actually the world is round. Because you have always believed the word flat, and everyone knows the world if flat, and your cognition of the reality of the world says it is flat, it is then shocking to hear that it is round.So why would the sailor believe it to be round? Because of the scientific method. He took measurements and used that evidence to build an alternative cognition in his mind. True scientists strive to overcome “cognitive dissidence”.Truth almost NEVER comes from popular opinion. Group think is like a drug that keeps populations ignorant.even if they don't pass the common sense test?“Common” sense means majority rule. IE Group think. That which is commonly believed to be true. Like the faith that governments don’t lie, don’t commit crimes, don’t kill, and don’t keep secrets. These common beliefs are myth. A myth is that which is commonly believed, yet untrue. Myth in the age of the internet where people are free to look up things up is strange.Why would people apply common sense when they can find actual truth very easily?

Why am I considered a conspiracy theorist when I ask questions about the 9/11 incident?

Unfortunately many people have beliefs about 9/11 that are simply based on “authoritative” explanations, combined with their own general assumptions and have failed to research the subject themselves.I noticed a couple other answers mentioning that your other questions were conspirator in nature. I don’t see it.You have every right to question NIST. The fact that they misrepresented WTC 7 when they had the master architecture drawings (and at that point the public did not) means that the 3 plus years they took for their study was a humongous waste for tax payers. If that were to happen in an academic environment, you would be released if you were a professor, or possible sued and asked to return the money granted to you for your study. BUT SOMEHOW IT IS OKAY WHEN NIST DOES IT!Another question asks about video of the hijackers and if there was a paper trail. This should be the reaction by any responsible person. The government needs to show some sort of proof, but they have no paper trail, nor video of the hijackers. But many do not realize that, and never think to ask for evidence themselves.Those answers that claimed your other questions sounded conspiracy-ish, did they even attempt to answer exactly why they believe this? No. I would argue that this goes along with the actual origin of the term “conspiracy theorist”. Just group all narratives that undermine the official account into one group instead of judging each claim on it’s own merit. They just denounced those questions without actually looking into what you were asking.It’s like when someone brings up the molten steel, defenders go into program mode and spout off how the steel did not need to melt to collapse, only be weakened. Then you point out there was molten steel, and they claim it is aluminum. Then after you point out it could not be aluminum due to the color, not to mention the pictures of the steel beams with melted edges, they just shout out “conspiracy theorist” so they can block themselves off form reality.Stay strong and keep questioning.

Why are so many famous criminals called by three names -- Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, etc.?

Slate has a good overview here. In short, it seems to be coincidence; of the four assassins who have killed US Presidents, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald are usually called with their full names, while Charles J. Guiteau and Leon Czolgosz are not.While in some cases the middle name may be used to avoid confusion with other people with the same name, both Booth and Oswald used their middle names before they became infamous for their crimes. The article further hypothesizes that "would-be assassins might embellish their own names to sound more grandiose... Or it could all be a kind of feedback loop: Modern villains want to emulate their role-models."In recent memory, middle names don't seem to commonly be used. As I recall:Jared Lee Loughner, who was sometimes referred to by three names and sometimes by two.James Eagan Holmes, who was usually called "James Holmes" in the news, at least the news that I read. His Wikipedia article probably uses the middle name for disambiguation.Adam Lanza, who apparently does have a middle name. I don't recall him ever being called with his full name.Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, for whom Wikipedia lists middle names, but they were not born in the US, so I don't know if the convention is different.This "phenomenon" is discussed in the film "Conspiracy Theory", where the distinction is made between serial killers, who, it is claimed, have only two names, and one-hit wonder assassins, who have three:Jerry: David Berkowitz, Ted Bundy, Richard Speck...Alice: What about them?Jerry: Serial killers. Serial killers only have two names. You ever notice that? But lone gunmen assassins, they always have three names. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman...Alice: John Hinckley. He shot Reagan. He only has two names.Jerry: Yeah, but he only just shot Reagan. Reagan didn't die. If Reagan had died, I'm pretty sure we probably would all know what John Hinckley's middle name was.Um, for nerd cred purposes, I just want everybody to know that I knew John Hinckley's middle name before reading that quote and I'm not sure where from. It's Warnock. You may applaud.