^That article is a really good example of a poor attempt at counter propaganda. It fails to provide direct links to what it proposes to be summarizing. This is necessary because the source material in no way backs up its broad assertions.
Here's the study on which it claims to be basing its argument:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3703523/The bias of the "scholars" who conducted the study is glaringly apparent, not only in their rhetorical presentation, which is littered with subtle persuasive and stigma enforcing associations, but in the study's design. A significant portion of their conclusions about "conspiracy belief" are artifacts of the nature of conspiracy itself, rather than some oddity of social or personal behavior. It's one of the most idiotic things I've read in a long time, if measured by conventional standards. As propaganda however, it's brilliant, unlike the the bit of fluff that led me there in the first place.
Anyway, have a nice day.
by Perelandra » Wed Oct 15, 2014 10:35 pm 
