"It’s very interesting to do psychological studies of why people believe conspiracy theories, but I have an idea. Let’s do some studies about why people won’t."

Are we hard-wired not to question 9/11 official story?
By Craig McKee
Ilan Shrira writes that he isn’t usually inclined to believe conspiracy theories. He did, however, agree to watch the 9/11 film Loose Change on the recommendation of a friend. The result: he was engaged but not convinced.

This excerpt from the article is very telling, perhaps in ways the author didn’t intend:

“One reason I generally have trouble accepting conspiracy theories is that they’re usually based on far-fetched claims that are nearly impossible to disprove, or prove. My skepticism is further strengthened by the fact that we humans have an assortment of cognitive biases that can distort our judgments and allow us to maintain beliefs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Some of these biases include the tendency to see patterns where none exist, and to interpret new information and recall old information in ways that confirm our expectations and beliefs. However, most of the time we’re unaware of these biases and overly confident that our perceptions represent the objective truth.”

The author describes what he feels are the limitations of the perspectives of conspiracy theorists. But everything above could just as easily apply to someone who won’t accept a view other than the official story – even when overwhelming evidence indicates that the official story is full of holes.

The author’s reference to cognitive biases distorting our judgments could just easily apply to believers in the “official conspiracy theory.” And it can also be those defenders of the official story who won’t waver from their opinion “despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.”

Exchanges I’ve had recently with people over the Internet and in person reinforce the idea that we defend our beliefs regardless of the facts.

If the official story of 9/11 included explosives being placed in the World Trade Center, many more people would be open to the idea. It’s not the fact of explosives being involved that people are so opposed to (this was proposed on 9/11 by Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and others), it’s the idea that the “good guys” put them there. They don’t like the idea, so they’ll argue why it isn’t technically possible.

I have a friend (mentioned in a previous post) who conceded every point I had to make about the flaws in the official version of the Pentagon attack. But he couldn’t accept government complicity in the attacks – even when his own interpretation of the facts left little other conclusion.

And couldn’t the use of the word “paranoid” in the headline of the article be just as easily applied to those who are suspicious of people who question the official story?

It’s very interesting to do psychological studies of why people believe conspiracy theories, but I have an idea. Let’s do some studies about why people won’t.

Read more:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/357/509/Are_we_hard-wired_not_to_question_9_11_official_story.html