New Scientific Study Supposedly Finds Conspiracy Theorists To Be 'The Most Sane' Of All People

Jan Omega

Throughout history, there have been people who supposedly knew the real truth behind the news reported to the general public. They had an angle that was insightful, yet went against the grain of mainstream media. Since most people take news at mainstream face value, the people who knew the supposed truth were negatively labeled as conspiracy theorists. Still, conspiracy theories are some of the most entertaining, albeit can be some of the most informing, alternative news there is out there.

The Inquisitr understands this, reporting on the latest conspiracy theories that would circulate the internet, especially when it involved The Illuminati. One example in the music industry is that Lindsey Stirling joined them, being initialized in her music video for "Shatter Me." Another example in celebrity gossip argues that Joan Rivers was killed by the secret organization for her opposition towards Illuminati supporters/members, Jay-Z and Beyonce.

Now, it seems science has now given justice to conspiracy theorist who were ridiculed for years for their beliefs. A study supposedly shows that conspiracy theories may not be as crazy as most people think. As a matter of fact, they may be "the most sane" of all people.

According to articles by Natural News and Veterans Today, researchers consisting of psychologists and scientists from the United States and United Kingdom have deduced from collected data that conspiracy theorists appear to be more sane than those who accept official versions of controversial news. The latest study confirming these deductions was back in 2013 by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent in the U.K. titled "What about Building 7: A Social Psychological Study of Online Discussion of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories." In it, they compared comments of people who were conspiracists to those who were conventionalists from news websites reporting on the tragedy.

What Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas found was a dynamic that favored conspiracy theorists as written in their report.

"Of the 2,174 comments collected, 1,459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist. The research showed that people who favored the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile."

However, it seems that the study performed by Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas was taken out of context as reported by Conspiracy Psychology. Apparently when the originator for the sane conspiracy theorist angle, Kevin Barrett of PressTV, utilized the study, he did not know the comments used in the study were only persuasive, as in with the intent to change someone's opinion about 9/11. This doesn't include informational comments that describe why the conventional view or the conspiracy view is valid for the sake of being valid. This is a huge deal because if the comments that weren't persuasive were used, there is a 50 percent chance that the conspiracy theorists being more sane than conventionalists to be invalid.

In conclusion, it comes down to how people interpret certain situation to their personal experience in life. For all of you who've read this article, do you think it possible that conspiracy theorists are more sane than conventionalists? If so, what is your reasoning?