I'm glad, at least, with the fact that the huge majority of comments by the readers on the NY Times link show they've felt the same way I did about the author. She's a moron (or has an agenda). Someone needs to send her back to elementary school and give her a nice history book.
I particularly liked this gem:
"Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which only perpetuates the problem."
Now we have psychologists trying to decipher (pay attention) what CAUSES conspiracy theories (?). And we have a "current scientific thinking" on the matter... funny, because one would think controversies related to history accounts should be a topic to be deciphered by experts in this field. Which means historians, social scientists, political scientists, etc. Not psychologists.
But her point is trying to equate being skeptical with a mental disease. Healthy people don't question their governments and "traditional media".
Of course. Why should we question governments or "traditional media"? It's not like they have been ever partners in any known, proven, real, undeniable conspiracy...
New York Times: "Why we know Iraq is lying" (LOL!)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/23/opinion/why-we-know-iraq-is-lying.html
Has "traditional media" found the weapons of mass destruction already?
After they do, perhaps they may start rebuilding their reputation and someone may pay some attention to their desperate articles about "conspiracy theories". Some of which should be named "controversies" by now.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read