I don't see the point of trying to convince Prototypical there wasn't a conspiracy - all evidence indicates it isn't possible to talk a conspiracy theorist out of his conspiracies. Proto seems much more useful as a test subject or example of the pathology to see if he conforms to the hypothesis put forth by the psychological research briefly described in
Message 1. For instance, is he "cynical about the world in general"? Does he have "low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large"? Does he appear to be reacting to a sense of "uncertainty and powerlessness"? Has he performed "repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative"?
There
*is* one thing I wonder about conspiracy theorists that the pschologists haven't addressed yet, at least not in the studies that were the focus of the NYT article. For things that have actually happened, evidence eventually comes to light. As time passes and evidence supporting conspiracy scenarios never emerges, how come conspiracy theorists still hold to their theories? How come they don't continue the "repeated reassessments of information" in light of the lack of emerging evidence?
--Percy