[MBTI General] What types are the most and least open minded?

[highlander]

Which types do you think are the least and most open minded? You can look at this from a few perspectives. Js often tend to come across as less open minded than Ps on the surface. There is an argument that dominant perceivers are more open minded than dominant judgers which is opposite of that. There is also the perception of open mindedness vs. what a person is really like internally. Then there is the aspect of how people interact and come across to others, which can open up dialogue or shut down conversations.

 

[LucieCat]

I think it's highly variable overall.

I feel like people often characterize strong Si with being close-minded, which ties into the perceptions of the SJ types. But I don't see Si as close-minded by nature. As a process, introverted sensing detects what had worked I'm the past and the impacts of experiences so that future decisions can be made based off of this perceived information. So, Si could potentially come off as slower to accept whatever is on the table since it needs to gather repeated experiences and data. But there's nothing to say that it makes a person close-minded.

Plus, Si is always accompanied by some degree of Ne. Ne, as a function, I find is heavily correlated with an open-mindset. At least that is my impression.

I personally think open-mindedness versus closed-mindedness has more to do with one's environment throughout life.

The quality of open mindedness is also variable within individuals. I've met people who will demonstrate open-mindedness in sone instances, but completely lack this quality when faced with others. A broad example is that several individuals I've known have always seemed receptive and accepting of new ideas and with dissenting opinions and beliefs in general, but when another person acts in a very specific way that either could subliminally or directly contradict a highly held belief or is just seen as strange, the individuals in question become extremely hostile. I've even been in situations where the hostility seems to arise over something the offending party did not even directly express or even do, the label was attached and hositility emerged. This has also arisen out of what I recognize as complete misunderstandings, in which cases, I find that I do my best to check out of the whole situation.

And I've also found that some people like the idea of being open-minded and accepting of new concepts and ideas and portray themselves as such, but will demonstrate that they really are not. I've also seen a weird twisted example of this in reverse from a very close friend. But I think that was due to some very warped social programming that was directly conflicting with how she wanted to behave and portray herself.

 

[raskol]

Plus, Si is always accompanied by some degree of Ne. Ne, as a function, I find is heavily correlated with an open-mindset. At least that is my impression.

I think ENFP, Ne dom with inferior Si and Ti blind spot, can generate a perfect storm of extreme openness. I am personally fascinated by philosophical and metaphysical explications and admittedly amused by elaborate conspiracy theories, but I keep the latter at arm's length.

That said, the most prevalent conspiracy theories--the far-right tour de force of NWO, ZOG, 9/11, Birthers, Pizzagate, etc.--are likely indicators of sectarian close-mindedness more than anything else. And those who are "open" to this garbage are actually shutting down their own critical faculties.

Rule of thumb: If the plot can be reduced to a single exclamation ("It's the Jews!"), then it's not worth your time.

I personally think open-mindedness versus closed-mindedness has more to do with one's environment throughout life.

Metropolitan environments will expose people to greater variation, and the presence of different religions, lifestyles, and perspectives make acceptance of differences an implicit aspect of daily life. By contrast, people growing up in environments with one ethnicity, one religion, and one dominant ideology will necessarily be less open to thoughts and opinions that risk undermining their foundation. But that also raises the question whether our functions are ultimately conditioned by our environment.

The quality of open mindedness is also variable within individuals. I've met people who will demonstrate open-mindedness in sone instances, but completely lack this quality when faced with others. (...) I've even been in situations where the hostility seems to arise over something the offending party did not even directly express or even do, the label was attached and hositility emerged. This has also arisen out of what I recognize as complete misunderstandings, in which cases, I find that I do my best to check out of the whole situation.

That's the curse of ideological clashes. This blindfold will project motives upon the speaker who doesn't conform. And again, the reaction often stands in direct relation to environmental conditions: multicultural v. monocultural.

 

[Norexan]

Тhe most: ENFP
The least his mirror which is: ISTJ

 

[Maou]

I agree with ENFPs, but I do not believe that thinking/speculating about conspiracies is "close minded". The ability to think about something from another person's perspective is the definition of open mindedness. NOT judging wether or not the person you are being open with is close-minded or unintelligent. It is also important to note, if you applied that same judgement to cultures you know nothing about, you are being xenophobic. Same applies to dismissing conspiracies without considering the possibility. There is no differece between believing in gods etc, or believing in conspiracies theories on a fundemental basis.

So if you are accepting of religions, but not conspiracies. You are not open minded.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

That said, the most prevalent conspiracy theories--the far-right tour de force of NWO, ZOG, 9/11, Birthers, Pizzagate, etc.--are likely indicators of sectarian close-mindedness more than anything else. And those who are "open" to this garbage are actually shutting down their own critical faculties.

It's weird because the whole 9/11 thing started out as a left wing conspiracy theory. I remember circa 2002, 2003, seeing this a lot in left wing music zines and such. It wasn't really until around 2008 or 2009 that I started noticing 9/11 conspiracy theories becoming more popular on the right.

Meanwhile the vaxxer thing seems to be prominent with a lot of people on the left and the right.


I think the 9/11 one is unique, I don't really consider this one quite as "out there" and "kooky" as a lot of the other popular conspiracy theories, as there were a lot of discrepancies and coincidences that cast doubt on the "official" story of what occurred, similar to contradictions between the "official" Warren commission report and other accounts of the events surrounding JFK's assassination. Lots of smoke and mirrors in both of those cases.

 

[raskol]

I agree with ENFPs, but I do not believe that thinking/speculating about conspiracies is "close minded".

You obviously didn't read my post properly. I stated, "I am [...] admittedly amused by elaborate conspiracy theories." However, "the most prevalent conspiracy theories [...] are likely indicators of sectarian [far-right/neo-Nazi] close-mindedness more than anything else."

Put differently, those who buy into a prepackaged narrative constructed by alt-righters/neo-Nazis, who invoke a modern-day version of the Protocols of Zion, are by default exhibiting extreme close-mindedness. The questioning of narratives and motives doesn't end the very second you encounter an alternative to the official story, as an open-minded person would never be satisfied with simplistic, monocausal, and/or fantastical counternarratives.

If anything is still unclear at this point, reread the above until it sticks. There really isn't much more to say.

It's weird because the whole 9/11 thing started out as a left wing conspiracy theory. I remember circa 2002, 2003, seeing this a lot in left wing music zines and such. It wasn't really until around 2008 or 2009 that I started noticing 9/11 conspiracy theories becoming more popular on the right.

It was a far-right conspiracy theory from the get-go. One can rather think of it as either a kosher version (Alex Jones) or a non-kosher version (neo-Nazis, Ryan Dawson) that would diverge on the "Jewish question" pertaining to the root cause of the attack. Nevertheless, all truthers would still absorb the same fake news surrounding the event, especially false rumors concerning Jewish evacuees and Mossad operatives.

Meanwhile the vaxxer thing seems to be prominent with a lot of people on the left and the right.

One can generally tell left from right by examining the aim of the respective narratives, as the left is structural (social and economic) while the right focuses on "enemy's within" (foreigners, cabals, and bogeymen). For all their nonsense, anti-vaxxers rarely claim that "it's them Jews whodunit."

I think the 9/11 one is unique, I don't really consider this one quite as "out there" and "kooky" as a lot of the other popular conspiracy theories, as there were a lot of discrepancies and coincidences that cast doubt on the "official" story of what occurred, similar to contradictions between the "official" Warren commission report and other accounts of the events surrounding JFK's assassination. Lots of smoke and mirrors in both of those cases.

Now you're going off on a Ne tangent, indiscriminately correlating unconnected events that are set apart by almost 40 years--in spite of initially declaring 9/11 a "unique" event. And even though I agree with you on the smoke and mirrors and remaining questions, that stance is by no means supportive of narratives constructed to fill out blanks and simultaneously frame spurious cabals and bogeymen.

You see, if your go-to explanation requires fiction--"shape-shifting aliens" (David Icke), "satanic globalists" (Alex Jones) or "it's the Jews!" (neo-Nazi)--then you've opted for a close-minded answer and more or less disqualified yourself from further discussion.

 

[Maou]

You obviously didn't read my post properly. I stated, "I am [...] admittedly amused by elaborate conspiracy theories." However, "the most prevalent conspiracy theories [...] are likely indicators of sectarian [far-right/neo-Nazi] close-mindedness more than anything else."

Put differently, those who buy into a prepackaged narrative constructed by alt-righters/neo-Nazis, who invoke a modern-day version of the Protocols of Zion, are by default exhibiting extreme close-mindedness. The questioning of narratives and motives doesn't end the very second you encounter an alternative to the official story, as an open-minded person would never be satisfied with simplistic, monocausal, and/or fantastical counternarratives.

Everyone buys into prepackaged narratives, its not limited to the Right. A good example is Science in general. We trust the knowledge bestowed upon us without questioning or seeing it for ourselves. Trusting one ideology/belief over another is not an indicator of close mindedness. Its an indicator of human tribalism. Are their narrow minded people in these groups? Yes, but its not something that exists on one side of the political spectrum. I am pointing this out, because I dislike it when people indirectly, or directly try to dehumanize or make lesser human beings of any group. No matter what they believe in, they are people too. With varying degrees of openness.

I don't see how questioning an ethnic group's cultural motives is so strange, when many discuss the impact religion has on society in general frequently. I think any group immune to criticism is worth questioning. I also think you are underestimating some conspiracy theorists based on your preconcieved notions that since X group believes Y. They must be narrow minded and stupid etc because it violates your moral code. That isn't logical, and even if something violates your moral code, doesn't mean it is wrong, taboo from crit, and speculation of those who are more open to setting aside their personal values to look at something objectively. Now I am not saying all of these radical groups are like what I explained. There are some rotten people out there who commit atrocities, but then there are those who sympathise and understand where they are coming from and seek peaceful resolve between group differences. So dont paint any group with broad strokes.

 

[raskol]

Everyone buys into prepackaged narratives, its not limited to the Right.

Of course we all buy into prepackaged narratives. I don't know if you're purposefully misreading my posts, skipping past crucial statements, or if you're suffering from some kind of deficiency. What I stated, regarding conspiracy theories, was that "the left is structural (social and economic) while the right focuses on 'enemy's within' (foreigners, cabals, and bogeymen)." That's how you tell them apart. Beyond that, those who make full use of their critical faculties will not buy into narratives that are at once both monocausal and fantastical, which is the case with far-right conspiracies involving ZOG, NWO, or 9/11.

A good example is Science in general. We trust the knowledge bestowed upon us without questioning or seeing it for ourselves. Trusting one ideology/belief over another is not an indicator of close mindedness. Its an indicator of human tribalism.

That would be an error of analysis. Science relies on method and perspicacity, not blind faith. As such, all scientific knowledge is by definition provisional, ready to be updated at any time. Tribal conditions couldn't be further from this order, as they preserve age-old lore that has never been placed under scientific scrutiny. You couldn't have presented a worse analogy.

Are their narrow minded people in these groups? Yes, but its not something that exists on one side of the political spectrum.

You are conflating value and truth. Tribalism is always erroneous and mired in lies, but it is nevertheless politically expedient. It follows a Nietzschean rationale, according to which the life-affirming lie constitutes a higher form of insight. But one mustn't confuse this dark insight with truth itself.

I am pointing this out, because I dislike it when people indirectly, or directly try to dehumanize or make lesser human beings of any group. No matter what they believe in, they are people too.

You are falsely assuming that all collective action is equal. Those who fight injustice are not on par with the close-minded forces that promote hatred and bigotry. Bizarrely, you're equating the firefighter with the arsonist.

I don't see how questioning an ethnic group's cultural motives is so strange [...] So dont paint any group with broad strokes.

Are you able to see the inconsistency in your own reasoning? Seriously now. You start off by supporting the questioning of "an ethnic group's cultural motives"--and I'm assuming you're talking about Jews here--only to end the paragraph by condemning that very practice.

All I ask of you is consistency.

 

[rav3n]

Ne users focus on possibilities.
Ni users, inner vision.
Se users, concrete reality.
Si users, application of the past to evaluate the concrete present.
Ti users, logical inner framework.
Te users, logical external pragmatism.
Fi users, inner values.
Fe users, social harmony.

Violate any of the above and each type will be close minded. Play into the above and each type will be open minded.

 

[Maou]

Of course we all buy into prepackaged narratives. I don't know if you're purposefully misreading my posts, skipping past crucial statements, or if you're suffering from some kind of deficiency. What I stated, regarding conspiracy theories, was that "the left is structural (social and economic) while the right focuses on 'enemy's within' (foreigners, cabals, and bogeymen)." That's how you tell them apart. Beyond that, those who make full use of their critical faculties will not buy into narratives that are at once both monocausal and fantastical, which is the case with far-right conspiracies involving ZOG, NWO, or 9/11.

That would be an error of analysis. Science relies on method and perspicacity, not blind faith. As such, all scientific knowledge is by definition provisional, ready to be updated at any time. Tribal conditions couldn't be further from this order, as they preserve age-old lore that has never been placed under scientific scrutiny. You couldn't have presented a worse analogy.

You are conflating value and truth. Tribalism is always erroneous and mired in lies, but it is nevertheless politically expedient. It follows a Nietzschean rationale, according to which the life-affirming lie constitutes a higher form of insight. But one mustn't confuse this dark insight with truth itself.

You are falsely assuming that all collective action is equal. Those who fight injustice are not on par with the close-minded forces that promote hatred and bigotry. Bizarrely, you're equating the firefighter with the arsonist.

Are you able to see the inconsistency in your own reasoning? Seriously now. You start off by supporting the questioning of "an ethnic group's cultural motives"--and I'm assuming you're talking about Jews here--only to end the paragraph by condemning that very practice.

All I ask of you is consistency.

I am quiet bad at explaining my reasoning. Allow me to reiterate.

The Right isn't really focused on the enemy within, its more focused on precautionary actions against percieved threats to stability (that can be inside) Its been scientifically proven people on the Right are better at detecting trouble. The Left is more about Group think, and social class issues to a degree that I would call fanatical.

Ever heard the phrase "The truth is stranger than fiction"? I do not think just because something sounds insane, doesn't mean it is impossible. So its good to apply what I call the macro-micro comparison. If it can happen on a small scale, its definately happening on a large scale.

My comment on Science isn't wrong, and I am not talking about blind faith (though there are many who see science like religion and do follow it blindly) If you didnt do the experiments yourself, you are using faith. You've never been to the moon, so you cannot say anything about it with 100% certainty. You have to trust the people who did. Evidence can be tampered with as well, or have flawed or inconclusive data.

Openness has nothing to do with ideology. This is because openness means understanding another person's perspective. It doesn't mean that you agree with another's perspective. This distinction is important. One can practice a seemingly radical perspective and ideology, while being open minded. They just feel their answer to life is superior. As most people embrace one thing or another as they go through life. As life is structured around your choices and perspectives. Each person has different experiences, that may or may not disprove one person's ideology or "truth" that they adhere to. So it is wrong to draw conclusions about people based on their perspectives, because you think they think a specific way.

Being critical of things isnt always logical. Humans are flawed, and see things how they want. So there is no objective truth, or right and wrong. Its just the clashing of perspectives, because no one knows the whole truth. There is no authority on truth.

When I am talking about tribalism, I am talking about the social inclination to segregate ourselves and follow our groups without much questioning.

I personally, do not view all ideologies and cultures equally. But some do, so it is important to note. Also, morality is relative, culture is not.

 

[Non_xsense]

The most concepts open-minded is Intp's , there is not other type which can think/understand other perspectives as fast as intp ( Emotional side i don't know ...probabily some Fe type ).
Close-minded .. really i don't think there is , i can learn from Esfj's beatiful meanings which i never could by my own and my Intj father was fucking amazing (INtj Fi is so stupid and complex at the same time but really there is nothing to make you feel more loved than a true Fi ) .intp and intj logic arguments are alot of fun but what if you actually love each other xDD is just another fucking dimention .

 

[raskol]

The Right isn't really focused on the enemy within, its more focused on precautionary actions against percieved threats to stability (that can be inside)

First off, I was referring to the differences in the formation of conspiracy theories: socioeconomic structures (left) v. foreigners/cabals/bogeymen (right). In no way does that condemn or undermine "the right" as such, only the kooks who parrot Protocols of Zion narratives.

Second, it is mind-boggling how you can claim that it is not about focusing on the enemy within, only to confirm that this is the case in the following clause. Maybe you need to take a deep breath and think through what you're trying to get across.

Its been scientifically proven people on the Right are better at detecting trouble.

No, it hasn't. But feel free to send me studies drenched in confirmation biases.

The Left is more about Group think, and social class issues to a degree that I would call fanatical.

It is frankly bizarre how you can promote tribalism in one breath yet condemn group think and class solidarity in the next.

Ever heard the phrase "The truth is stranger than fiction"? I do not think just because something sounds insane, doesn't mean it is impossible. So its good to apply what I call the macro-micro comparison. If it can happen on a small scale, its definately happening on a large scale.

If an explanation sounds insane, is logically incoherent, and is simultaneously constructed and promoted by neo-Nazis, then your gut should tell you that something is terribly wrong.

It actually raises a number of questions as to why you'd suddenly suspend disbelief and swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

My comment on Science isn't wrong, and I am not talking about blind faith (though there are many who see science like religion and do follow it blindly) If you didnt do the experiments yourself, you are using faith. You've never been to the moon, so you cannot say anything about it with 100% certainty. You have to trust the people who did. Evidence can be tampered with as well, or have flawed or inconclusive data.

This naive realism beggars belief. You do realize that such a myopic approach completely obfuscates the core of science: method reliant on perspicacity and continuous critique. (Give Popperian testability a look-see.)

It is also shockingly bizarre how you can apply such contradicting standards. On the one hand, you're willing to entertain the most insane explanation as an ersatz for an established consensus, no questions asked; on the other, you're ceaselessly questioning and undermining even the most mundane and obvious conclusions.

Basically speaking, irrespective of logical cohesion, what benefits your tribe will be accepted as gospel, while that which threatens your tribe will be questioned beyond reasonable doubt. This is close-mindedness par excellence.

Openness has nothing to do with ideology. This is because openness means understanding another person's perspective. It doesn't mean that you agree with another's perspective. This distinction is important. [...] So it is wrong to draw conclusions about people based on their perspectives, because you think they think a specific way.

Openness has everything to do with ideology, hence the adjective liberal. One can easily draw the conclusion that people who adhere to a bigoted set of ideas will act in a bigoted manner, i.e., be close-minded. And those who welcome or conform to close-mindedness are themselves close-minded.

Being critical of things isnt always logical. Humans are flawed, and see things how they want. So there is no objective truth, or right and wrong. Its just the clashing of perspectives, because no one knows the whole truth. There is no authority on truth.

Of course there are scientific tools in place to establish truth. It feels as though I'm conversing with a prehistoric man, for whom natural science is yet to be developed. As before, you are conflating insight and power with truth.

When I am talking about tribalism, I am talking about the social inclination to segregate ourselves and follow our groups without much questioning.

Yes, I know, tribalism. And I'm assuming it's because of tribalists--ethnic separatists, white nationalists--that the politics subforum is currently off limits. Tribalists may be authentic in their bigotry, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it's anything but close-mindedness on display.

I personally, do not view all ideologies and cultures equally.

Out of interest, and in the spirit of authenticity, would you care to share your views on which culture is superior?

Also, morality is relative, culture is not.

Culture most definitely is relative. All morality begins with cultural mores, a collection of lore, myths, and stories sustained by groups/collectives/tribes. It is through time, molded by constant interaction and scrutiny, that morality can be sublimated and reflect something more than arbitrary remnants of a long-lost culture.

 

[Maou]

First off, I was referring to the differences in the formation of conspiracy theories: socioeconomic structures (left) v. foreigners/cabals/bogeymen (right). In no way does that condemn or undermine "the right" as such, only the kooks who parrot Protocols of Zion narratives.

Second, it is mind-boggling how you can claim that it is not about focusing on the enemy within, only to confirm that this is the case in the following clause. Maybe you need to take a deep breath and think through what you're trying to get across.

No, it hasn't. But feel free to send me studies drenched in confirmation biases.

It is frankly bizarre how you can promote tribalism in one breath yet condemn group think and class solidarity in the next.

If an explanation sounds insane, is logically incoherent, and is simultaneously constructed and promoted by neo-Nazis, then your gut should tell you that something is terribly wrong.

It actually raises a number of questions as to why you'd suddenly suspend disbelief and swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

This naive realism beggars belief. You do realize that such a myopic approach completely obfuscates the core of science: method reliant on perspicacity and continuous critique. (Give Popperian testability a look-see.)

It is also shockingly bizarre how you can apply such contradicting standards. On the one hand, you're willing to entertain the most insane explanation as an ersatz for an established consensus, no questions asked; on the other, you're ceaselessly questioning and undermining even the most mundane and obvious conclusions.

Basically speaking, irrespective of logical cohesion, what benefits your tribe will be accepted as gospel, while that which threatens your tribe will be questioned beyond reasonable doubt. This is close-mindedness par excellence.

Openness has everything to do with ideology, hence the adjective liberal. One can easily draw the conclusion that people who adhere to a bigoted set of ideas will act in a bigoted manner, i.e., be close-minded. And those who welcome or conform to close-mindedness are themselves close-minded.

Of course there are scientific tools in place to establish truth. It feels as though I'm conversing with a prehistoric man, for whom natural science is yet to be developed. As before, you are conflating insight and power with truth.

Yes, I know, tribalism. And I'm assuming it's because of tribalists--ethnic separatists, white nationalists--that the politics subforum is currently off limits. Tribalists may be authentic in their bigotry, but don't fool yourself into thinking that it's anything but close-mindedness on display.

Out of interest, and in the spirit of authenticity, would you care to share your views on which culture is superior?

Culture most definitely is relative. All morality begins with cultural mores, a collection of lore, myths, and stories sustained by groups/collectives/tribes. It is through time, molded by constant interaction and scrutiny, that morality can be sublimated and reflect something more than arbitrary remnants of a long-lost culture.

And you cant seem to differentiate your own perspective from others, and attack everything but the original point's argument. Which I will restate for the sake of keeping this simple. One can be open minded, but still choose to do things a specific way. Even more so if they see things equally. There are many factors in play when one chooses a political ideology. Openness probably plays only a small role in determining things.

Otherwise explain why a lot of NT's are conservative, when in essence many are "open" by definition.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It was a far-right conspiracy theory from the get-go. One can rather think of it as either a kosher version (Alex Jones) or a non-kosher version (neo-Nazis, Ryan Dawson) that would diverge on the "Jewish question" pertaining to the root cause of the attack. Nevertheless, all truthers would still absorb the same fake news surrounding the event, especially false rumors concerning Jewish evacuees and Mossad operatives.

I wouldn't call Michael Ruppert far right, but OK. He was questioning the official accounts of events pretty much from the get-go, before Jones and the right really started parroting their poorly evidenced narratives. He cited numerous reputable news sources; his whole angle didn't touch on some business of the "jewish question" or Mossad operatives, but rather seemed to point at high ranking neoconservatives from the American military industrial complex. Given the types of sources he tended to cite (a lot of BBC citations, Washington Post, NYTimes, etc), it might be a stretch to suggest he too was absorbing fake news, though fine, let's concede at least some of what he absorbed was probably fake. The implication he made was that our invasion of Afghanistan was motivated by big oil and military contractors. They wanted a pipeline running through Afghanistan. They needed the Taliban gov't out of the way first. Pretty straightforward, little or no emphasis on any business about Jewish conspiracies. Anyway, I recall that list of citations making the rounds in some underground left leaning zines like the now defunct Hanging Like A Hex in late 2001/early 2002. Hardly the sort of material far right conspiracy theory aficianados would be interested in reading, assuming they were even aware of the existence of such publications.

There was also Michael Moore, not at all someone I would consider a right winger (unless one chooses to overlook everything the man has ever said), questioning the official narratives surrounding 9/11 not long after the planes hit. He focused more on the invasion of Iraq, but he touched on 9/11 as a precursor to that. That Fahrenheit 9/11 Documentary was pretty popular for a while, so I'm surprised you aren't aware of it.


It's fine to rebut people, just know what you're talking about first. You are being either ignorant or selectively dishonest in your framing of events.

 

[The Cat]

In my experience it's not type related. Open vs close mindedness is individualistic. And there are angles of open and closed. Some are wide open some are only cracked, some doors are shut but not locked and some have been bricked over entirely, some are off the hinges and some say come on in.

 

[raskol]

I wouldn't call Michael Ruppert far right, but OK.

Michael Ruppert was a tragic kook who killed himself in 2014 after going broke. He had by then abandoned the 9/11 truther movement for peak oil (!) and started a rock band (New White Trash) that garnered attention from Vice. As a con man, he didn't follow ideological frameworks but expanded on particular events and emergent patterns and tied them together into a greater mythos: the paranoid style of American politics.

Anyway, I recall that list of citations making the rounds in some underground left leaning zines like the now defunct Hanging Like A Hex in late 2001/early 2002. Hardly the sort of material far right conspiracy theory aficianados would be interested in reading, assuming they were even aware of the existence of such publications.

I found issues of that zine in the WayBack Machine. It would be interesting if you could resurrect its conspiratorial take on 9/11, as it would likely be structural in nature and thereby confirm my aforementioned approach. You see, it just doesn't belong to the DNA of the dissident left to look for nefarious cabals ("Synagogue of Satan") and bogeymen (Soros).

There was also Michael Moore, not at all someone I would consider a right winger (unless one chooses to overlook everything the man has ever said), questioning the official narratives surrounding 9/11 not long after the planes hit. He focused more on the invasion of Iraq, but he touched on 9/11 as a precursor to that. That Fahrenheit 9/11 Documentary was pretty popular for a while, so I'm surprised you aren't aware of it.

Questioning an official narrative is not the same as adhering to a prepackaged conspiracy theory. I don't care much for Michael Moore--he appears to be some kind of Gen X hero, lowbrow and working class--but I have never seen him approach anything from the truther sphere. But feel free to disprove me on this claim.

The leftist most critical of the Bush-43 administration's handling of 9/11 would be Chomsky, who claims that no evidence was ever presented to inculpate OBL. Yet Chomsky's analyses are consistently structural in nature, and he dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theories as flights of fancy.

It's fine to rebut people, just know what you're talking about first. You are being either ignorant or selectively dishonest in your framing of events.

The saddest part of this exchange is that you likely will not understand how gullible this makes you look.

On a side note, many who have entered this thread are confusing openness with agreeableness. One can test for this (Big Five) and see how strongly one correlates with imagination, artistic interests, emotionality, adventurousness, and "psychological" liberalism (challenging authority, convention, tradition). As I usually score 90-99 in openness yet 10-19 in agreeableness, people who value trust and congeniality will likely consider my interactive style both critical and unpleasant, and colloquially (read: erroneously) term it close-mindedness.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Michael Ruppert was a tragic kook who killed himself in 2014 after going broke. He had by then abandoned the 9/11 truther movement for peak oil (!) and started a rock band (New White Trash) that garnered attention from Vice. As a con man, he didn't follow ideological frameworks but expanded on particular events and emergent patterns and tied them together into a greater mythos: the paranoid style of American politics.

What is your evidence for him being a con man? Also, you seem to be assuming I believe in aforementioned conspiracy theories, which I never actually said. I merely pointed out A) I find 9/11 conspiracy theories to be less "out there" than things like the moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, vaxxer ramblings, et al and B) you were selective in your assessment that 9/11 truther movements are uniquely right wing. B ran contrary to my experience, that my first exposure to 9/11 conspiracy theory ramblings happened to be in a zine that published political content from a left wing perspective. It was, what '09 or so before Jones became loud enough with his 9/11 rants that he started losing radio outlets for his show.

I found issues of that zine in the WayBack Machine. It would be interesting if you could resurrect its conspiratorial take on 9/11, as it would likely be structural in nature and thereby confirm my aforementioned approach. You see, it just doesn't belong to the DNA of the dissident left to look for nefarious cabals ("Synagogue of Satan") and bogeymen (Soros).

(That's not the issue that featured the article on 9/11. ) However, it seems like the inclusion of Ruppert's list of events and citations was more or less copied and pasted verbatim from his website, so there's no need to seek the original zine when the same thing is still easily accessible on his old website.

It was mostly an apolitical magazine covering music and counter-culture, however the occasional piece or cartoon relating to politics and current events tended to be of a left wing slant. This doesn't disprove that 9/11 truther movements exist on the right (I never claimed they didn't) but it does prove that conspiracy theories were being parroted or repeated by people on both ends of the political spectrum. I realize Wikipedia isn't always the most accurate source of information, but even their page on the 9/11 truther movement notes "Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement come from diverse social backgrounds.[199][200][201] The movement draws adherents from people of diverse political beliefs including liberals, conservatives, and libertarians." I'm not sure why that seems to bother you so much, but it is what it is.

Questioning an official narrative is not the same as adhering to a prepackaged conspiracy theory. I don't care much for Michael Moore--he appears to be some kind of Gen X hero, lowbrow and working class--but I have never seen him approach anything from the truther sphere. But feel free to disprove me on this claim.

He pointed out enough inconsistencies across various accounts of the post-9/11 events that there is a strong overlap with his implied message (Bush and co. at least knew more than they let on leading up to 9/11, could have acted to prevent the events, and benefitted from the aftermath) and several of the usual talking points of 9/11 truthers, whether left or right.

Whether or not you care for Michael Moore is also irrelevant here.

The saddest part of this exchange is that you likely will not understand how gullible this makes you look.

No, you're mistakenly assuming I actually believe 9/11 conspiracy theories at face value, which I never said. I am skeptical of any conspiracy theory but will at least examine and consider any evidence presented.

On a side note, many who have entered this thread are confusing openness with agreeableness. One can test for this (Big Five) and see how strongly one correlates with imagination, artistic interests, emotionality, adventurousness, and "psychological" liberalism (challenging authority, convention, tradition). As I usually score 90-99 in openness yet 10-19 in agreeableness, people who value trust and congeniality will likely consider my interactive style both critical and unpleasant, and colloquially (read: erroneously) term it close-mindedness.

I score about 98% in openness.

 

[raskol]

What is your evidence for him being a con man?

Just read his bio and piece together the obvious, from the fanciful stories of shoot-outs with the CIA to the escape to Venezuela or the late music career. It's all very Americana. But yes, there is a chance that Ruppert believed in his own narratives, which makes him a psychotic/paranoiac rather than a sad con man.

Also, you seem to be assuming I believe in aforementioned conspiracy theories, which I never actually said. I merely pointed out you were selective in your assessment that 9/11 truther movements are uniquely right wing. That ran contrary to my experience, that my first exposure to 9/11 conspiracy theory ramblings happened to be in a zine that published political content from a left wing perspective.

Your impression is simply wrong. There was never a left-wing aspect to the 9/11 truther movement, which was formed around incoherent narratives from the likes of Alex Jones, David Icke, Jesse Ventura, Mark Dice, David Ray Griffin, Jim Marrs, and on and on. Like Ruppert, these individuals also fall along the same spectrum from con man to paranoiac, although they appear to have their finances in order.

The dissident left's response to 9/11 was presented by Chomsky in my previous post, but you didn't give it much attention. I wonder why.

It was mostly an apolitical magazine covering music and counter-culture, however the occasional piece or cartoon relating to politics and current events tended to be of a left wing slant. This doesn't disprove that 9/11 truther movements exist on the right (I never claimed they didn't) but it does prove that conspiracy theories were being parroted or repeated by people on both ends of the political spectrum.

Just link me to it. Scout the Wayback Machine and present the article.

I'm not sure why that seems to bother you so much, but it is what it is.

You are the one who challenged my statement on the nature of far-right conspiracy theories, so I'll just return that assumption right back to you.

He pointed out enough inconsistencies across various accounts of the post-9/11 events that there is a strong overlap with his implied message (Bush and co. at least knew more than they let on leading up to 9/11, could have acted to prevent the events, and benefitted from the aftermath) and several of the usual talking points of 9/11 truthers, whether left or right.

Show, not tell. I've searched and haven't found a single statement from Michael Moore where he engages in any narrative from the 9/11 truther movement, or even raises the topic of an "inside job." He obviously plays fast and loose with the truth, but he doesn't engage in kooky conspiracy theories.

No, you're mistakenly assuming I actually believe 9/11 conspiracy theories at face value, which I never said. I am skeptical of any conspiracy theory but will at least examine and consider any evidence presented.

My point is an entirely different one. The medium and the messenger are as important to consider as the message itself. They form an intricate web that connects the speaker's socioeconomic environment with his or her ideological and religious blindfolds. A statement or explication can never be removed from this greater context.

I score about 98% in openness.

I would assume as much, but how about agreeableness? My own Big Five test scores are perhaps more informative than my MBTI type.

With that in mind, I just found this, which should put to rest any question regarding the correlation of NP, especially ENP, and openness.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I already linked it in an earlier response to you.