Social Question

lloydbird's avatar

What is the opposite of a conspiracy theorist?

Asked by lloydbird (8730points) November 2nd, 2010

If conspiracy theorists are so way off the mark, what is the term that describes their polar opposites? And are you one?
This Q is inspired by this thread. Because there seem to be quite a few of them throughout it. What are you called? You trusting souls. You people that are so on the ball. That believe so willingly that the orthodox view is all that you need to ally yourself with. Just what are you called? You seem to know what to call those that are not what you are, but what are you called?

If you are not one of the afore-mentioned, what do you think that they are called?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

30 Answers

TexasDude's avatar

A realist.

And for the record, just because you don’t accept most conspiracy theories doesn’t mean you are a “trusting soul” or someone who is “believ[ing] so willingly that the orthodox view is all that you need to ally yourself with.”

iamthemob's avatar

I think conspiracy theorists would refer to the opposite along the lines of “Well, you drank the cool-aid.”

ucme's avatar

A realist!.....Beaten to the punch, although no less accurate.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

Trusting everyone and everything.

YoBob's avatar

I’m with @ragingloli on this one.

“Just because you are paranoid does not mean they aren’t out to get you.” – unknown

crazyivan's avatar

I’ve never understood how it is that conspiracy theorists, who believe the most outlandish things on no evidence at all and cling to them despite mountains of evidence to the contrary accuse realists of “trusting” what they’re told. If we trusted what we were told, we would trust the nonsense that the conspiracy theorists dole out, too, wouldn’t we?

There is no “opposite” of a conspiracy theorist. They are a tiny fraction of society so to apply a term to the other 95% would be giving too much credit to the conspiracy theorist.

The non-conspiracy theorist, for lack of a better term, is the person who weighs the evidence objectively without starting off with the assumption that the government never lies or with the assumption that the government always lies. They are people who can watch “Loose Change” and see the 4 logical fallacies per minute and dismiss it. They are the people that trust experts over lunatics. They are the people who insist that understanding something is a prerequisite for drawing a conclusion about it.

If there is a word to describe it, I would say it was “sane”.

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

a rationalist

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

I like conspiracy theories. I feel like asking questions is necessary.
I don’t believe all of them. In fact, I don’t believe most of them. Some of them do make me raise an eyebrow at least, and say.. “I wonder..”

I do feel like you have to be a really trusting person to never believe any conspiracy theory.

kevbo's avatar

With respect to discussion of conspiracy theories, I like “incompetence theorist” or “coincidence theorist.”

“Sheeple” is another, albeit derisive.

I would say that, in general, the opposite is just regular, down to earth people.

Kardamom's avatar

Scientists

Blueroses's avatar

Logical realism. I enjoy your batshit theories, now prove them.

perg's avatar

Skeptic. Though I guess that could be used either way.

TexasDude's avatar

@Blueroses now prove them.

Don’t hold your breath. Great response, by the way

Joybird's avatar

I refer to them as “the indoctrinated” and yes they will drink the coolaid.

Blueroses's avatar

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard :)
I have Randy Quaid on my mind and my uncle who thinks the govt “Big G” is concealing everything from acne cures to the presence of Binaural Brainwave Doses in prime-time TV (although that might explain the popularity of Two and a Half Men).
As if the govt were capable of agreeing to conspire on anything. They filibuster over ordering Dominos or Quiznos for lunch sessions.

kevbo's avatar

^incompetence theory in action ;-)

Blondesjon's avatar

“Them” or “They”.

and, godammit it’s “KOOL-AID”

Coloma's avatar

An apolitical ’ it’s all good’ type, like me. lol

I like the zen mantra of ’ if you understand it is what it is, if you don’t understand it is what it is.

Nowhere to go from there. lol

Blueroses's avatar

@Blondesjon thank you! Kool-Aid… Oh YEAH! That misspelling is a minor pet peeve

josie's avatar

Everybody else.

mattbrowne's avatar

An open-minded scholar.

Coloma's avatar

@mattbrowne

I’d just leave it at open minded period. ;-)

Anon_Jihad's avatar

Conspiracy theorists are often off the mark, as they only look for evidence that fits their view instead of keeping their opinions out of their research. But most scientists do the same thing and that’s why it’s still generally accepted that climate change is man-made.

The government isn’t here for us, and if you think it is, I honestly feel bad for you. It’s just a conglomerate of people looking out for themselves and their own interests. So conspiracy theorists have the right idea, don’t trust your government, sure they may be crazy, sure they look in all the wrong places for the governments dirty laundry, but let’s not pretend shit like Waco never happened.

crazyivan's avatar

@Anon_Jihad But you, on the other hand, looked at all the climate change data objectively…

Anon_Jihad's avatar

I had no stance on climate change until I researched it as best as I could myself. The data appears to clearly point out that all happening to our climate is pretty normal and that the climate will continue to change on its own, as it always has, until the Earth stops doing its thing. The man-made change arguments fail to use science or logic in any manner which presents itself to me in any way as credible.

CMaz's avatar

boredom

Paradox's avatar

An irrational rationalist. There should be no extremes on either side here. You look at evidence before coming to a conclusion. Making an assumption that there is no conspiracy without investigation is just as bad to me as the conspiracy theorist making irrational claims without evidence to back their claims up.

There is a difference between a true open-minded skeptic and a cynical defender of the status quote.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther