>The twitter example seems more like those Nobel prize winners that later reconvert to crackpots. That's the point. They were always "crackpots". You need to b

>The twitter example seems more like those Nobel prize winners that later reconvert to crackpots. That's the point. They were always "crackpots". You need to be a crackpot to generate ideas that people aren't generating, otherwise everyone would generate them. This means you'll generate wrong ideas, but it also means you'll generate right ideas that people think are wrong. >I definitely agree that conspiracy theorists reject authority and are contrarian, but most don't strike me as curious except for a superficial level. They are definitely more curious than most people, as evidenced by the fact that they were attracted to the conspiracy theory in the first place. It's also not uncommon for an intelligent conspiracy theorist to be able to outargue a conventional person on a subject they care about, i.e. the Earth being flat or not. >As for the list of things those people may or may not enjoy, the sheer amount of things polled and the small sample size give me doubts. I think this field is pretty well established and this paper in particular is well cited, so among peers it doesn't seem to be contentious.