Post No.: 0940
Fluffystealthkitten says:
Conspiracy theories are those conjectures that haven’t transitioned into becoming categorically proven truths via the preponderance of evidence.
Numerous personnel are involved in something big. Do you believe it’s feasible that new generations of independent individuals upon new generations of independent individuals, like newly-arrived politicians, board members, employees, contractors and other personnel at all levels of an organisation, can and will all keep certain secrets for so long at all times? Okay there are sensitive national secrets and individuals getting silenced – but there are also accidental leaks, loudmouth gossipers, whistleblowers and disgruntled staff.
So the longer a conspiracy theory hasn’t been confirmed as true with solid evidence, especially from those on the inside, the less likely there are real machinations i.e. the more people who know about a conspiracy, the less chance of it surviving. (There’s even compelling evidence of the identity of the (founding) artist Banksy!)
Edward Snowden became an enemy of the US State because he disclosed the truth. No one is being hunted by the US government for disclosing evidence of an extraterrestrial alien discovery cover up!
Similar to how science-fiction author L. Ron Hubbard founded the religion Scientology – Kerry Thornley and Greg Hill founded the religion Discordianism; although in this case as a parody. This parody sparked the conspiracy that the Illuminati are behind everything. ‘Operation Mind****’ was a false conspiracy theory to mock all conspiracy theories – but it ended up becoming one the biggest conspiracy theories of them all(!)
When people wonder how multiple different countries or stakeholders around the world all seem to be talking with the same voice (e.g. about there being a pandemic or climate change) then conspiracy theorists will presume there’s precisely a secretive global organisation behind it all.
And if you believe that the Illuminati are omnipresent then you can find triangles everywhere in culture as a result of applying confirmation bias. But the triangle is an incredibly common shape or symbol. The associations must be seriously intended, not coincidental or as parody.
You can also do a lot to numbers, like taking a date like 12:46am on 27/10/1634, or just the day, or year – whichever confirms your bias best – and arbitrarily break the digits apart and add, subtract, multiply, divide, square, cube or whatever them until they arrive at another number that coincidentally matches another of interest you wish to match. But what about all the other combinations of operations and resultant numbers that could be achieved by doing this that don’t mean anything? Yet our intuitions cannot help but assume that coincidences cannot happen.
Both superstitions and conspiracy theories result from seeing patterns or connections that are coincidental or spurious. There’s an assumption that everything has a designed reason for happening – a deliberately guided outcome from a higher power, whether divine or human. This relates to apophenia, which is a heuristic for detecting potential threats. But it over-fires.
Consider also how many superstitions are based around avoiding bad luck (you can gain good luck from a lucky charm only for as long as you’re carrying it – but breaking a mirror just once will give you back luck for several years), and how conspiracy theories aren’t usually about clandestine benevolent actors.
Conspiracy theorists do care for and seek the truth but we tend to underestimate how purre chance alone explains many global events – most people will rather seek a causal explanation involving conscious agents with direct intentional motivations.
The confirmation or myside bias is at play – we find evidence of something that could shatter our desired worldviews (e.g. we believe we have the inalienable right to bear arms but a string of mass shootings occur) so we rationalise that evidence away through something that we believe sounds plausible (e.g. these incidents are being deliberately staged by a group that’s directly attempting to generate reasons to curb our gun rights). And even if a hypothesis proves to be false (e.g. the apocalypse never happened at a predicted date), the goalposts to satisfy ditching the conspiracy theory will keep shifting (e.g. another nearby date must be correct). This allows us to steadfastly and indefinitely maintain our existing worldviews despite whatever evidence is presented before us.
There’s an association between science rejection and conspiracy theories. Whilst scientists rely on evidence to guide/revise theory, conspiracy theorists reinterpret data to match theories i.e. confirmation bias. When worldviews determine people’s attitudes towards science, simply providing more evidence won’t be sufficient to convince them to change their minds.
To be at the cutting edge of many scientific fields nowadays requires full-time niche specialisation. Meanwhile, conspiracy theories or religious explanations can offer simpler and more intuitive answers hence can be more attractive to believe in.
Post No.: 0312 examined more psychology behind conspiracy theories.
If you want to persuade someone to reconsider their beliefs – approach them with empathy and talk about the issue as soon as possible to nip it in the bud. It’s not about shutting down healthy debate because plenty of things in the world are uncertain, so don’t cut people off. Listen to and get to the bottom of their legitimate concerns (e.g. is it really about their fear of their freedoms being curtailed, or their traditions being eroded?) Their feelings matter, and it’s usually about something they fear. Figure out where they’re getting their information from, then present your own evidence and supporting facts neutrally. The process can be protracted depending on how attached they are to a worldview but if you remain level-headed then they’ll also be more likely to consider the facts with critical thinking instead of emotional defensiveness too.
People’s deep beliefs are often tied to their group affiliations and identities however, thus trying to get them to ditch their beliefs is akin to expecting them to change their political, religious or sporting team, as it were. That’s a key reason why conspiracy theorists are difficult to reason with. It’s like asking them to ditch their family or long-held friends. It’s also why those who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to believe in more – likeminded people like to congregate, and when they group together, they’re more likely to agree with each other; like those who side with a particular political party are prone to agree with all of the policies that this party supports. It’s tribalism.
Conspiracy theories abound after any major event in order to protect a side’s agenda. They can be used to deny what happened, twist facts to a side’s own advantage, distract people from an important story, spread disinformation to confuse or cast doubt, discredit or deflect blame onto others and/or threaten pursuers of justice if they continue to pursue action against the accused.
The ‘dead cat strategy’ is the metaphor of suddenly throwing a dead kitty on the table – meow :(. People will start to talk about this story hence will be distracted from an important one happening elsewhere, which is the aim. People end up not knowing what to believe in when there’s so much contradictory information – consequently, most people will usually just believe in whatever narrative suits their own worldviews best. A related common tactic is hiding u-turns under otherwise distracting big-news days (e.g. the day of a natural disaster).
Sometimes a ‘big lie’, or a falsehood that’s so absurd, can work to galvanise the most faithful of supporters into taking an extreme action (e.g. to storm a federal building over an election that was allegedly stolen due to massive voter fraud).
False conspiracies get amalgamated with genuine ones like real cases of corruption. Most people are overconfident in their ability to spot false/fake news. There’s false/fake news from those in power as well as against those in power. Dedicated websites and social media accounts routinely spring up to create smear campaigns or conspiracies in order to deny, deflect or discredit some entity or idea. It’s often hard to find who really ultimately funds a particular online political campaign, even though a certain person/group may be used as a front organisation. Anything can appear on the web – this freedom is its greatest attribute as well as its worst.
Some content creators don’t even truly believe in what they’re spreading but only spread it because they know that the most outrageous stories garner the most views, engagement and thus revenue!
We evolved for what serves our survival and reproductive success, not for caring about the truth per se. If lies get us what we want then at least some of us will lie (e.g. groups spreading conspiracy theories about COVID-19… concurrently with trying to sell bogus protections against the coronavirus!) False/fake news can originate from those seeking to profit from doing so, those advancing their own political views and/or those doing so as a hoax. These messages can then spread rapidly via family members, friends, celebrities and online forums.
On the web – lies, spurious speculations, misunderstandings, etc. don’t just ‘die off’. They can last there indefinitely. And because for every truth there can be multiple falsehoods, there’s possibly overall more different pieces of piffle than plain facts there to potentially influence anyone who may directly search for those specific ideas or accidentally stumble across them.
Secrets always seem to be more valuable than openly public information. That’s why many clickbait titles claim to tell you the ‘secrets’ of something.
Some people believe that the government and/or media undertake in ‘predictive programming’ on the population (events that are faked to condition us to accept the eventual real thing) or ‘subliminal messaging’, for example.
A common refrain is ‘the government spreads propaganda to try to control us, or wants us to believe in x to keep us all obedient’, such as engineering or faking an epidemic, disaster or terrorist attack in order to justify the introduction of new or stronger laws that restrict our freedoms. Conspiracy theorists dismiss evidence that supports the ‘official’ account. Those who object to their theories are automatically labelled as being indoctrinated by the conspirators or as being co-conspirators themselves, instead of vice-versa. Real victims accused of being ‘crisis actors’ get traumatised again, ironically via death threats from those who think they’re acting! The Holocaust or Nanjing Massacre are examples of events that are denied by certain groups who try to rationalise away an unsettling truth. There’s a tendency to assume our view is the majority view when we hang around echo chambers too much hence we can believe a poll must be rigged if our fluffy side loses.
Those who endorse extreme free-market economics are prone to reject science with regulatory implications (e.g. the link between marijuana and problems in learning and memory, fast food culture and obesity-related diseases, or greenhouse gases and climate change). Many things that cause negative externalities or long-term problems are immediately pleasurable for us as individuals, thus if there are calls to reduce their consumption through regulations or taxes, some people will try to spread the political angle of ‘governments are just trying to ruin everybody’s fun’.
Some might think ‘why do we need so much airport security if there hasn’t been a terrorist attack in years?’ – which is like arguing ‘why do I need to brush my teeth if my teeth are never rotten?!’
Many conspiracy theories accuse global elites or a ‘deep state’ of nefarious schemes. Although powerful and influential in many contexts, elites aren’t to blame for everything that ever happens. Some people will even clump all highly-educated people as ‘elites’ when there are wealthy, intellectual or cultural elites, the aristocracy, political establishment, and more. It leads to a general degradation of trust in authorities and institutions, and perhaps in democracy itself.
Meow. I suppose some truths never get passed onto the next generation hence stay secrets forever. So take everything on a case-by-case basis. The investigative community of independent minds may later overwhelmingly accept a conspiracy as true? But unless and until that ever happens, it’s best to hold onto our conjectures lightly.
Comment on this post by replying to this tweet:
