11 ms·
The Conspiracy Theory Handbook
- th0ma5 6y agoThis is precisely what they want you to read.
- hprotagonist 6y agothat’s just like what someone like you wants us to think!
- generalizations 6y agoI note this focuses on climate change, and doesn't really stray beyond that. I'd be more interested in something that also addressed conspiracies that turned out to be true, like 'government surveilance' conspiracies from pre-snowden times, and could identify the difference. It's important to note that often, suspicions of malfeasance by people in authority turn out to be wrong; but sometimes they are not. Claiming that people in power never conspire to do wrong - as this article seems to do - is pretty hard to back up.
- mshenfield 6y agoThe opening and closing lines are "real conspiracies do exist". Because of that, I didn't feel like the article claims that "people in power never do wrong".
- js8 6y agoTheories about conspiracies that turned out to be true are not conspiracy theories. The main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is that it cannot be disproved. (It is unfortunate that the term "conspiracy theory" adds another meaning to the already confusing word "theory".)
- generalizations 6y ago> The main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is that it cannot be disproved. Then my government surveilance example fits your definition. "If there's no evidence, then it's well hidden." However, I would also say that in practice your definition leads to fallacy. In general use, what I've noticed is that literal 'theories about a conspiracy' are labeled as "conspiracy theory", and then dismissed because "conspiracy theories can't be disproven and are therefore crazytalk." (I think there's a term for that fallacy, but I can't find it.)
- krapp 6y agoI would change the definition - the main characteristic of a conspiracy theory is that it is believed despite a lack of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary. Believing Epstein could have been killed, because the circumstances around his death seem extremely suspicious, isn't a conspiracy theory. Believing that the Clintons sent a hit squad to kill him in order to cover up Pizzagate is a conspiracy theory. People who believe the former also likely hold some doubt, because the actual evidence leaves room for doubt. It is after all possible that he did kill himself, stranger things have happened. Whereas, no one who believes the latter will likely be convinced otherwise, because belief is obviously a matter of faith in that case, not reason.
- generalizations 6y agoYou have a strange definition of conspiracy theory, and your intended use of the phrase is stranger. My criticism of a non-literal use of the word still stands - by your usage, anything that isn't proven yet is labeled conspiracy theory, which is also automatically crazytalk. Government surveilance, and even COVID-19 (as mentioned elsewhere on the thread) were both by your definition crazyperson conspiracy theories until someone went out and proved it. To me, it's unintellectual. New theories are dismissed out of hand, since they lack evidence and are considered tantamount to flat-earth theory; any investigation is therefore unwarrented. Edit: in your example, you're confusing 'belief that something could have happened' with 'belief that something did happen'. Is that all you're trying to say?
- jl2718 6y ago1. But surely they were conspiracy theories until the moment when they became conspiracy proof. 2. Just because something cannot be disproven doesn’t mean it can’t be proven. 3. There are many theories that can be disproven, but haven’t yet been. These are still theories until such a time.
- bsaul 6y agoI'm still having trouble drawing a line in the sand between "healthy skepticism" and "overriding suspicion". When someone like michael moore does "bowling for columbine", people didn't accuse him of being a conspiracy theory advocate. Yet, if he were to do a documentary today on the influence of pharmaceutical lobbying on the way the world handled covid (or the influence of china), he would surely be suspected. I don't think this category is useful in any way to think about a given issue / theory.
- Udik 6y agoWhile paranoid conspiratorial thinking does definitely exist, accusing others of conspiratorial thinking is a very handy way to dismiss other points of view. And as you rightly point out, what you consider to be a conspiracy theory depends often on your opinions on a subject. Climate change activists have claimed for a long time that our failure to address climate change is partly due to conspiratorial behaviour by oil companies- but this is of course perfectly fine.
- dhbsbd636 6y agoDid they claim there was some grand conspiracy? Or that they were being opposed by an oil industry funded lobby? Interest and advocacy groups exist and make no secret of their agendas. Do these pass for conspiracies now?
- lend000 6y agoUnproven theories that threaten someone's worldview are typically met with the same reaction as an opposing political opinions, and for similar reasons. Rarely is it based in logic and consideration, since adjusting one's worldview takes a lot of energy. My advice is to foster a worldview in which you accept that the world is poorly understood and many things are possible, and then you won't have to do significant reorganization (or denial and attack) every time an interesting new idea comes your way. There have been a lot of posts about conspiracies lately, but they have all been pretty tame (or things that were previously considered conspiracies and later proven true). Here are a few more that show that the USA is and has been capable of horrific things since it became a superpower. Now imagine what an autocracy might be doing. Or what things we might be doing that haven't been proven yet/the government actually makes an effort to cover up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight_455 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubana_de_Aviaci%C3%B3n_Flight... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22500231 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22500231 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_A119
- Udik 6y agoAnd I thought that our failing to address climate change in time was due to a conspiracy by greedy oil companies. How foolish.
- incrudible 6y agoThere's a human tendency to frame complex interactions in terms of simple "us versus them" and "good versus evil" narratives. A conspiracy is almost never the correct explanation. As George Carlin once said: You don't need a conspiracy when interests converge.
- Simulacra 6y agoThis is more of a psychology text on conspiracy theories as a component of a psychological concern. What I hoped it would be was an encyclopedia of conspiracy theories. I'm surprised no one has attempted to collect many of them into a volume.
- krapp 6y agoThere are plenty such collections. Of course, every one by definition only lists the conspiracy theories that they want you to know about... https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Conspiracies-Conspiracy-Theories-Library/dp/0816055408 https://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Conspiracies-Conspiracy-... The problem is, conspiracy theories tend to be fluid and interconnected, and new ones pop up all the time, so it's all but impossible to compile an exhaustive list.
- lez 6y agoI don't see why the standard procedure can't be applied here. E.g. we have no proof to either a conspiracy or to its opposite, so let us live peacefully, while having different opinions. Also, let's not force anything on each other - because there's no evidence on any of the sides.
- tomjen3 6y agoIf we can agree to that, that will be fine. The problem with that is when one side will not agree to no first use of force - then game theory says you HAVE to hit back with force.
- cortesoft 6y agoExcept the example they use is climate change... some people claim that all the scientists are in on a conspiracy and that climate change isn't real. You can't respond to this by saying "fine, we will each believe what we want and won't force anything on each other", because if climate change is real, we HAVE to take collective action to stop it. This is the case for a lot of conspiracy theories... Covid, climate change, etc. There exist real problems in the world that requires everyone to take action. We can't just throw up our hands and do nothing just because some people refuse to believe reality.
- mssundaram 6y agoMaybe it's looked down on to link to reddit on HN, but there are indeed conspiracies that are no longer just theories [1] [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/knppcu/heres_100_confirmed_conspiracies_from_the_last_75/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/knppcu/heres_10...
- djaychela 6y agoI've not read all of those, but not all of them seem to be conspiracy theories?
- MikeUt 6y agoFor example?
- generalizations 6y agoAnd the other big list from that subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4g7jay/updated_compilation_of_confirmed_conspiracy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4g7jay/updated_...
- galaxyLogic 6y agoBut no 9/11? Nothing about Building-7. I think that's a taboo
- mssundaram 6y agoYou must be being sarcastic, because the list is of confirmed. The government has not confirmed those (I am not saying they should be)
- bad_extension 6y agoThere is difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories - this list shows mostly information about conspiracies, and less information about people and theories that predicted them before official uncovering (this would make them conspiracy theories proven true). I think a lot of conspiracies about which we learned post-factum prove mostly that they are really hard to spot.
- beefman 6y agoA seemingly mysterious (but probably trivial) feature of our universe is that there's only one kind of reasoning. There's no special 'anti-conspiracy' method of reasoning, nor any other special-puprose method. Likewise, there's only one way a theory can be wrong. No theory has ever been wrong because it was a conspiracy theory. What's actually being discussed here is how to make other people believe (or claim to believe) something. That's fine, as long as it's not muddled with how the truth is discerned.
- Geminidog 6y agoAnother feature of the universe is that the truth can never actually be discerned. At any point in time a new observation can be found that actually invalidates a previous hypothesis. Every single hypothesis ever made by mankind has the potential to be invalidated this way and therefore no hypothesis has ever been proven to be definitively true. Thus nothing can be proved to be true in science and by extension nothing can be proved to be true in reality as we know it. The scientific method is based on two axiomatic foundations which we can only assume to be true: Logic and Probability. When you apply these axioms to an arena with an unverifiable amount of entities/primitives the result is a universe where nothing can be proven.
- Gupie 6y agoPerhaps no hypothesis has ever been proven to be definitively true, but it is possible to proof that at hypothesis is false, e.g. the moon is not made of cheese, the earth is not flat. Also you can estimate the likelihood that a hypothesis is true or false, e.g. hypothesis that Covid-19 is caused by a virus is extremely likely to be true, that is is caused by 5G signals extremely likely to be false.
- galaxyLogic 6y agoThe way to counter and shed light on conspiracy theories is to construct an alternative similar theory and then ask, why do you believe this instead of this? Say you believe that Hillary is a pedophile. Why don't you believe that Donald Trump is?
- nathias 6y agoHalf of the traits are just part of healthy skepticism.
- imwillofficial 6y agoConspiracy is the rule, not the exception. To think otherwise is being ignorant of history, reality, and good reasoning. (See: every government ever run in the history of the world)
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoConspiracy theories thrive when true information is suppressed for political purposes. If you want to stamp out conspiracies stop lying to people about things they obviously know are false and they will be more willing to believe you when there is more uncertainty.
- bambataa 6y agoWhat makes you confident that is the reason? Are all people equipped to work out what is obviously false? It is one thing to be distrustful of official sources and another to believe that Bill Gates is injecting nano particles into vegetables based on a video you saw on YouTube.
- jeffreyrogers 6y agoPeople don't just start believing Bill Gates is injecting nano particles though. They get there through a gradual process. Edit: And I am confident this is the reason because I have observed people go down this process. People who are intelligent, and not the caricatures they are made out to be.
- krapp 6y agoYou're right - the Bill Gates injecting nano-particles into COVID vaccine has its basis in several pre-existing conspiracy theories, such as anti-vaxx, fears of RFID/"Mark of the Beast" tagging, Satanic/ritualistic activities by elites (see: Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, etc.) which themselves are derived from (albeit not always directly indicative of) anti-Semitic conspiracies. Even with QAnon, the pieces were already there among the right-wing and extremist Christianity, they were just assembled into a single, somewhat coherent narrative.
- bambataa 6y agoCould you describe the overall process you have seen people go down?
- brobdingnagians 6y ago
- drummer 6y agoPretty sure people like Copernicus and Galileo and even Newton would be labeled 'conspiracy theorists' in their time.
- cortesoft 6y agoThe difference is that they had actual evidence that was falsifiable.
- gverrilla 6y ago"nice try illuminati."
- exolymph 6y agothis but unironically
- keiferski 6y agoWriting endless books and articles about how you’re engaging in wrongthink by questioning official narratives isn’t the solution, never has been, and never will be. For as many words that are written about the rise of conspiracy theories, I haven’t read a single one that tries to explain their appeal and origin in a neutral way, without having a condescending tone throughout. At some point you have to ask yourself: is your goal to actually persuade people, or is it to make them feel stupid? To me it seems like a basic failing of psychology. If you want to stop people believing in fringe theories, then understand how they arrived at their position, engage them on their own terms, and acknowledge that (usually) there is a kernel of (often metaphorical) truth at the center, even if it’s been warped beyond recognition into a bizarre conspiracy theory.
- purplecats 6y agothe point isn't to understand conspiracy theorists -- the point is to crush and humiliate them such that the owners of society can safely continue engaging in hostile endeavors without criticism or awareness.
- breakyerself 6y agoIronically it's the actual owners of society who have benefited from the BS conspiracy theories tied to climate change.
- Udik 6y agoThis is a conspiracy theory, you know? Who would these mysterious owners of society be? Are they spreading conspiracy theories themselves maybe, for personal benefit?
- breakyerself 6y agoRich people. The people who own controlling interests in fossil fuel infrastructure. It isn't really a "theory" so much as public knowledge. Fossil fuel industry has been funding disinformation campaigns about climate change for decades.
- brobdingnagians 6y ago"conspiracy theory" is literally a theory that people are conspiring in some way. I think we'd have to be daft to think that politicians don't conspire all the time. History is full of cloak and dagger intrigue, if our society is somehow enlightened beyond it, then great, but I truly doubt it. We are, in many ways, just more naive than previous generations.
- hollander 6y agoPlease make this available as EPUB.
- kevinskii 6y agoGiven the comically poor quality of Stephen Lewandosky's best-known research on the topic [1], I doubt that this "handbook" deserves any serious consideration. [1] Lewandosky et al. "NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science"
- BeetleB 6y agoOne tactic I've found that works (with people I know): From the outset, insist on 1. answers and not questions. 2. positive evidence, and not hypotheses. For the first, that means that statements like "Don't you think it's strange...?" statements are not permitted. Generally, conspiracy theorists won't provide answers, they will merely provide doubt to demonstrate a gap in your understanding, and then will happily try to fill the gap with a plausible (but usually wrong) theory. It will start with "Don't you think it's strange/unlikely...?" regarding some aspect of the official narrative, and then follow with statements like "The only way it could make sense is if ..." I point out that while he may have a compelling hypothesis, he didn't point to any proof of his hypothesis whatsoever. They are much more likely to point out absence of proof in parts of the official narratives, so use this same strategy with them. Positive proof means something actually demonstrated, not inferred. It works really well. Most of them will fail right at step 1: "You've asked a lot of reasonable questions, but have not provided any proof for your theory." Providing proof is hard. Coming up with ideas is easy. Not sure if it'll work with random people though. It may have worked only because I know these people personally. Edit: One more important tactic. Most of them rely on the "If you're wrong I must be right!" strategy[0] (or rather, they fall for it). So be very open to accepting that the official narrative is wrong. Say (sincerely) "I can believe the official narrative is problematic or even wrong, but I'm not sure I see a reason your narrative is correct. It's quite possible the true explanation is something else entirely." [0] See the movie Thank You For Smoking for a good reference to this.
- mttyng 6y agoI really like this breakdown, and I’ve employed it (to some extent) with various people. In my experience, however, it’s not so much that it worked with them; rather, they found the discussion frustrating and became despondent only within the conversation between myself and them. In other words, I didn’t so much change their mind as help them decide to not engage me on whatever particular topic. I find that incredibly frustrating. Maybe I’ve rubber-ducked myself into realizing I’m not doing something right.
- BeetleB 6y agoIn my experience, it works if people accept the two conditions as reasonable before the discussion starts. At the outset, the conditions are fairly reasonable. Yes, it's a trap, but a reasonable trap. BTW, I'm not claiming this changes their mind in the long run. It does provide for a good conversation in the moment, though.
- swader999 6y agoI'll leave this here for posterity. It's coming to the end of the line for Q predictions. In the next month we should see mass arrests of elite, take down of corrupt world politicians, judges and so on. Otherwise all this was just a grand lie.
- kthxbye123 6y agoI really doubt the inevitable failure of all of these predictions will be the "end of the line." Messianic cults and movements are surprisingly resilient to unmet expectations. "When Prophecy Fails", etc.
- throw18376 6y agosome conspiracy theorists are actually mentally ill -- suffering from delusions or psychotic symptoms. it's really easy to see this if you just go to the conspiracy regions of social media -- people providing "evidence" consisting of strange numerology, pointing to nonexistent patterns in photos and texts, claiming that random events are coded messages or evidence they are being monitored, etc. i think these people are relatively small in number but have outsized influence in conspiracy communities, because they are much more vocal than average online. attempts like this document makes to explain conspiracy in terms of emotional needs, personality, and cognitive habits are not without merit, but I think they will never provide a complete explanation. none of these recommendations will work for someone who is not currently capable of normal cognition due to mental illness. of course it's doubly irresponsible for laypeople to try to diagnose specific strangers. and history shows that "my political enemies are mentally ill" is a very dangerous idea. still, I think communication strategies around conspiracy theories should take into account that the community they want to reach includes these people, and research into conspiratorial thinking also ought to take it into account.
- mttyng 6y ago> The most active author wrote 896,337 words, twice the length of the Lord of the Rings trilogy This can’t be a “normal” person, right? This has to be a paid actor.
- jl2718 6y agoConspiratorial thinking is often an in-kind response. For instance, the theory that the virus came from a lab was common, but had no particularly strong conviction to it until every authority source became 100% certain that it did not. If they had just accepted the lab origin story as a possibility, it wouldn’t be a conspiracy theory, it would just be a theory. But what you saw was a well-dressed layman spokesperson on every major news channel telling you that only stupid and evil people disagree with them, and they are all plotting against you. This handbook reads like a guide to script writing in the popular media. Everything that ever happens is always a conspiracy that is far more widespread an nefarious than anybody would have assumed from normal experience. It’s never just one random accident that affects only a few people in billions. Until there actually is an event that affects billions of people, and then it’s just a random accident, until election time, and then it’s a conspiracy again. And if you question any of this, you’re an extremist. And I don’t think anybody cares if it came from a lab or not. That’s not the conspiracy part of the theory.