24 ms·

Why People Fall for Conspiracy Theories

42 points by adrian_mrd 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago
Bad examples. Vaccines aren't safe if you make an absolute statement. They just pose a far lesser risk than an infection. How about the Russian election manipulation? Racism and Sexism being endemic in the tech industry? Those are conspiracies too. I agree however that that judging quickly is a problem. You are even perceived as slow if you reserve judgement for a while.
- zzzeek 5y ago
  There's not a conspiracy theory that Russia manipulated US elections, rather, they were a major source of disinformation throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. This is well documented throughout myriad sources and is not a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory here is in fact that it was a hoax, so you might want to check that you aren't a victim to this theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    That is just not true. It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. Wikipedia isn't really straight here. At first the story was that people were manipulated. But no message could be found that allegedly influenced voters. Later it was changed they were stirring the pot. Really questionable sources were pulled that later proved to be more than unreliable. The readiness to believe these plain lies explains the Iraq invasion though...
    - knowaveragejoe 5y ago
      > It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory. Russian interference in global elections is well documented. In the 2016 election it was already being investigated & reported on before election day.
    - knownjorbist 5y ago
      > It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory in and of itself, not the other way around. Russia interfering in the election was already being investigated & reported on BEFORE election day.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        And how would they have done that? Facebook ads? Please... People were fed up with career politicians and voted out of spite. End of story. The DNC hacking could have been Russia. I have seen the public evidence and it is inconclusive. An internal source sounds more likely, but there is just no evidence on anything.
        SonicScrub 5y ago
        Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Tracking influence due to advertisements is tricky, as it's hard to make a direct 1-to-1 connection being being exposed to a consistent ad campaign and the decision to buy a product at a particular moment. Did I buy a Coca-Cola today because I saw a YouTube ad? Or is more the constant awareness of the Coca-Cola due to a dedicated persistent ad campaign? The exact influence is hard to measure, but nevertheless we can say it must be effective, or why would Coca-Cola spend billions on ads? I bring up this example to try to steer your thinking away from the unrealistic scenario of someone seeing a Facebook ad, and then choosing to vote differently because of it. That idea is obviously ludicrous, and you should rightly scoff at such a proposition. However that is not the scenario that the people arguing against you are stating. They are concerned with a foreign state actor spending so much money and attention to nudge public attention to a few key ideas. The entire advertising industry is proof that such techniques are effective. The question you should be asking is why the idea that "people are fed up with career politicians" was so prominent in this election. Why did that message resonate with some, but completely bypass others? Note: that Russia spending lots of money on targeted ads doesn't make people's frustrations not real, or manufactured. But why was so many people's attention drawn to this issue?
    - Loughla 5y ago
      From the page >The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation—code named Project Lakhta[1]—was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin.[2] How is that not straight? I don't understand what you're getting at, other than just ignoring most of that page.
    - everdrive 5y ago
      You're confusing two statements: - Russia interfered in the 2016 election. - Clinton lost the 2016 election primarily due to Russian interference.
      - mariodiana 5y ago
        Exactly. If there were a 1-ton stone in my backyard, and you peered over my fence to see me making the greatest personal effort to move it, you wouldn't say I "manipulated" it.
        everdrive 5y ago
        Well, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Let's say that you agree with the following statement: Even if there had been no Russian interference, the 2016 election would have been very close. Clinton was more unpopular than her supporters realized. Now from there, you could take that single statement and try to interpret the impact of the Russian interference two ways: - The election was so close it was nearly a toss-up, and the Russian interference probably had very little effect on most voters. - Alternately, because the election was so close, Russian interference would have only had to influence a few people in some key districts, and therefore a very small amount of influence could have had a large outsized effect. I'm not necessarily vying for either of these arguments, however I am trying to make a point about how both sides of this problem are talking past each other with regards to a pretty simple point.
        mariodiana 5y ago
        You make good points. But from what I remember, "Russia" (I put that in scare quotes because I do not know what Russian entity was behind this) bought 100 thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads. By contrast, the Clinton campaign spent $132 million. That's enough to make me skeptical as to the extent of Russian influence. I'm only half-joking here, but if these Russians were able to undermine the 2016 election's integrity, spending that pittance, either Trump or Biden would have hired these political science geniuses for 2020. My understand is that their efforts were mainly meant to sow political discord. If you ask me, what they learned is that we don't need their help with that.
    - zzzeek 5y ago
      > But no message could be found that allegedly influenced voters. the linked page is chock full of messages that allegedly influenced voters. Such as: > Influence operations included recruiting typically unknowing assets who would stage events and spread content from Russian influencers, spreading videos of police abuse and spreading misleading information about how to vote and whom to vote for.[76][46] The attempt to target Black Americans has been compared to the KGB's attempt to foster racial tensions during Operation INFEKTION.[149] it of course is impossible to prove that a specific voter changed their vote due to a specific message from a disinformation campaign, short of them telling you so. But certainly we are well within the range to "allege" that the enormous amount of propaganda coming from Russia may have influenced voters, it would be ridiculous to claim otherwise.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        > spreading videos of police abuse Laughable. Sure that wasn't voters of democrats? Or general Youtubers? > The attempt to target Black Americans I would think people have much more problems with virtue signaling domestic companies than Russians, but there is again no evidence. These are plain conspiracy theories. > enormous amount of propaganda It isn't enormous. Propaganda targeting civilians has one property and that is visibility. The more of it, the better. So where is it? I don't believe in ghosts.
        zzzeek 5y ago
        at this point it seems reasonable to conclude you are trolling this discussion.
        raxxorrax 5y ago
        Not every form of objection is a troll. I just don't accept claims like yours that voters had contact with Russian spies. It is still ridiculous.
        panarky 5y ago
        How meta that an HN discussion about conspiracy theories devolves into propagation and defense of conspiracy theories.
- janeroe 5y ago
  Haven't you seen the latest definition of "conspiracy theory"? Here you go: "an opinion or idea that contradicts the ruling party's agenda". So Muslim concentration camps in China is a conspiracy theory. If you don't believe me, ask Xi. Elections in the US are not less transparent than in Putin's Russia. Proof: CNN. Putin is a great leader for Russians. Or so they said on RT.
Loughla 5y ago
>The sooner we recognize that, and stop treating loved ones who have adopted conspiratorial beliefs as lost causes, the better we may be at curbing the beliefs that threaten our democracy and public health. The problem is that people tend to dig in like ticks when presented with facts contrary to their closely held conspiracy theories. They move the goal posts and re-interpret/mis-interpret statements over and over to keep their faulty beliefs. It's so frustrating to deal with as to make it not even worth it.
- jp555 5y ago
  If you think facts persuade people then you do not understand how people work. That delusion is what is frustrating you. Facts require three things: - observation (the temperature is 15°C), - omission (the temp outside my home, omitting the rest of the universe), and - trust (my thermometer is probably working). Almost all disagreement about Facts is really about what we’re omitting & what we trust, not the observation.
- SonicScrub 5y ago
  As the quote goes: "you cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into." Attacking conspiracy theories with facts will not work, and can often entrench the beliefs further into someone. Not giving up on our loved ones who've fallen into questionable beliefs doesn't mean we should assault them with a torrent of facts. Rather we should continue to support the other aspects of their lives, and maybe gently nudge them towards more reputable sources. Conspiratorial thinking is something that they will have to lift themselves up from for it to stick.
  - hindsightbias 5y ago
    The only realistic solution is to redirect their focus to things less destructive. Why I think UFOs are the hot thing again now. Truthers didn’t just wake up one day - they moved onto something else.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  Objection, Your Honor! Assumes facts not in evidence: that these beliefs "threaten our democracy and public health." These back-handed "Oh I wish those people would let us save them from that which they do not understand" only gives actual evidence that feeds the theories. Stop treating people like little children, be more scientific--actually scientific, not "the science is settled" scientific--and you may start to see things change.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AndyMcConachie 5y ago
The problem with conspiracy theories isn't that some people believe them. We all believe in conspiracy theories because conspiracies are real things that happen. The problem is that we don't all believe the same conspiracy theories. So we spend time lots of time pretending there is some taxonomic difference between good conspiracy theories and bad conspiracy theories.
- knownjorbist 5y ago
  There are actual conspiracies involving small groups of people cooperating for a relatively small personal or organizational benefit in the grand scheme of things - for example see /r/actualconspiracies. Then there are vast, globe-spanning conspiracies that involve all of the worst machinations of humanity mashed together and applied to an Other. That is the type of conspiracy theory that is governing the decision making process of a non-trivial amount of the American(and increasingly European) voting public, and that is what the problem being described in the article is.
travisgriggs 5y ago
> “It’s not like most beliefs are arrived at through some sort of pure logic. The world is not a bunch of Spocks running around deducing everything.” But wouldn't it be so nice if it were? We need national Spock day(s), a day where everyone play acts around being hyper logical and deduceful and analytical. Maybe with practice, people would lean to think more. A gag/cult holiday designed to change society! Now that's a conspiracy theory worth something.
a_conservative 5y ago
> We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. > we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” Those quotes are from Edward Bernays, considered to be the father of public relations. He ran many big public relation campaigns in the 20th century. He is responsible for millions of people who say, think and believe that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. He helped to popularize smoking, and promoted the idea that smoking was healthy. He often would form institutions of experts to help promote his campaigns with authority. Why are we so sure that we know what is a conspiracy theory and what is true? Why is it so important for everyone to believe the "right thing" as told by authority figures? Why is it so important to demonize people who believe alternative hypotheses (aka conspiracy theories)?
runawaybottle 5y ago
We’ve had some pretty compelling ‘wtf?’ things happen where the truth was kind of remarkable. - 7 WTC collapse - Jefferey Epstein suicide - Wuhan virology lab incidentally being in Wuhan doing bat stuff - Yes, Bush did make up lies about WMDs - Yes, the entire finance industry ran a scam with securitized mortgages. - They’ve been cheating in baseball every other decade. If we go back further: - Mmmhmm, that whole Gulf of Tonkin thing. - Watergate - Someone shot Kennedy Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Read the above list. Crazy stuff has been happening for a long time.
- ravenstine 5y ago
  Hell, just look at the many things the CIA has been involved in and tell me that there are no conspiracies.
- justin_oaks 5y ago
  Don't forget the Snowden revelations about the NSA. Only that one truly surprised me. The events of the world do have some unexpected turns, but there's a difference between conspiracy theory and something real but unexpected. As mentioned in the article, conspiracy theories are based on little evidence and seeing patterns that aren't there. It's much better to be suspicious of real events that are unexpected or improbable than to believe in something with little evidence.
- lostgame 5y ago
  Or good old MK-ULTRA, of course. :P Nothing is better conspiracy fodder than ‘the government tried to practice mind control by force feeding people LSD,’ etc - and this is actual declassified government papers. Freaky stuff.
splithalf 5y ago
Because we think we’re better. Thinking to oneself, “I don’t believe in any conspiracy theories, but those other people sure do!” is to be unaware of the human condition. Ideology exists and it’s good to get frequent reminders about that, lest we judge.
ravenstine 5y ago
The derogatory term "conspiracy theory" is just a form of ideological warfare. Ideas should be judged on their merit, not merely dismissed as a conspiracy theory on the basis that the mainstream doesn't (currently) accept them.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  I agree. It's essentially normalcy bias with a political slant and usually ad hominem at the same time.
- panarky 5y ago
  There really are widespread beliefs about powerful and sinister groups acting in concert to cause harm, the beliefs are non-falsifiable and supported by circular reasoning, and they often involve racial and religious prejudice. Some politicians and leaders use these beliefs to control and influence people. This is a real thing and it should have a name. What do you suggest we call this phenomenon if not "conspiracy theory"?
  - Bancakes 5y ago
    Hypotheses
    - panarky 5y ago
      Hypotheses are falsifiable.
      - Bancakes 5y ago
        Everything is once you have enough data.
- jl6 5y ago
  When I see conspiracy theories getting dismissed, it’s not usually because they’re not mainstream. Rather, it’s because they posit obvious falsehoods, or lack any evidence, or make unreasonable assumptions, or are otherwise based on fallacious thinking.
mariodiana 5y ago
I think there is a whole class of conspiracy theories being left out, and I classify them as anthropomorphizing social phenomenon. This is the "They" that we hear so much of. To me, when a person subscribes to one of these theories, I don't think it necessarily makes them particularly gullible or crazy. It's just very difficult for human beings to understand complex, emergent phenomena without ascribing some kind of teleology to it—a single mind (or small group) behind it all. Even language makes this difficult. Ask someone to explain natural selection to you, sometime. So, what we have in many cases are various changes in our society, some of which are truly unintended consequences of some government policy or invention; then, throw in some group that benefits from this change, either unintentionally or because they were able to recognize and seize an opportunity, and that's all you really need for some people to think that "They" were behind the thing, all along.
adam_arthur 5y ago
How about the Wuhan Lab conspiracy theory? Easy for the media to label something a conspiracy if it doesn't align with their worldview. Critical thought made it obvious that this was a distinct possibility, even from the early days. That being said, of course there are conspiracies so radical they're almost certainly untrue. But we should be hesitant to label something a conspiracy outright without compelling counter reasoning. Lack of evidence does not make a conspiracy
- orwin 5y ago
  The conspiracy theory was "Covid19 is a genetically engineered virus". It was either Bill Gates, the Chineese, or George Soros. A lab breakout should not be labeled a conspiracy theory, unless you add specific component, like "the lab breakout was organized by the CCP/ a dissident part of the CCP/ Falun Gong". I've seen some figure that said the likehood of a lab escap was 10% compared to zoonose, but other figure on twitter were more like 40/60, so i have no opinion. If the CCP hide a lab breakout, good for them. I don't really care, but its not a conspiracy theory, even if the theory is disproven. A conspiracy theory is not just "an accident happened and some government is hiding things". The russian missile that shut down the MH17 could have been fired by ukrainians, or by russian mercenaries. One governement is definitely hiding something, but me saying that it was the Ukrainian that did it, even if this is a minority theory deosn't make it a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy is a theory in which a small group of people or a government either - plan to kill people to take over (take over what? unclear) - is hiding the truth for unclear or bullshit reasons (avoid a panic) - is lying to people for unclear reasons. I might forgot some points, but this is the gist of it. I don't consider "birthers" conspiracy theorists. I do consider them influencable.
postalrat 5y ago
Why People Fall for Conspiracy Theories: because too often they are right.
- recursivedoubts 5y ago
  If the elites don't want the rest of us trying to figure out their conspiracies, perhaps they could stop conspiring. The founding of the federal reserve springs to mind...
- jl6 5y ago
  Go on, which conspiracy theories are right?
  - postalrat 5y ago
    https://www.businessinsider.com/5-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-2015-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/5-conspiracy-theories-that-t... There's a couple for you. Search google for more.
    - jl6 5y ago
      Thank you for the examples but I’m afraid I’m unimpressed by the article. Those are all covert government ops - exactly the kind of thing you’d expect classified military/intelligence organizations to be doing. Their existence says nothing about what contemporary theorists were claiming at the time. What I would be really interested in seeing is some contemporary claims, e.g. what were people claiming about COINTELPRO in 1960? Was it based on evidence? Should we have believed someone based on the information available at the time? Was there a theory that turned out to be true because it was well-founded, or were there dozens of similar equally unfounded theories and one of them turned out to be true by chance? The failing of conspiracy theorism is not in being wrong, but in having utter conviction of being right without sound rationale. To learn from these examples, we need to see the theories, not the conspiracies.
      - postalrat 5y ago
jb775 5y ago
The tricky part about modern "conspiracy theories" is that many of them are actually true. Amazing how using your own brain to think critically to reach your own conclusions is now frowned upon (a.k.a. wrongthink). And it's being done by people who think they're smarter than everyone else, but are actually under control of a much smaller group of people in the social wrung above them. Nothing going on in the world lately is really about politics, it's all about population control and class warfare. Politics is the vehicle to recruit useful idiots.
- jl6 5y ago
  Go on, which conspiracy theories are true?
jl6 5y ago
My anecdata here is that people go all-in on conspiracy theories when they have a hole in their lives that they are trying to fill. You can't argue them out of it any more than you can argue a person of faith out of their religion. These things are rooted in emotion, not reason. But I do believe you can mitigate conspiracy thinking by helping the theorist with their underlying problems, whatever those might be. Distract them from their obsession and increase their real-world engagement. Give them back a sense of control over their lives and they can start to rebuild their sense of reasonableness.
- thinkingemote 5y ago
  I agree, your prescription should work. A conspiracy theory gives people some control over their lives in that it explains chaos or random events, and puts people in charge of things. or maybe it's an answer for meaning in the world. It's comforting for many to think a world government is pulling the strings for some reason. It's more scary to realise that no one has control and things happen at random, meaninglessly.
- justin_oaks 5y ago
  I was surprised the article didn't mention how conspiracy theories give people: 1. A feeling of control, e.g. "Now that I know the truth, people won't manipulate me with their lies!" and 2. A feeling of superiority, e.g. "I'm smarter than all those sheep who don't see the truth!" Besides the biases mentioned in the article, these feelings must contribute to people believing conspiracy theories, or so I would think.
- jb775 5y ago
  "Conspiracy Theories" are ideas. Since we aren't discussing any specific theory here, you're essentially making a blanket statement saying "I don't like ideas that involve things I don't understand, or that you cannot prove to me right now". Most major inventions, realizations, or advancements in the history of the world began by discussing things people aren't necessarily comfortable with discussing. Or things that might sound crazy at first. This line of thinking is on par with the people who considered it blasphemy to say the world wasn't flat....or the people who were on board with burning the "witches" at the Salem witch trials. Secondly, I find it interesting that you shift the focus of your argument from the idea, to the person...especially considering we aren't talking about any specific theory here. That tells me that it doesn't matter what's actually being discussed, because you've already made up your mind. This is the mental foundation that allows things like discrimination and stereotyping to exist. Do you really not see that? Your cognitive dissonance is so strong, that your mind is tricking itself into actually believing there's something wrong with another person, simply because they discuss an idea you already made up your mind on.
stevemds0210 5y ago
It's typical factless nonsense that is so vague it becomes meaningless. Midway through the article, it tries to present one fact: "In practice, that might look something like the post below, which was shared in a QAnon Telegram group." To get context, we need to know which group so we could verify the post for ourselves and also the number of views of the post and the number of members of the group which would reveal how relevant or extensive this theory has spread.

42 points by adrian_mrd 5y ago

Bad examples. Vaccines aren't safe if you make an absolute statement. They just pose a far lesser risk than an infection. How about the Russian election manipulation? Racism and Sexism being endemic in the tech industry? Those are conspiracies too. I agree however that that judging quickly is a problem. You are even perceived as slow if you reserve judgement for a while.

zzzeek 5y ago
There's not a conspiracy theory that Russia manipulated US elections, rather, they were a major source of disinformation throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. This is well documented throughout myriad sources and is not a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theory here is in fact that it was a hoax, so you might want to check that you aren't a victim to this theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  That is just not true. It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. Wikipedia isn't really straight here. At first the story was that people were manipulated. But no message could be found that allegedly influenced voters. Later it was changed they were stirring the pot. Really questionable sources were pulled that later proved to be more than unreliable. The readiness to believe these plain lies explains the Iraq invasion though...
  - knowaveragejoe 5y ago
    > It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory. Russian interference in global elections is well documented. In the 2016 election it was already being investigated & reported on before election day.
  - knownjorbist 5y ago
    > It was an excuse for a embarrassing loss. This is the conspiracy theory in and of itself, not the other way around. Russia interfering in the election was already being investigated & reported on BEFORE election day.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      And how would they have done that? Facebook ads? Please... People were fed up with career politicians and voted out of spite. End of story. The DNC hacking could have been Russia. I have seen the public evidence and it is inconclusive. An internal source sounds more likely, but there is just no evidence on anything.
      - SonicScrub 5y ago
        Microtargeted advertisements to the exact people who need to hear a message have been shown to be incredibly effective at persuasion. That's why targeted advertisements are a billion dollar industry. Tracking influence due to advertisements is tricky, as it's hard to make a direct 1-to-1 connection being being exposed to a consistent ad campaign and the decision to buy a product at a particular moment. Did I buy a Coca-Cola today because I saw a YouTube ad? Or is more the constant awareness of the Coca-Cola due to a dedicated persistent ad campaign? The exact influence is hard to measure, but nevertheless we can say it must be effective, or why would Coca-Cola spend billions on ads? I bring up this example to try to steer your thinking away from the unrealistic scenario of someone seeing a Facebook ad, and then choosing to vote differently because of it. That idea is obviously ludicrous, and you should rightly scoff at such a proposition. However that is not the scenario that the people arguing against you are stating. They are concerned with a foreign state actor spending so much money and attention to nudge public attention to a few key ideas. The entire advertising industry is proof that such techniques are effective. The question you should be asking is why the idea that "people are fed up with career politicians" was so prominent in this election. Why did that message resonate with some, but completely bypass others? Note: that Russia spending lots of money on targeted ads doesn't make people's frustrations not real, or manufactured. But why was so many people's attention drawn to this issue?
  - Loughla 5y ago
    From the page >The Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goals of harming the campaign of Hillary Clinton, boosting the candidacy of Donald Trump, and increasing political and social discord in the United States. According to U.S. intelligence agencies, the operation—code named Project Lakhta[1]—was ordered directly by Russian President Vladimir Putin.[2] How is that not straight? I don't understand what you're getting at, other than just ignoring most of that page.
  - everdrive 5y ago
    You're confusing two statements: - Russia interfered in the 2016 election. - Clinton lost the 2016 election primarily due to Russian interference.
    - mariodiana 5y ago
      Exactly. If there were a 1-ton stone in my backyard, and you peered over my fence to see me making the greatest personal effort to move it, you wouldn't say I "manipulated" it.
      - everdrive 5y ago
        Well, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Let's say that you agree with the following statement: Even if there had been no Russian interference, the 2016 election would have been very close. Clinton was more unpopular than her supporters realized. Now from there, you could take that single statement and try to interpret the impact of the Russian interference two ways: - The election was so close it was nearly a toss-up, and the Russian interference probably had very little effect on most voters. - Alternately, because the election was so close, Russian interference would have only had to influence a few people in some key districts, and therefore a very small amount of influence could have had a large outsized effect. I'm not necessarily vying for either of these arguments, however I am trying to make a point about how both sides of this problem are talking past each other with regards to a pretty simple point.
        mariodiana 5y ago
        You make good points. But from what I remember, "Russia" (I put that in scare quotes because I do not know what Russian entity was behind this) bought 100 thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads. By contrast, the Clinton campaign spent $132 million. That's enough to make me skeptical as to the extent of Russian influence. I'm only half-joking here, but if these Russians were able to undermine the 2016 election's integrity, spending that pittance, either Trump or Biden would have hired these political science geniuses for 2020. My understand is that their efforts were mainly meant to sow political discord. If you ask me, what they learned is that we don't need their help with that.
  - zzzeek 5y ago
    > But no message could be found that allegedly influenced voters. the linked page is chock full of messages that allegedly influenced voters. Such as: > Influence operations included recruiting typically unknowing assets who would stage events and spread content from Russian influencers, spreading videos of police abuse and spreading misleading information about how to vote and whom to vote for.[76][46] The attempt to target Black Americans has been compared to the KGB's attempt to foster racial tensions during Operation INFEKTION.[149] it of course is impossible to prove that a specific voter changed their vote due to a specific message from a disinformation campaign, short of them telling you so. But certainly we are well within the range to "allege" that the enormous amount of propaganda coming from Russia may have influenced voters, it would be ridiculous to claim otherwise.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      > spreading videos of police abuse Laughable. Sure that wasn't voters of democrats? Or general Youtubers? > The attempt to target Black Americans I would think people have much more problems with virtue signaling domestic companies than Russians, but there is again no evidence. These are plain conspiracy theories. > enormous amount of propaganda It isn't enormous. Propaganda targeting civilians has one property and that is visibility. The more of it, the better. So where is it? I don't believe in ghosts.
      - zzzeek 5y ago
        at this point it seems reasonable to conclude you are trolling this discussion.
        raxxorrax 5y ago
        Not every form of objection is a troll. I just don't accept claims like yours that voters had contact with Russian spies. It is still ridiculous.
        panarky 5y ago
        How meta that an HN discussion about conspiracy theories devolves into propagation and defense of conspiracy theories.
janeroe 5y ago
Haven't you seen the latest definition of "conspiracy theory"? Here you go: "an opinion or idea that contradicts the ruling party's agenda". So Muslim concentration camps in China is a conspiracy theory. If you don't believe me, ask Xi. Elections in the US are not less transparent than in Putin's Russia. Proof: CNN. Putin is a great leader for Russians. Or so they said on RT.

Loughla 5y ago

>The sooner we recognize that, and stop treating loved ones who have adopted conspiratorial beliefs as lost causes, the better we may be at curbing the beliefs that threaten our democracy and public health. The problem is that people tend to dig in like ticks when presented with facts contrary to their closely held conspiracy theories. They move the goal posts and re-interpret/mis-interpret statements over and over to keep their faulty beliefs. It's so frustrating to deal with as to make it not even worth it.

jp555 5y ago
If you think facts persuade people then you do not understand how people work. That delusion is what is frustrating you. Facts require three things: - observation (the temperature is 15°C), - omission (the temp outside my home, omitting the rest of the universe), and - trust (my thermometer is probably working). Almost all disagreement about Facts is really about what we’re omitting & what we trust, not the observation.
SonicScrub 5y ago
As the quote goes: "you cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into." Attacking conspiracy theories with facts will not work, and can often entrench the beliefs further into someone. Not giving up on our loved ones who've fallen into questionable beliefs doesn't mean we should assault them with a torrent of facts. Rather we should continue to support the other aspects of their lives, and maybe gently nudge them towards more reputable sources. Conspiratorial thinking is something that they will have to lift themselves up from for it to stick.
- hindsightbias 5y ago
  The only realistic solution is to redirect their focus to things less destructive. Why I think UFOs are the hot thing again now. Truthers didn’t just wake up one day - they moved onto something else.
nathanaldensr 5y ago
Objection, Your Honor! Assumes facts not in evidence: that these beliefs "threaten our democracy and public health." These back-handed "Oh I wish those people would let us save them from that which they do not understand" only gives actual evidence that feeds the theories. Stop treating people like little children, be more scientific--actually scientific, not "the science is settled" scientific--and you may start to see things change.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AndyMcConachie 5y ago

The problem with conspiracy theories isn't that some people believe them. We all believe in conspiracy theories because conspiracies are real things that happen. The problem is that we don't all believe the same conspiracy theories. So we spend time lots of time pretending there is some taxonomic difference between good conspiracy theories and bad conspiracy theories.

knownjorbist 5y ago
There are actual conspiracies involving small groups of people cooperating for a relatively small personal or organizational benefit in the grand scheme of things - for example see /r/actualconspiracies. Then there are vast, globe-spanning conspiracies that involve all of the worst machinations of humanity mashed together and applied to an Other. That is the type of conspiracy theory that is governing the decision making process of a non-trivial amount of the American(and increasingly European) voting public, and that is what the problem being described in the article is.

travisgriggs 5y ago

> “It’s not like most beliefs are arrived at through some sort of pure logic. The world is not a bunch of Spocks running around deducing everything.” But wouldn't it be so nice if it were? We need national Spock day(s), a day where everyone play acts around being hyper logical and deduceful and analytical. Maybe with practice, people would lean to think more. A gag/cult holiday designed to change society! Now that's a conspiracy theory worth something.

a_conservative 5y ago

> We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. > we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” Those quotes are from Edward Bernays, considered to be the father of public relations. He ran many big public relation campaigns in the 20th century. He is responsible for millions of people who say, think and believe that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. He helped to popularize smoking, and promoted the idea that smoking was healthy. He often would form institutions of experts to help promote his campaigns with authority. Why are we so sure that we know what is a conspiracy theory and what is true? Why is it so important for everyone to believe the "right thing" as told by authority figures? Why is it so important to demonize people who believe alternative hypotheses (aka conspiracy theories)?

runawaybottle 5y ago

We’ve had some pretty compelling ‘wtf?’ things happen where the truth was kind of remarkable. - 7 WTC collapse - Jefferey Epstein suicide - Wuhan virology lab incidentally being in Wuhan doing bat stuff - Yes, Bush did make up lies about WMDs - Yes, the entire finance industry ran a scam with securitized mortgages. - They’ve been cheating in baseball every other decade. If we go back further: - Mmmhmm, that whole Gulf of Tonkin thing. - Watergate - Someone shot Kennedy Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Read the above list. Crazy stuff has been happening for a long time.

ravenstine 5y ago
Hell, just look at the many things the CIA has been involved in and tell me that there are no conspiracies.
justin_oaks 5y ago
Don't forget the Snowden revelations about the NSA. Only that one truly surprised me. The events of the world do have some unexpected turns, but there's a difference between conspiracy theory and something real but unexpected. As mentioned in the article, conspiracy theories are based on little evidence and seeing patterns that aren't there. It's much better to be suspicious of real events that are unexpected or improbable than to believe in something with little evidence.
lostgame 5y ago
Or good old MK-ULTRA, of course. :P Nothing is better conspiracy fodder than ‘the government tried to practice mind control by force feeding people LSD,’ etc - and this is actual declassified government papers. Freaky stuff.

splithalf 5y ago

Because we think we’re better. Thinking to oneself, “I don’t believe in any conspiracy theories, but those other people sure do!” is to be unaware of the human condition. Ideology exists and it’s good to get frequent reminders about that, lest we judge.

ravenstine 5y ago

The derogatory term "conspiracy theory" is just a form of ideological warfare. Ideas should be judged on their merit, not merely dismissed as a conspiracy theory on the basis that the mainstream doesn't (currently) accept them.

nathanaldensr 5y ago
I agree. It's essentially normalcy bias with a political slant and usually ad hominem at the same time.
panarky 5y ago
There really are widespread beliefs about powerful and sinister groups acting in concert to cause harm, the beliefs are non-falsifiable and supported by circular reasoning, and they often involve racial and religious prejudice. Some politicians and leaders use these beliefs to control and influence people. This is a real thing and it should have a name. What do you suggest we call this phenomenon if not "conspiracy theory"?
- Bancakes 5y ago
  Hypotheses
  - panarky 5y ago
    Hypotheses are falsifiable.
    - Bancakes 5y ago
      Everything is once you have enough data.
jl6 5y ago
When I see conspiracy theories getting dismissed, it’s not usually because they’re not mainstream. Rather, it’s because they posit obvious falsehoods, or lack any evidence, or make unreasonable assumptions, or are otherwise based on fallacious thinking.

mariodiana 5y ago

I think there is a whole class of conspiracy theories being left out, and I classify them as anthropomorphizing social phenomenon. This is the "They" that we hear so much of. To me, when a person subscribes to one of these theories, I don't think it necessarily makes them particularly gullible or crazy. It's just very difficult for human beings to understand complex, emergent phenomena without ascribing some kind of teleology to it—a single mind (or small group) behind it all. Even language makes this difficult. Ask someone to explain natural selection to you, sometime. So, what we have in many cases are various changes in our society, some of which are truly unintended consequences of some government policy or invention; then, throw in some group that benefits from this change, either unintentionally or because they were able to recognize and seize an opportunity, and that's all you really need for some people to think that "They" were behind the thing, all along.

adam_arthur 5y ago

How about the Wuhan Lab conspiracy theory? Easy for the media to label something a conspiracy if it doesn't align with their worldview. Critical thought made it obvious that this was a distinct possibility, even from the early days. That being said, of course there are conspiracies so radical they're almost certainly untrue. But we should be hesitant to label something a conspiracy outright without compelling counter reasoning. Lack of evidence does not make a conspiracy

orwin 5y ago
The conspiracy theory was "Covid19 is a genetically engineered virus". It was either Bill Gates, the Chineese, or George Soros. A lab breakout should not be labeled a conspiracy theory, unless you add specific component, like "the lab breakout was organized by the CCP/ a dissident part of the CCP/ Falun Gong". I've seen some figure that said the likehood of a lab escap was 10% compared to zoonose, but other figure on twitter were more like 40/60, so i have no opinion. If the CCP hide a lab breakout, good for them. I don't really care, but its not a conspiracy theory, even if the theory is disproven. A conspiracy theory is not just "an accident happened and some government is hiding things". The russian missile that shut down the MH17 could have been fired by ukrainians, or by russian mercenaries. One governement is definitely hiding something, but me saying that it was the Ukrainian that did it, even if this is a minority theory deosn't make it a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy is a theory in which a small group of people or a government either - plan to kill people to take over (take over what? unclear) - is hiding the truth for unclear or bullshit reasons (avoid a panic) - is lying to people for unclear reasons. I might forgot some points, but this is the gist of it. I don't consider "birthers" conspiracy theorists. I do consider them influencable.

postalrat 5y ago

Why People Fall for Conspiracy Theories: because too often they are right.

recursivedoubts 5y ago
If the elites don't want the rest of us trying to figure out their conspiracies, perhaps they could stop conspiring. The founding of the federal reserve springs to mind...
jl6 5y ago
Go on, which conspiracy theories are right?
- postalrat 5y ago
  https://www.businessinsider.com/5-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-2015-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/5-conspiracy-theories-that-t... There's a couple for you. Search google for more.
  - jl6 5y ago
    Thank you for the examples but I’m afraid I’m unimpressed by the article. Those are all covert government ops - exactly the kind of thing you’d expect classified military/intelligence organizations to be doing. Their existence says nothing about what contemporary theorists were claiming at the time. What I would be really interested in seeing is some contemporary claims, e.g. what were people claiming about COINTELPRO in 1960? Was it based on evidence? Should we have believed someone based on the information available at the time? Was there a theory that turned out to be true because it was well-founded, or were there dozens of similar equally unfounded theories and one of them turned out to be true by chance? The failing of conspiracy theorism is not in being wrong, but in having utter conviction of being right without sound rationale. To learn from these examples, we need to see the theories, not the conspiracies.
    - postalrat 5y ago

jb775 5y ago

The tricky part about modern "conspiracy theories" is that many of them are actually true. Amazing how using your own brain to think critically to reach your own conclusions is now frowned upon (a.k.a. wrongthink). And it's being done by people who think they're smarter than everyone else, but are actually under control of a much smaller group of people in the social wrung above them. Nothing going on in the world lately is really about politics, it's all about population control and class warfare. Politics is the vehicle to recruit useful idiots.

jl6 5y ago
Go on, which conspiracy theories are true?

jl6 5y ago

My anecdata here is that people go all-in on conspiracy theories when they have a hole in their lives that they are trying to fill. You can't argue them out of it any more than you can argue a person of faith out of their religion. These things are rooted in emotion, not reason. But I do believe you can mitigate conspiracy thinking by helping the theorist with their underlying problems, whatever those might be. Distract them from their obsession and increase their real-world engagement. Give them back a sense of control over their lives and they can start to rebuild their sense of reasonableness.

thinkingemote 5y ago
I agree, your prescription should work. A conspiracy theory gives people some control over their lives in that it explains chaos or random events, and puts people in charge of things. or maybe it's an answer for meaning in the world. It's comforting for many to think a world government is pulling the strings for some reason. It's more scary to realise that no one has control and things happen at random, meaninglessly.
justin_oaks 5y ago
I was surprised the article didn't mention how conspiracy theories give people: 1. A feeling of control, e.g. "Now that I know the truth, people won't manipulate me with their lies!" and 2. A feeling of superiority, e.g. "I'm smarter than all those sheep who don't see the truth!" Besides the biases mentioned in the article, these feelings must contribute to people believing conspiracy theories, or so I would think.
jb775 5y ago
"Conspiracy Theories" are ideas. Since we aren't discussing any specific theory here, you're essentially making a blanket statement saying "I don't like ideas that involve things I don't understand, or that you cannot prove to me right now". Most major inventions, realizations, or advancements in the history of the world began by discussing things people aren't necessarily comfortable with discussing. Or things that might sound crazy at first. This line of thinking is on par with the people who considered it blasphemy to say the world wasn't flat....or the people who were on board with burning the "witches" at the Salem witch trials. Secondly, I find it interesting that you shift the focus of your argument from the idea, to the person...especially considering we aren't talking about any specific theory here. That tells me that it doesn't matter what's actually being discussed, because you've already made up your mind. This is the mental foundation that allows things like discrimination and stereotyping to exist. Do you really not see that? Your cognitive dissonance is so strong, that your mind is tricking itself into actually believing there's something wrong with another person, simply because they discuss an idea you already made up your mind on.

stevemds0210 5y ago

It's typical factless nonsense that is so vague it becomes meaningless. Midway through the article, it tries to present one fact: "In practice, that might look something like the post below, which was shared in a QAnon Telegram group." To get context, we need to know which group so we could verify the post for ourselves and also the number of views of the post and the number of members of the group which would reveal how relevant or extensive this theory has spread.