8 ms·

Psychological Benefits of Believing in Conspiracy Theories

31 points by sgfgross 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago
Consider the following theory: > "There's an all-powerful, all-knowing entity watching everything you do and recording all your actions, and depending on that behavior you will be either rewarded with a post-life heavenly bliss, or a post-life eternal hellish punishment. A guaranteed way into heaven is absolute loyalty to your feudal lord and payment of a portion of your income to the church and its priests." Yes, the original 'conspiracy theory' was religion. Just replace the supernatural entities with secret deep state cabals and black helicopters, or alien lizard-people and UFOs, it's basically the same kind of thinking. Philosophically, there's no scientific way to disprove any of these theories, just as there's no way to disprove the notion that we're all living in a perfectly self-consistent VR simulation. Freedom of belief is also a human right, so whatever you want to imagine, go for it. (Note that believing that nothing exists until it is scientifically verified is also another of these belief systems, so don't start feeling superior, New Atheists).
- swader999 4y ago
  I thought this was about Google after reading the first line.
- Dudeman112 4y ago
  >there's no scientific way to disprove any of these theories And yet probability theory has a lot to say about the likelihood of theories and epistemology has come a long way in the last century Not every likely (or unlikely) hypothesis is as likely (or unlikely) as each other
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    >And yet probability theory has a lot to say Would love to see your experiment design for testing with the null hypothesis "there is no god" ... personally, I'm an atheist, but that's still a belief-based position.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Isn't that experiment currently running?
    - orwin 4y ago
      I'm not sure it is. It isn't for me. I don't really believe there is no god, i am however certain that I am more likely to get the wrong one than not (statistically). Thus, rather than taking a belief and moral system from a book, i choose to act as if I don't have one and act following a consequentialism that suits me. But honestly, 99% of the time, i just don't care.
    - threatofrain 4y ago
      I think for most world religions, belief that spiritualism is isolated as a purely metaphysical affair is a minority, nearly fringe belief. If you isolate spiritualism to the purely philosophical realm then religion loses its potency, and Richard Dawkins will metaphorically laugh as he places some pasta god next to the sacred. Spiritualism is as much about this world as it is about concepts of afterlife.
    - Dudeman112 4y ago
      You don't need a "there is no God" experiment, at least if the only god that's actually on your hypothesis space is the abrahamic one All other hypothesis win over an omnipotent god. That model has infinite complexity and allows every law of nature to be broken due to infinite power being an intrinsic part of that entity. You need infinite evidence to even start considering it over every other non infinitely complex hypothesis that doesn't imply everything we know about physics being wrong And they don't even give it a good excuse unlike, for example, living in a simulation As for the other gods... Well, whoever thinks they are likely will have to give at least some epistemologically valid argument for them. Which for the most part they don't, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise People require more evidence to believe a bench is wet than they do to believe in most religions. I'll convert once there's good arguments to convert, until then I'll chuck gods in the generic set of "unlikely stuff that needs more reason to be considered", which is quite the big set
- rvieira 4y ago
  A Russell's teapot, basically.
- swayvil 4y ago
  The all-knowing-entity theory was popular. Belief was a simple matter of conformity. Conformity is the rule. Even for us. The all-knowing-entity theory was conveyed by authority. In theory subject to scrutiny but in practice not really. Exactly like our "scientific facts". So let's not succumb to the temptation to believe that we are special in our wisdom. (That's another belief shared by every culture.) If you want to consider yourself wise then you'll probably want to stray from what's "modern and popular" first.
- searine 4y ago
  >Yes, the original 'conspiracy theory' was religion. Not really. The religious experience tends to operate differently than conspiracy in terms of the psychology and neuroscience at work. As the article describes, conspiracy is mostly a defense mechanism for the ego. It gives people agency in a chaotic world. It rationalizes the chaos into a simple narrative. These serve to reinforce the current executive self as it currently is. In contrast, the religious experience tends towards being a conduit for change in self. In general, religion serves to present potential ideal future self to model ones behavior on. Be like jesus/budda/serapis etc. I don't doubt that religion and conspiracy share some mechanisms, and that one creeps into the other depending on where you look. However, my intuition is that religion at it's core is rooted in change of self to fit a cultural/moral ideal, while conspiracy is rooted in paranoia of harm to self or others.
  - photochemsyn 4y ago
    The notion that religious stories provide models for decent human behavior is fairly solid, but then so do other forms of literature (be like Frodo, for example). This is called the 'utilitarian' argument, I believe. As far as the nature of reality, I like this quote: "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic." ― Frank Herbert, Dune There are some religious traditions that take this view, perhaps Sufi mysticism, perhaps Zen Buddhism, and even some scientific concepts like quantum logic are analogous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic#Differences_with_classical_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic#Differences_with...
    - searine 4y ago
      >The notion that religious stories provide models for decent human behavior is fairly solid, but then so do other forms of literature (be like Frodo, for example). This is called the 'utilitarian' argument, I believe. There are other aspects to the religious experience that differentiate it from other external models for the self. Things like feeling an overwhelming sacredness, performing ritual, a feeling of mysticism. I don't doubt people model themselves off of fictional stories, but few if any are going into ecstatic trances over Sam asking about po-tae-toes.
- nineplay 4y ago
  That's an interesting way of looking at it. The theory you highlight was not of course the 'original' theory which may have been something more like. > Why did something bad happen? I must have done something wrong. > Why did something good happen? I must have done something right. > There sure is a lot of cool stuff around. Someone must have made it. Perhaps the original conspiracy theory is free-will, the idea that we have some control over anything that happens to us. No evidence, no proofs, just a hopeful thought that we can do something to make things better.
- jmt_ 4y ago
  I use the phrase "God hole", introduced by TV show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, to refer to the phenomenon mentioned in the article. If you're familiar with the show it may seem crass to use that phrase to generalize incredibly complicated philosophy, but it succinctly allegorizes many peoples desire to attach to something greater than them that provides a sense of belonging, identity, and purpose. For example, having been raised with no religion or "greater power", I "filled" my God hole with learning to program as a kid and particularly studying math as an undergrad - math and the processes required to understand and "do" it made me feel as close to a higher power as I can imagine. How and why the God hole is filled varies wildly per person, but the desire to do so does seem to be ubiquitous. I've struggled a lot with nihilistic thought in the past - e.g "why do anything? If you look at a big enough picture the sun will explode and nothing will ever matter or be remembered". I speculate that a major downside of higher levels of consciousness/awareness, like those found in humans, is knowing their own insignificance and normality relative to the grand scheme of the universe. I speculate filling the "God hole" and the aforementioned nihilistic perspective is a direct response to that awareness. It could even be argued that, from an evolutionary standpoint, it's important for most people to fill their God hole so they feel like they should be doing _something_ as the species would otherwise die. tl;dr if something that fills a "God hole" is an interface in the programming sense, conspiracy is one of many implementations of the interface
  - soco 4y ago
    I think not everybody is at struggle with their own insignificance. If nothing else, being aware of it frees you to do good things for yourself and those you care about, instead of pursuing imaginary higher-level goals. If one doesn't feel guilty for trespassing fantasy rules, they can work out what makes them and their loved ones happy in this very life - and I don't think that being an ass or criminal would be many people's choice anyway.
    - jmt_ 4y ago
      I see what you're saying and mostly agree. I should have worded my original comment better and to be careful with "awareness". I think the degree to which people understand, perceive, and struggle with their existentiality is a wide spectrum. What I really should have argued is that the desire to fill the God hole exists across this spectrum and drives a lot of human behavior regardless of how aware the person is of this effect. I'm reminded of people I grew up with who blindly grab on to, say, religion or patriotism - they may not be thinking in such a "meta" way about their existence, but have a primal desire to fill the God hole and enjoy the effects of their chosen filling. I think I'm more arguing that filling a God hole is a much more primal desire than we may realize.
- anonym29 4y ago
  I'm no earthographer or planetologist, but I'm pretty confident there's a scientific way to disprove an (allegedly) flat earth.
  - nineplay 4y ago
    I'm not a flat-earther, but I'll daresay you couldn't prove that everyone who claims to have proof of a round earth is lying or deceived. It's like some (alleged) variations of the young-earth creationist theory which posits that all the fossil evidence was deliberately planted by Satan to trick the gullible and only the true-believers can see though it. That's a pretty hard one to disprove.
  - joering2 4y ago
    I think the whole "movement" has been created from the fact that, scientifically speaking, earth is not round. At least not perfectly round like you see photos, because that's obviously water being pulled by gravity making it look like a soap bubble perfectly rounded. First time I saw real photo of Earth I was somewhat shocked. https://c.tenor.com/f7Pz19uaXFwAAAAC/earth-rotating.gif https://c.tenor.com/f7Pz19uaXFwAAAAC/earth-rotating.gif
    - detaro 4y ago
      "real photo" - followed by a visualization that over-exaggerates the anomalies way more than thousandfold? (i.e. in the image earth is ~240 px high, given a polar diameter of ~12 000km we end up at ~50km per pixel. So even the difference between polar and equatorial diameter would be barely visible, and ~100m anomalies are 0.002px)
- anonporridge 4y ago
  Not just religion, but stateism. In the US, the conspiracy memes are literally on our money, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence. We nurture and spread the memes of the all seeing eye and the slow grinding gears of justice, not because they're literally true in all cases, but because if you get a critical mass of people to behave as if they are true and voluntarily act in compliance with the rules of this entity, then the much more limited power of the entity can focus itself on the tiny minority of detractors. That's also why detractors often spend time trying to get as many other people out of compliance as possible. It's easier to hide in a crowd when the entity you're hiding from can't arrest everybody. This is also why it really doesn't take a terribly large minority to collapse this power dynamic, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35.... The actual kinetic power is necessarily supported by its memetic power.
boredumb 4y ago
People and entities conspire constantly to benefit themselves, having theories about that is healthy and shows a healthy level of distrust. The general rule of thumb should be proving the benefit of the people conspiring together and if there is no tangible/provable benefit then there is little to no reason to believe in the theory. Why are people pushing a globe model? Who does this benefit? At the end of the day though, a conspiracy theory is a way to rationalize a situation that you perceive as bad without having to really dig into it and see the other side that is benefiting from it. It's easier to believe that there are a group of people controlling the strings in any situation than it is that there are a ton of people who are all acting in self interest and collectively tugging the strings.
nitini 4y ago
Everyone is just looking for meaning, but with social media our shared sense of reality is at risk - https://www.climaticthoughts.com/peak-reality-is-terrifying/ https://www.climaticthoughts.com/peak-reality-is-terrifying/
andsoitis 4y ago
When you can make them believe anything, you can make them do anything.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jamal-kumar 4y ago
There's an author, Robert Anton Wilson, who started writing an influential novel called the Illuminatus trilogy which is a pretty fun read but basically if the whole point of his work was anything it would be that if you aren't doing something of your own kind of conspiracy and you're instead obsessing over real or imagined conspiracies that other people are doing, you're wasting your time. It's a fun thing to tell someone who's ranting at you about something you've probably just heard before and already checked out as inanity if anything. The other fun thing to do is see if they accept that the moon is a hologram (You'd be surprised how many people agree to this notion) He has a quote about belief as a whole: "My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended."
- silicon2401 4y ago
  > if you aren't doing something of your own kind of conspiracy and you're instead obsessing over real or imagined conspiracies that other people are doing, you're wasting your time That's an incredibly practical insight IMO. It's true: the more you focus on achieving your own goals, the less you care about what else is going on in the world; the most that you care about is overcoming obstacles, but that's the case regardless of whether they're caused by other people's conspiracy plots or random accidents (at least that's the case for me).
  - jstarfish 4y ago
    There's an even more practical aspect to it-- conspiracies involve multiple parties. In trying to take one down, you have neither sovereignty nor numbers on your side. You have n opponents you have to indict through legal means, but they only have one...and have already proven they are willing to use illegal/unethical tactics to achieve their goals. So even if you're absolutely right about whatever you think is going on, it's a losing proposition to take on someone else's conspiracy as a pet crusade.
notjes 4y ago
Conspiring, thinking and talking about conspiracies is normal human nature. Nothing to see here.
- marshray 4y ago
  It is human nature, but there is a lot to talk about here. Our inability to distinguish reality from fiction and propaganda is being weaponized to pry systematically at the cracks of or society and destabilize it from within. As AI becomes even more omnipresent, mysterious, and godlike, we may find that an organized defense of our sanity becomes essential.
yesdocs 4y ago
Well this explains the election deniers crazy batshit approach to ‘Stop the Steal’. It helps rationalize their belief that Trump flags and MAGA hats make an election. 60 rejected lawsuits doesn’t seem to break the fever. Why don’t we admit it’s a cult? This is how cults work, and they are dangerous.
- vlunkr 4y ago
  Certainly when you get the QAnon people it looks like a cult. The unusual thing is that in a typical cult, the leader is very involved in peoples lives. Trump doesn't directly get involved, but they still put him on a pedestal and think that he's secretly on their side and sending them messages.
lampshades 4y ago
What a horribly written article. Not the content, just the structure and flow. In other news, I’m a very big believer in what many would consider “conspiracy theories” and it’s been nothing but detrimental to my life. I wish I was like the rest of you and didn’t believe them.
- escapedmoose 4y ago
  Everybody probably believes in at least one or two. Do you believe in an above-average number of them, or are there one or two conspiracy theories that you think are specifically detrimental to your life?
  - lampshades 4y ago
    I believe in an above average amount. Honestly, they used to all be pretty detrimental, but now that half the country has has lost trust in the ruling class, it’s become easier for me. I’d like to mention I do not believe in obvious psyops like flat Earth or birds not being real or Q anon.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - etherael 4y ago
      Birds not being real? What on earth?
      - lampshades 4y ago
        Yeah, it’s a thing. And some people actually believe it.
- kennend3 4y ago
  I'm not a conspiracy theory type of person but know a few people who are. My advice to them is to practice "critical thinking". A fairly easy approach should be to recognize your "confirmation bias' and curiosity and feed that by actively looking for contradictory evidence. Too often conspiracy theory types seek out evidence to further support their views, without looking at anything else. I know it is easier said than done, but it is a start.
lettergram 4y ago
I do enjoy the fact "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative, although it's how we interpret the world as humans. The term only started to become a pejorative because the news / government started pushing the idea as a pejorative in the 50's. https://www.routledge.com/The-Stigmatization-of-Conspiracy-Theory-since-the-1950s-A-Plot-to-Make/Thalmann/p/book/9781138346819 https://www.routledge.com/The-Stigmatization-of-Conspiracy-T... The term was particular pushed in a negative light onto those questioning the murder of JFK. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-10406/104-10406-10110/html/104-10406-10110_0002a.htm https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-1... My favorite modern conspiracy that's true, not a theory. Is that there is a ring of elite pedophiles in washington and around the globe trafficking kids. We have confirmation of that with Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell is currently in prison for the sex trafficking of minors... of course, they failed to prosecute or even mention to whom they were being trafficked; although there's a lot of politicians and wealthy business men who've been seen / visited their island (where the sex trafficking was taking place). The point I'm making is that the negative connotation with this term comes directly because people in power want it that way; its a way to dismiss criticism and belittle those identifying failure. Identifying what's wrong with the world is good for us.Then sharing and discussing that belief builds a community and a shared identity. There's obviously a benefit to that.
- hash07e 4y ago
  Whoaaa, cool down with the anti-semitism.
- etherael 4y ago
  The truth values of the narrative in question doesn't actually change the point the article makes, though I suspect this is because they're accidentally right rather than they went out of their way to make allowances for the fact that many conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Believing that the greater social structure of your society is controlled by conspiring entities who tend to work in their mutual self interest and to support the status quo will almost necessarily be seen negatively by those who merely support the status quo, which is basically everybody. So yes, there are negative social cohesion consequences for being aware of that, just as there are negative social cohesion consequences of being aware the religious structure of theocracy is also the same kind of thing, or any other broadly accepted popular fiction, your government exists to serve you, your priest is a conduit to god, whatever. Most humans just don't care and aren't capable of parsing the truth value of the questions raised, they're just interested in their status within those structures rather than the nature of them. They'll trade n percent of the total time in their lives for n million kudos bucks without spending a ten thousandth thereof pondering the nature of how kudos bucks enter into circulation or exit therefrom, nor who has their hands on the scales, and in what manner. If you are not one of them though and you genuinely find the pursuit of truth and investigation into the actual state of reality behind the socially constructed fiction, then once again almost necessarily you're going to be the kind of person who finds meaning and a sense of purpose in that pursuit, if it's true, all the better because you will have fewer doubts about that sense of purpose and mission.
yamrzou 4y ago
Another psychological benefit not mentioned in the article, is that a conspiracy theory alleviates the anxiety of uncertainty and allows one to feel safe due to understanding one’s environment.
RappingBoomer 4y ago
I don't know why anyone would believe any of these crazy conspiracy theories... it's not as if the government, the media and the big corporations all work together or say the same things...not at all....
notacoward 4y ago
This is very consistent with my own theory about why people like conspiracy theories. A lot of people feel like they've been insufficiently recognized or rewarded for their intellect. They want to find some idea that allows them to be not only right but right before anyone else is. They want to be that theory's representative, to be associated with the theory in peers' minds when the theory itself is recognized as insightful. They want to feel (or at least seem) a little bit prescient. There's no reward for being right when everyone else is too. There's little penalty for being wrong a few times either, so they'll latch onto a bunch of wild theories in hopes that just one will get them the validation they seek. Note that their own belief is hardly necessary. Often it's actually quite weak. If an idea is fully discredited it's swiftly disavowed, and hopefully forgotten. It's easy to spot this behavior online, of course. Reddit is full of it, and this site isn't exactly immune either. Strident, even aggressive, evangelism about a "contrarian" theory is usually the big tell. Accusing others of being "sheep" is solid confirmation. People who are pursuing an unconventional theory for its own sake, out of pure intellectual curiosity, tend to be quieter about it. The loud ones are just playing Russian Roulette with their reputations and sometimes their friendships. It's the same impulse that has led more than a few Nobel prize winners to start issuing grand pronouncements in unrelated fields where they're still rank amateurs, just like sports or entertainers trying to get into the spotlight one more time and usually embarrassing themselves. Or Rudy Giuliani, but the less said about him the better. A few quirky ideas might make you an oddball, but a hundred, month after month and year after year, makes you a laughingstock and/or a pain in the ass. My father-in-law alienated most people around him by going this route. So did another of my own friends. I feel the temptation myself, and have to consciously reject that path. Some might say I've failed, and this theory itself is evidence of that failure. :shrug: In any case, there it is FWIW.
- kennend3 4y ago
  > Accusing others of being "sheep" is solid confirmation I absolutely LOVE when they do this. Think about it for just one second. Labeling someone a "sheep" because they were vaccinated, but someone who refuses to get vaccinated, like many others are not "sheep"? Perspective is everything? Your point is spot on, once labels like "sheep" are used there is no point trying to further the conversation. They have taken their conspiracy theory views to religious heights and no amount of evidence can remove a religious view. There is reason people use statements like "take it on faith".
recursivedoubts 4y ago
> Conspiracy theories can help people defend a fragile ego by exaggerating the importance of themselves and their groups; So can identifying with the mainstream story: I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist, I'm a serious person. > Conspiracy theories can make people feel like legitimate actors by rationalizing their beliefs and behaviors; So can identifying with the mainstream story: I'm listening to the experts, everyone is doing it. > Believing in conspiracy theories entertains people by making them active participants in an exciting tale. Most conspiracies are non-participatory. The federal reserve was created by a conspiracy[1]. I have no control over that or any ability to change the situation. It's simply depressing. [1] - https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-conference https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-c... "A secret gathering at a secluded island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 laid the foundations for the Federal Reserve System."
- BuckRogers 4y ago
  The difference between a conspiracy theory and something that is not a conspiracy theory is that objective reality consists of things we can corroborate and substantiate. Of course there are conspiracy theories that are true, but some guy sitting on the Internet is never going to learn about them. He’ll be dead before he does. Backroom deals are cut all the time but the peasants aren’t going to know about them. So why sit around and theorize and things you’ll never know? All it comes down to is attempting to comfort yourself in an unstable world, conspiracy theories are the result of a brain that failed to understand reality. It’s collapsing chaos and collapsing complexity into something that makes sense at least to you and your friends. As well, often an attempt of pretending one has secret knowledge that the real peasants don’t have access to. A cheap and easy way to becoming elite, but based on nothing. Only those digging into conspiracy websites know the truth hidden from the public. A lot, but not all, of the mainstream news is indeed substantiated and corroborated. That’s how we know the truth. It’s the best way that we know of at least. Conspiracy theories that rely on every single western and eastern media outlet to falsify Russian atrocities in Ukraine for example, it’s simply not possible. We can’t create causal links without evidence. I mean we can, but it’s meaningless until you substantiate it. So what’s the point? Just operate off of the evidence. It’s just a lot less fun. And that’s really what conspiracy theories derive from other than a brain that failed. Schizophrenia is a cause as well. Desire for easy elitism with “hidden knowledge”. Or merely someone seeking a cheap thrill.
treebeard901 4y ago
While the Roswell stuff is a dumb conspiracy, life has taught me that when money is available, and there is a goal of any kind among a group of people, that a conspiracy often follows.
BrainVirus 4y ago
The problem with the concept of "conspiracy theories" is that it's essentially a label entirely controlled by the media. There are beliefs that (by any reasonable definition) should fit the label, and yet they are never referenced that way. There are other beliefs that have far more factual support and they immediately get slapped with the label. It's an inherently manipulative concept and I think any research that doesn't explicitly address is bogus.
swayvil 4y ago
One tribe's fact is another tribe's conspiracy theory. It just depends on which authorities you favor. Otoh, there's always the empirical approach.
swayvil 4y ago
Be a good person, support the current thing.
dwringer 4y ago
This gets me thinking of a recent example I was going "down the rabbit hole" reading about, which is the supposed existence and subsequent coverup of a mid-90's movie starring Sinbad and a kid, possibly Jonathan Brandis. Long story short, the comedian Sinbad hosted a Sinbad the Sailor movie (or movies) on some cable channel, and for the skit he was dressed in clothes similar to those a stereotypical genie might wear. IIRC there was one segment where a kid came on board his ship, and very well could have been Jonathan Brandis trying to cross-promote a show he was also on. But "the internet" took this memory, combined with a vague similarity to the old Shazzan cartoon, and a vaguer similarity of that to the movie Kazaam, and decided there was a movie called "Shazam" starring Sinbad which explained everyone's vague memory of these sketches. I myself had this vague memory, so at first I found the idea of such a movie very plausible. Searching for evidence, however, turns up nothing, and then you find two prevailing schools of thought: One, that there was a movie, but it was so bad it tanked Sinbad's career, and because of that and/or Jonathan Brandis's death was completely removed from circulation and scrubbed from internet references. Or two, that the movie was real and pretty good, but only existed in a parallel universe, and some of us mysteriously got our consciousness transplanted from bodies in that universe to identical ones in this universe which has merely a few banal differences like that. The second is not too unlike a lot of internet philosophy discussions, but the first is a good example of a conspiracy theory. The idea of a movie being so bad it's scrapped and all copies destroyed isn't too far fetched, so it takes a little bit of research to uncover a complete lack of any corroborating evidence, and the denial of those involved, to see that the theory falls apart. When facing doubts about your own memory and experience, it can be tempting to accept an explanation that a prominent group in the community is giving you rather than doing your own research and forming your own opinions. I would not be surprised if it were a naturally evolved mechanism.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  If you really wanted to give that conspiracy theory some legs, you could tie it to Sinbad (during the 2008 Democratic primaries) debunking Senator Clinton's claims about the alleged action they saw during a fateful 1996 USO tour to Bosnia- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-did-it-take-sinbad-to_b_93972 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-did-it-take-sinbad-to_b_9... Though you could probably chalk it up to more of a cosmic Mandela Effect sort of thing.
arminiusreturns 4y ago
"This reasoning, however, only emphasizes how conspiracy theories helped ancestors survive in a Pleistocene environment, and does not hold implications for possible psychological benefits in present-day society [20]. If anything, the evolutionary perspective implies macro-level societal benefits, by explaining why people possess mental systems that make them sensitive to signals suggesting possible collusion. Consistent with this perspective, citizens display stronger conspiracy beliefs in high-corruption than low-corruption countries [21,22]."
olivermarks 4y ago
'Conspiracy Theory' is a junk media term that shouldn't be taken seriously. It is widely used to gaslight, discredit and confuse.
thinkingemote 4y ago
Suspicion. "I have figured out this group. We can discount all other narratives. They are evil." Comfort. "There is an (evil) organisation in charge of things, don't worry, we know what's going on. there's no chaos or ineptitude."
motohagiography 4y ago
Should one interpret from this article that a healthier mind believes, a) it is unimportant and it is not a part of a group that is important, b) doubts its legitimacy, and c) should be a passive particpant in the narratives around it? You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that some ideas are specifically designed to be pacifying and neutralizing, and concern about conspiracy theories seems to be one of them. Delegitimizing opposition is a standard propaganda tool. If were to accuse you as a reader of being a propagandized zombie incapable of reason, divorced from reality, operating as an ideological automaton in a bubble of insidiously manufactured stimuli - I would suspect your response would be dismissive. Yet this is exactly what we accuse people of when we say they believe in conspiracy theories. All ideologies are conspiracy theories, and the only thing that makes one more meaningful than another is their falsifiability and predictive power about reality - and not its post-hoc explanatory power. As a thinking person with intellectual and moral agency, you are capable of ascertaining whether one or more of your beliefs is the artifact of this one fallacy: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_... , and I'd argue that calling people conspiracy theorists is the most reliable indicator that someone has been fully atomized. I can't defend all assertions of conspiracy, but to me the urge to articulate them at all is an indicator a person is not actuated by the much greater social danger of banal nihilism.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notacoward 4y ago
  > Should one interpret from this article that a healthier mind believes... No. That's a huge stretch, if not an outright strawman. There's equal textual support for the more charitable interpretation that many people aren't getting enough of these positive feelings in less Manichaean or conflict-inducing ways. Even as they accept the importance and legitimacy of climate change (for example) they don't get excited by participating in activism on that issue. Conspiracy theories are a way to jump-start those feelings, and often the discomfiture of others is part of the appeal. It enhances the rush. A healthier mind seeks out meaningful engagement without turning it into combat. > All ideologies are conspiracy theories > ... > the only thing that makes one more meaningful than another is their falsifiability and predictive power Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that, according to people who actually study these things, non-falsifiability is one of the defining characteristics of a conspiracy theory. So no, not all beliefs are conspiracy theories. "If you disagree you must be part of the conspiracy" is a well known trope, even among comedians. Which brings us to... > I'd argue that calling people conspiracy theorists is the most reliable indicator that someone has been fully atomized.

31 points by sgfgross 4y ago

Consider the following theory: > "There's an all-powerful, all-knowing entity watching everything you do and recording all your actions, and depending on that behavior you will be either rewarded with a post-life heavenly bliss, or a post-life eternal hellish punishment. A guaranteed way into heaven is absolute loyalty to your feudal lord and payment of a portion of your income to the church and its priests." Yes, the original 'conspiracy theory' was religion. Just replace the supernatural entities with secret deep state cabals and black helicopters, or alien lizard-people and UFOs, it's basically the same kind of thinking. Philosophically, there's no scientific way to disprove any of these theories, just as there's no way to disprove the notion that we're all living in a perfectly self-consistent VR simulation. Freedom of belief is also a human right, so whatever you want to imagine, go for it. (Note that believing that nothing exists until it is scientifically verified is also another of these belief systems, so don't start feeling superior, New Atheists).

swader999 4y ago
I thought this was about Google after reading the first line.
Dudeman112 4y ago
>there's no scientific way to disprove any of these theories And yet probability theory has a lot to say about the likelihood of theories and epistemology has come a long way in the last century Not every likely (or unlikely) hypothesis is as likely (or unlikely) as each other
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  >And yet probability theory has a lot to say Would love to see your experiment design for testing with the null hypothesis "there is no god" ... personally, I'm an atheist, but that's still a belief-based position.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Isn't that experiment currently running?
  - orwin 4y ago
    I'm not sure it is. It isn't for me. I don't really believe there is no god, i am however certain that I am more likely to get the wrong one than not (statistically). Thus, rather than taking a belief and moral system from a book, i choose to act as if I don't have one and act following a consequentialism that suits me. But honestly, 99% of the time, i just don't care.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    I think for most world religions, belief that spiritualism is isolated as a purely metaphysical affair is a minority, nearly fringe belief. If you isolate spiritualism to the purely philosophical realm then religion loses its potency, and Richard Dawkins will metaphorically laugh as he places some pasta god next to the sacred. Spiritualism is as much about this world as it is about concepts of afterlife.
  - Dudeman112 4y ago
    You don't need a "there is no God" experiment, at least if the only god that's actually on your hypothesis space is the abrahamic one All other hypothesis win over an omnipotent god. That model has infinite complexity and allows every law of nature to be broken due to infinite power being an intrinsic part of that entity. You need infinite evidence to even start considering it over every other non infinitely complex hypothesis that doesn't imply everything we know about physics being wrong And they don't even give it a good excuse unlike, for example, living in a simulation As for the other gods... Well, whoever thinks they are likely will have to give at least some epistemologically valid argument for them. Which for the most part they don't, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise People require more evidence to believe a bench is wet than they do to believe in most religions. I'll convert once there's good arguments to convert, until then I'll chuck gods in the generic set of "unlikely stuff that needs more reason to be considered", which is quite the big set
rvieira 4y ago
A Russell's teapot, basically.
swayvil 4y ago
The all-knowing-entity theory was popular. Belief was a simple matter of conformity. Conformity is the rule. Even for us. The all-knowing-entity theory was conveyed by authority. In theory subject to scrutiny but in practice not really. Exactly like our "scientific facts". So let's not succumb to the temptation to believe that we are special in our wisdom. (That's another belief shared by every culture.) If you want to consider yourself wise then you'll probably want to stray from what's "modern and popular" first.
searine 4y ago
>Yes, the original 'conspiracy theory' was religion. Not really. The religious experience tends to operate differently than conspiracy in terms of the psychology and neuroscience at work. As the article describes, conspiracy is mostly a defense mechanism for the ego. It gives people agency in a chaotic world. It rationalizes the chaos into a simple narrative. These serve to reinforce the current executive self as it currently is. In contrast, the religious experience tends towards being a conduit for change in self. In general, religion serves to present potential ideal future self to model ones behavior on. Be like jesus/budda/serapis etc. I don't doubt that religion and conspiracy share some mechanisms, and that one creeps into the other depending on where you look. However, my intuition is that religion at it's core is rooted in change of self to fit a cultural/moral ideal, while conspiracy is rooted in paranoia of harm to self or others.
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  The notion that religious stories provide models for decent human behavior is fairly solid, but then so do other forms of literature (be like Frodo, for example). This is called the 'utilitarian' argument, I believe. As far as the nature of reality, I like this quote: "Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic." ― Frank Herbert, Dune There are some religious traditions that take this view, perhaps Sufi mysticism, perhaps Zen Buddhism, and even some scientific concepts like quantum logic are analogous. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic#Differences_with_classical_logic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic#Differences_with...
  - searine 4y ago
    >The notion that religious stories provide models for decent human behavior is fairly solid, but then so do other forms of literature (be like Frodo, for example). This is called the 'utilitarian' argument, I believe. There are other aspects to the religious experience that differentiate it from other external models for the self. Things like feeling an overwhelming sacredness, performing ritual, a feeling of mysticism. I don't doubt people model themselves off of fictional stories, but few if any are going into ecstatic trances over Sam asking about po-tae-toes.
nineplay 4y ago
That's an interesting way of looking at it. The theory you highlight was not of course the 'original' theory which may have been something more like. > Why did something bad happen? I must have done something wrong. > Why did something good happen? I must have done something right. > There sure is a lot of cool stuff around. Someone must have made it. Perhaps the original conspiracy theory is free-will, the idea that we have some control over anything that happens to us. No evidence, no proofs, just a hopeful thought that we can do something to make things better.
jmt_ 4y ago
I use the phrase "God hole", introduced by TV show It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, to refer to the phenomenon mentioned in the article. If you're familiar with the show it may seem crass to use that phrase to generalize incredibly complicated philosophy, but it succinctly allegorizes many peoples desire to attach to something greater than them that provides a sense of belonging, identity, and purpose. For example, having been raised with no religion or "greater power", I "filled" my God hole with learning to program as a kid and particularly studying math as an undergrad - math and the processes required to understand and "do" it made me feel as close to a higher power as I can imagine. How and why the God hole is filled varies wildly per person, but the desire to do so does seem to be ubiquitous. I've struggled a lot with nihilistic thought in the past - e.g "why do anything? If you look at a big enough picture the sun will explode and nothing will ever matter or be remembered". I speculate that a major downside of higher levels of consciousness/awareness, like those found in humans, is knowing their own insignificance and normality relative to the grand scheme of the universe. I speculate filling the "God hole" and the aforementioned nihilistic perspective is a direct response to that awareness. It could even be argued that, from an evolutionary standpoint, it's important for most people to fill their God hole so they feel like they should be doing _something_ as the species would otherwise die. tl;dr if something that fills a "God hole" is an interface in the programming sense, conspiracy is one of many implementations of the interface
- soco 4y ago
  I think not everybody is at struggle with their own insignificance. If nothing else, being aware of it frees you to do good things for yourself and those you care about, instead of pursuing imaginary higher-level goals. If one doesn't feel guilty for trespassing fantasy rules, they can work out what makes them and their loved ones happy in this very life - and I don't think that being an ass or criminal would be many people's choice anyway.
  - jmt_ 4y ago
    I see what you're saying and mostly agree. I should have worded my original comment better and to be careful with "awareness". I think the degree to which people understand, perceive, and struggle with their existentiality is a wide spectrum. What I really should have argued is that the desire to fill the God hole exists across this spectrum and drives a lot of human behavior regardless of how aware the person is of this effect. I'm reminded of people I grew up with who blindly grab on to, say, religion or patriotism - they may not be thinking in such a "meta" way about their existence, but have a primal desire to fill the God hole and enjoy the effects of their chosen filling. I think I'm more arguing that filling a God hole is a much more primal desire than we may realize.
anonym29 4y ago
I'm no earthographer or planetologist, but I'm pretty confident there's a scientific way to disprove an (allegedly) flat earth.
- nineplay 4y ago
  I'm not a flat-earther, but I'll daresay you couldn't prove that everyone who claims to have proof of a round earth is lying or deceived. It's like some (alleged) variations of the young-earth creationist theory which posits that all the fossil evidence was deliberately planted by Satan to trick the gullible and only the true-believers can see though it. That's a pretty hard one to disprove.
- joering2 4y ago
  I think the whole "movement" has been created from the fact that, scientifically speaking, earth is not round. At least not perfectly round like you see photos, because that's obviously water being pulled by gravity making it look like a soap bubble perfectly rounded. First time I saw real photo of Earth I was somewhat shocked. https://c.tenor.com/f7Pz19uaXFwAAAAC/earth-rotating.gif https://c.tenor.com/f7Pz19uaXFwAAAAC/earth-rotating.gif
  - detaro 4y ago
    "real photo" - followed by a visualization that over-exaggerates the anomalies way more than thousandfold? (i.e. in the image earth is ~240 px high, given a polar diameter of ~12 000km we end up at ~50km per pixel. So even the difference between polar and equatorial diameter would be barely visible, and ~100m anomalies are 0.002px)
anonporridge 4y ago
Not just religion, but stateism. In the US, the conspiracy memes are literally on our money, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence. We nurture and spread the memes of the all seeing eye and the slow grinding gears of justice, not because they're literally true in all cases, but because if you get a critical mass of people to behave as if they are true and voluntarily act in compliance with the rules of this entity, then the much more limited power of the entity can focus itself on the tiny minority of detractors. That's also why detractors often spend time trying to get as many other people out of compliance as possible. It's easier to hide in a crowd when the entity you're hiding from can't arrest everybody. This is also why it really doesn't take a terribly large minority to collapse this power dynamic, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35.... The actual kinetic power is necessarily supported by its memetic power.

boredumb 4y ago

People and entities conspire constantly to benefit themselves, having theories about that is healthy and shows a healthy level of distrust. The general rule of thumb should be proving the benefit of the people conspiring together and if there is no tangible/provable benefit then there is little to no reason to believe in the theory. Why are people pushing a globe model? Who does this benefit? At the end of the day though, a conspiracy theory is a way to rationalize a situation that you perceive as bad without having to really dig into it and see the other side that is benefiting from it. It's easier to believe that there are a group of people controlling the strings in any situation than it is that there are a ton of people who are all acting in self interest and collectively tugging the strings.

nitini 4y ago

Everyone is just looking for meaning, but with social media our shared sense of reality is at risk - https://www.climaticthoughts.com/peak-reality-is-terrifying/ https://www.climaticthoughts.com/peak-reality-is-terrifying/

andsoitis 4y ago

When you can make them believe anything, you can make them do anything.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jamal-kumar 4y ago

There's an author, Robert Anton Wilson, who started writing an influential novel called the Illuminatus trilogy which is a pretty fun read but basically if the whole point of his work was anything it would be that if you aren't doing something of your own kind of conspiracy and you're instead obsessing over real or imagined conspiracies that other people are doing, you're wasting your time. It's a fun thing to tell someone who's ranting at you about something you've probably just heard before and already checked out as inanity if anything. The other fun thing to do is see if they accept that the moon is a hologram (You'd be surprised how many people agree to this notion) He has a quote about belief as a whole: "My own opinion is that belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence. The more certitude one assumes, the less there is left to think about, and a person sure of everything would never have any need to think about anything and might be considered clinically dead under current medical standards, where absence of brain activity is taken to mean that life has ended."

silicon2401 4y ago
> if you aren't doing something of your own kind of conspiracy and you're instead obsessing over real or imagined conspiracies that other people are doing, you're wasting your time That's an incredibly practical insight IMO. It's true: the more you focus on achieving your own goals, the less you care about what else is going on in the world; the most that you care about is overcoming obstacles, but that's the case regardless of whether they're caused by other people's conspiracy plots or random accidents (at least that's the case for me).
- jstarfish 4y ago
  There's an even more practical aspect to it-- conspiracies involve multiple parties. In trying to take one down, you have neither sovereignty nor numbers on your side. You have n opponents you have to indict through legal means, but they only have one...and have already proven they are willing to use illegal/unethical tactics to achieve their goals. So even if you're absolutely right about whatever you think is going on, it's a losing proposition to take on someone else's conspiracy as a pet crusade.

notjes 4y ago

Conspiring, thinking and talking about conspiracies is normal human nature. Nothing to see here.

marshray 4y ago
It is human nature, but there is a lot to talk about here. Our inability to distinguish reality from fiction and propaganda is being weaponized to pry systematically at the cracks of or society and destabilize it from within. As AI becomes even more omnipresent, mysterious, and godlike, we may find that an organized defense of our sanity becomes essential.

yesdocs 4y ago

Well this explains the election deniers crazy batshit approach to ‘Stop the Steal’. It helps rationalize their belief that Trump flags and MAGA hats make an election. 60 rejected lawsuits doesn’t seem to break the fever. Why don’t we admit it’s a cult? This is how cults work, and they are dangerous.

vlunkr 4y ago
Certainly when you get the QAnon people it looks like a cult. The unusual thing is that in a typical cult, the leader is very involved in peoples lives. Trump doesn't directly get involved, but they still put him on a pedestal and think that he's secretly on their side and sending them messages.

lampshades 4y ago

What a horribly written article. Not the content, just the structure and flow. In other news, I’m a very big believer in what many would consider “conspiracy theories” and it’s been nothing but detrimental to my life. I wish I was like the rest of you and didn’t believe them.

escapedmoose 4y ago
Everybody probably believes in at least one or two. Do you believe in an above-average number of them, or are there one or two conspiracy theories that you think are specifically detrimental to your life?
- lampshades 4y ago
  I believe in an above average amount. Honestly, they used to all be pretty detrimental, but now that half the country has has lost trust in the ruling class, it’s become easier for me. I’d like to mention I do not believe in obvious psyops like flat Earth or birds not being real or Q anon.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - etherael 4y ago
    Birds not being real? What on earth?
    - lampshades 4y ago
      Yeah, it’s a thing. And some people actually believe it.
kennend3 4y ago
I'm not a conspiracy theory type of person but know a few people who are. My advice to them is to practice "critical thinking". A fairly easy approach should be to recognize your "confirmation bias' and curiosity and feed that by actively looking for contradictory evidence. Too often conspiracy theory types seek out evidence to further support their views, without looking at anything else. I know it is easier said than done, but it is a start.

lettergram 4y ago

I do enjoy the fact "conspiracy theory" is a pejorative, although it's how we interpret the world as humans. The term only started to become a pejorative because the news / government started pushing the idea as a pejorative in the 50's. https://www.routledge.com/The-Stigmatization-of-Conspiracy-Theory-since-the-1950s-A-Plot-to-Make/Thalmann/p/book/9781138346819 https://www.routledge.com/The-Stigmatization-of-Conspiracy-T... The term was particular pushed in a negative light onto those questioning the murder of JFK. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-10406/104-10406-10110/html/104-10406-10110_0002a.htm https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-1... My favorite modern conspiracy that's true, not a theory. Is that there is a ring of elite pedophiles in washington and around the globe trafficking kids. We have confirmation of that with Epstein. Ghislaine Maxwell is currently in prison for the sex trafficking of minors... of course, they failed to prosecute or even mention to whom they were being trafficked; although there's a lot of politicians and wealthy business men who've been seen / visited their island (where the sex trafficking was taking place). The point I'm making is that the negative connotation with this term comes directly because people in power want it that way; its a way to dismiss criticism and belittle those identifying failure. Identifying what's wrong with the world is good for us.Then sharing and discussing that belief builds a community and a shared identity. There's obviously a benefit to that.

hash07e 4y ago
Whoaaa, cool down with the anti-semitism.
etherael 4y ago
The truth values of the narrative in question doesn't actually change the point the article makes, though I suspect this is because they're accidentally right rather than they went out of their way to make allowances for the fact that many conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Believing that the greater social structure of your society is controlled by conspiring entities who tend to work in their mutual self interest and to support the status quo will almost necessarily be seen negatively by those who merely support the status quo, which is basically everybody. So yes, there are negative social cohesion consequences for being aware of that, just as there are negative social cohesion consequences of being aware the religious structure of theocracy is also the same kind of thing, or any other broadly accepted popular fiction, your government exists to serve you, your priest is a conduit to god, whatever. Most humans just don't care and aren't capable of parsing the truth value of the questions raised, they're just interested in their status within those structures rather than the nature of them. They'll trade n percent of the total time in their lives for n million kudos bucks without spending a ten thousandth thereof pondering the nature of how kudos bucks enter into circulation or exit therefrom, nor who has their hands on the scales, and in what manner. If you are not one of them though and you genuinely find the pursuit of truth and investigation into the actual state of reality behind the socially constructed fiction, then once again almost necessarily you're going to be the kind of person who finds meaning and a sense of purpose in that pursuit, if it's true, all the better because you will have fewer doubts about that sense of purpose and mission.

yamrzou 4y ago

Another psychological benefit not mentioned in the article, is that a conspiracy theory alleviates the anxiety of uncertainty and allows one to feel safe due to understanding one’s environment.

RappingBoomer 4y ago

I don't know why anyone would believe any of these crazy conspiracy theories... it's not as if the government, the media and the big corporations all work together or say the same things...not at all....

notacoward 4y ago

This is very consistent with my own theory about why people like conspiracy theories. A lot of people feel like they've been insufficiently recognized or rewarded for their intellect. They want to find some idea that allows them to be not only right but right before anyone else is. They want to be that theory's representative, to be associated with the theory in peers' minds when the theory itself is recognized as insightful. They want to feel (or at least seem) a little bit prescient. There's no reward for being right when everyone else is too. There's little penalty for being wrong a few times either, so they'll latch onto a bunch of wild theories in hopes that just one will get them the validation they seek. Note that their own belief is hardly necessary. Often it's actually quite weak. If an idea is fully discredited it's swiftly disavowed, and hopefully forgotten. It's easy to spot this behavior online, of course. Reddit is full of it, and this site isn't exactly immune either. Strident, even aggressive, evangelism about a "contrarian" theory is usually the big tell. Accusing others of being "sheep" is solid confirmation. People who are pursuing an unconventional theory for its own sake, out of pure intellectual curiosity, tend to be quieter about it. The loud ones are just playing Russian Roulette with their reputations and sometimes their friendships. It's the same impulse that has led more than a few Nobel prize winners to start issuing grand pronouncements in unrelated fields where they're still rank amateurs, just like sports or entertainers trying to get into the spotlight one more time and usually embarrassing themselves. Or Rudy Giuliani, but the less said about him the better. A few quirky ideas might make you an oddball, but a hundred, month after month and year after year, makes you a laughingstock and/or a pain in the ass. My father-in-law alienated most people around him by going this route. So did another of my own friends. I feel the temptation myself, and have to consciously reject that path. Some might say I've failed, and this theory itself is evidence of that failure. :shrug: In any case, there it is FWIW.

kennend3 4y ago
> Accusing others of being "sheep" is solid confirmation I absolutely LOVE when they do this. Think about it for just one second. Labeling someone a "sheep" because they were vaccinated, but someone who refuses to get vaccinated, like many others are not "sheep"? Perspective is everything? Your point is spot on, once labels like "sheep" are used there is no point trying to further the conversation. They have taken their conspiracy theory views to religious heights and no amount of evidence can remove a religious view. There is reason people use statements like "take it on faith".

recursivedoubts 4y ago

> Conspiracy theories can help people defend a fragile ego by exaggerating the importance of themselves and their groups; So can identifying with the mainstream story: I'm not a crazy conspiracy theorist, I'm a serious person. > Conspiracy theories can make people feel like legitimate actors by rationalizing their beliefs and behaviors; So can identifying with the mainstream story: I'm listening to the experts, everyone is doing it. > Believing in conspiracy theories entertains people by making them active participants in an exciting tale. Most conspiracies are non-participatory. The federal reserve was created by a conspiracy[1]. I have no control over that or any ability to change the situation. It's simply depressing. [1] - https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-conference https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/jekyll-island-c... "A secret gathering at a secluded island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 laid the foundations for the Federal Reserve System."

BuckRogers 4y ago
The difference between a conspiracy theory and something that is not a conspiracy theory is that objective reality consists of things we can corroborate and substantiate. Of course there are conspiracy theories that are true, but some guy sitting on the Internet is never going to learn about them. He’ll be dead before he does. Backroom deals are cut all the time but the peasants aren’t going to know about them. So why sit around and theorize and things you’ll never know? All it comes down to is attempting to comfort yourself in an unstable world, conspiracy theories are the result of a brain that failed to understand reality. It’s collapsing chaos and collapsing complexity into something that makes sense at least to you and your friends. As well, often an attempt of pretending one has secret knowledge that the real peasants don’t have access to. A cheap and easy way to becoming elite, but based on nothing. Only those digging into conspiracy websites know the truth hidden from the public. A lot, but not all, of the mainstream news is indeed substantiated and corroborated. That’s how we know the truth. It’s the best way that we know of at least. Conspiracy theories that rely on every single western and eastern media outlet to falsify Russian atrocities in Ukraine for example, it’s simply not possible. We can’t create causal links without evidence. I mean we can, but it’s meaningless until you substantiate it. So what’s the point? Just operate off of the evidence. It’s just a lot less fun. And that’s really what conspiracy theories derive from other than a brain that failed. Schizophrenia is a cause as well. Desire for easy elitism with “hidden knowledge”. Or merely someone seeking a cheap thrill.

treebeard901 4y ago

While the Roswell stuff is a dumb conspiracy, life has taught me that when money is available, and there is a goal of any kind among a group of people, that a conspiracy often follows.

BrainVirus 4y ago

The problem with the concept of "conspiracy theories" is that it's essentially a label entirely controlled by the media. There are beliefs that (by any reasonable definition) should fit the label, and yet they are never referenced that way. There are other beliefs that have far more factual support and they immediately get slapped with the label. It's an inherently manipulative concept and I think any research that doesn't explicitly address is bogus.

swayvil 4y ago

One tribe's fact is another tribe's conspiracy theory. It just depends on which authorities you favor. Otoh, there's always the empirical approach.

swayvil 4y ago

Be a good person, support the current thing.

dwringer 4y ago

This gets me thinking of a recent example I was going "down the rabbit hole" reading about, which is the supposed existence and subsequent coverup of a mid-90's movie starring Sinbad and a kid, possibly Jonathan Brandis. Long story short, the comedian Sinbad hosted a Sinbad the Sailor movie (or movies) on some cable channel, and for the skit he was dressed in clothes similar to those a stereotypical genie might wear. IIRC there was one segment where a kid came on board his ship, and very well could have been Jonathan Brandis trying to cross-promote a show he was also on. But "the internet" took this memory, combined with a vague similarity to the old Shazzan cartoon, and a vaguer similarity of that to the movie Kazaam, and decided there was a movie called "Shazam" starring Sinbad which explained everyone's vague memory of these sketches. I myself had this vague memory, so at first I found the idea of such a movie very plausible. Searching for evidence, however, turns up nothing, and then you find two prevailing schools of thought: One, that there was a movie, but it was so bad it tanked Sinbad's career, and because of that and/or Jonathan Brandis's death was completely removed from circulation and scrubbed from internet references. Or two, that the movie was real and pretty good, but only existed in a parallel universe, and some of us mysteriously got our consciousness transplanted from bodies in that universe to identical ones in this universe which has merely a few banal differences like that. The second is not too unlike a lot of internet philosophy discussions, but the first is a good example of a conspiracy theory. The idea of a movie being so bad it's scrapped and all copies destroyed isn't too far fetched, so it takes a little bit of research to uncover a complete lack of any corroborating evidence, and the denial of those involved, to see that the theory falls apart. When facing doubts about your own memory and experience, it can be tempting to accept an explanation that a prominent group in the community is giving you rather than doing your own research and forming your own opinions. I would not be surprised if it were a naturally evolved mechanism.

Apocryphon 4y ago
If you really wanted to give that conspiracy theory some legs, you could tie it to Sinbad (during the 2008 Democratic primaries) debunking Senator Clinton's claims about the alleged action they saw during a fateful 1996 USO tour to Bosnia- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/23/recalling-hillary-clintons-claim-of-landing-under-sniper-fire-in-bosnia/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-did-it-take-sinbad-to_b_93972 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-did-it-take-sinbad-to_b_9... Though you could probably chalk it up to more of a cosmic Mandela Effect sort of thing.

arminiusreturns 4y ago

"This reasoning, however, only emphasizes how conspiracy theories helped ancestors survive in a Pleistocene environment, and does not hold implications for possible psychological benefits in present-day society [20]. If anything, the evolutionary perspective implies macro-level societal benefits, by explaining why people possess mental systems that make them sensitive to signals suggesting possible collusion. Consistent with this perspective, citizens display stronger conspiracy beliefs in high-corruption than low-corruption countries [21,22]."

olivermarks 4y ago

'Conspiracy Theory' is a junk media term that shouldn't be taken seriously. It is widely used to gaslight, discredit and confuse.

thinkingemote 4y ago

Suspicion. "I have figured out this group. We can discount all other narratives. They are evil." Comfort. "There is an (evil) organisation in charge of things, don't worry, we know what's going on. there's no chaos or ineptitude."

motohagiography 4y ago

Should one interpret from this article that a healthier mind believes, a) it is unimportant and it is not a part of a group that is important, b) doubts its legitimacy, and c) should be a passive particpant in the narratives around it? You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to see that some ideas are specifically designed to be pacifying and neutralizing, and concern about conspiracy theories seems to be one of them. Delegitimizing opposition is a standard propaganda tool. If were to accuse you as a reader of being a propagandized zombie incapable of reason, divorced from reality, operating as an ideological automaton in a bubble of insidiously manufactured stimuli - I would suspect your response would be dismissive. Yet this is exactly what we accuse people of when we say they believe in conspiracy theories. All ideologies are conspiracy theories, and the only thing that makes one more meaningful than another is their falsifiability and predictive power about reality - and not its post-hoc explanatory power. As a thinking person with intellectual and moral agency, you are capable of ascertaining whether one or more of your beliefs is the artifact of this one fallacy: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_... , and I'd argue that calling people conspiracy theorists is the most reliable indicator that someone has been fully atomized. I can't defend all assertions of conspiracy, but to me the urge to articulate them at all is an indicator a person is not actuated by the much greater social danger of banal nihilism.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notacoward 4y ago
> Should one interpret from this article that a healthier mind believes... No. That's a huge stretch, if not an outright strawman. There's equal textual support for the more charitable interpretation that many people aren't getting enough of these positive feelings in less Manichaean or conflict-inducing ways. Even as they accept the importance and legitimacy of climate change (for example) they don't get excited by participating in activism on that issue. Conspiracy theories are a way to jump-start those feelings, and often the discomfiture of others is part of the appeal. It enhances the rush. A healthier mind seeks out meaningful engagement without turning it into combat. > All ideologies are conspiracy theories > ... > the only thing that makes one more meaningful than another is their falsifiability and predictive power Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that, according to people who actually study these things, non-falsifiability is one of the defining characteristics of a conspiracy theory. So no, not all beliefs are conspiracy theories. "If you disagree you must be part of the conspiracy" is a well known trope, even among comedians. Which brings us to... > I'd argue that calling people conspiracy theorists is the most reliable indicator that someone has been fully atomized.