[cryoshon]

>I've often thought the crappy conspiracy theories with coarse and cartoonish explanations get actively promoted to discourage, discredit and isolate people who reason about real incentives and realpolitik.

yes, this has been my experience. as you said, it's an effective tactic to defuse genuine threats to the narrative as being "unreasonable" or "not serious".

i have a hunch that learning to refrain from criticism of insiders is actually the biggest "lesson" taught at the universities and organizations that are traditional centers of elite power. it's part of the pedigree.

[motohagiography]

It's a version of "the Fox and the Hedgehog," parable everyone reads, where foxes know many smaller things and hedgehogs know one big one.

It's not explicit, but the "one big thing" the hedgehogs know effectively reduces to a triad of, "there is no truth only power," "trust and defend the system because you are it now, and it takes care of the people who support it" and, "protect insiders or be an ousider."

The strategies for foxes and hedgehogs are different. If you are a fox and know this about hedgehogs, you can lever them against variations of these axioms. If you are a hedgehog, you can usually succeed by betting foxes don't get traction no matter how spectacular their knowledge and displays.

The idea is if you practice these things, you're going to be lucky and stuff is going to work out. If you don't, you're the sucker at the table and you'll be preoccupied by conspiracy theories.

If you know this, some Bayeseanism, and some simple actuarial models, with practice you can play at a pretty high level. There are other great books on this like Pfeffer's "Power" (https://www.amazon.com/Power-Some-People-Have-Others/dp/0061...) that describe the game once you have those rules.

May the odds be ever in your favor!