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."
> 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).
For best effect, read the entire trilogy without sleeping, using whatever chemicals necessary to make that happen. And then start to see fnord the signs of conspiracy from the book everywhere in real life.
RAW made conspiracy into art.
I loved it but I also know (and have known) some folks pretty deep into provably untrue conspiracy thinking. Honestly, it seemed to be a way to self-medicate with conspiracies for them. I don't think that my Illuminatus experience compares with what they're thinking in any but the most trivial way.
Haven't read Illuminatus trilogy, but the first chapters of Prometheus Rising had an interesting framework for how you can view the world. Definitely recommend!
> 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.
For whatever reason, identifying with the mainstream story isn't working for them. They feel left out and powerless.
Identifying with the conspiracy theory gives them a shortcut to power by inclusion with other conspiracy theorists. They can quickly become a large fish in a small pond. And even as the smallest fish in that pond they are already ahead of everybody who accepts the mainstream theory.
It's also useless. Conspiracy theories give one secret power that can't actually be applied. The best one could hope for is that one day everybody else will be forced to accept your conspiracy theory, which will somehow confer prestige on you. But they can live in hope of that sudden burst of importance, while simultaneously having a built-in excuse for having no importance now.
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.
The term 'conspiracy theory' is one of those words that has strong, inherent connotations. It's impossible to productively discuss conspiracy theories and theorists (IMO) because of those connotations. As with so many things, rational, objective discussion is critically dependent on appropriate words and wording. Nobody would deny that elite groups have agendas and get up to shady stuff, as we have concrete evidence of this happening all the time, and even both extremes of US political parties can be called "conspiracy theorists": extreme liberals think every white person is actively and consciously out to conspire against minorities, and extreme conservatives think covid vaccines are a way for the government to install nanochips or whatever. But nobody will respond constructively to being called a conspiracy theorist, they'll just get defensive and the discussion dies as soon as it starts.
> "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).
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
> 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".
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_... , 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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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-
"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]."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jamal-kumar|3 years ago
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|3 years ago
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).
drewcoo|3 years ago
RAW made conspiracy into art.
I loved it but I also know (and have known) some folks pretty deep into provably untrue conspiracy thinking. Honestly, it seemed to be a way to self-medicate with conspiracies for them. I don't think that my Illuminatus experience compares with what they're thinking in any but the most trivial way.
tompston|3 years ago
Haven't read Illuminatus trilogy, but the first chapters of Prometheus Rising had an interesting framework for how you can view the world. Definitely recommend!
recursivedoubts|3 years ago
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-c... "A secret gathering at a secluded island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 laid the foundations for the Federal Reserve System."
jfengel|3 years ago
Identifying with the conspiracy theory gives them a shortcut to power by inclusion with other conspiracy theorists. They can quickly become a large fish in a small pond. And even as the smallest fish in that pond they are already ahead of everybody who accepts the mainstream theory.
It's also useless. Conspiracy theories give one secret power that can't actually be applied. The best one could hope for is that one day everybody else will be forced to accept your conspiracy theory, which will somehow confer prestige on you. But they can live in hope of that sudden burst of importance, while simultaneously having a built-in excuse for having no importance now.
BuckRogers|3 years ago
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.
silicon2401|3 years ago
photochemsyn|3 years ago
> "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).
nineplay|3 years ago
> 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.
searine|3 years ago
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.
anonporridge|3 years ago
In the US, the conspiracy memes are literally on our money, 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.... The actual kinetic power is necessarily supported by its memetic power.
swader999|3 years ago
swayvil|3 years ago
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.
Dudeman112|3 years ago
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
rvieira|3 years ago
jmt_|3 years ago
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
anonym29|3 years ago
lettergram|3 years ago
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/104-1...
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.
etherael|3 years ago
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.
hash07e|3 years ago
boredumb|3 years ago
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.
BrainVirus|3 years ago
RappingBoomer|3 years ago
notacoward|3 years ago
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|3 years ago
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".
motohagiography|3 years ago
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_... , 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.
notacoward|3 years ago
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.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
olivermarks|3 years ago
nitini|3 years ago
lampshades|3 years ago
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|3 years ago
kennend3|3 years ago
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.
thinkingemote|3 years ago
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."
dwringer|3 years ago
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|3 years ago
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/...
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|3 years ago
notjes|3 years ago
marshray|3 years ago
As AI becomes even more omnipresent, mysterious, and godlike, we may find that an organized defense of our sanity becomes essential.
yamrzou|3 years ago
treebeard901|3 years ago
swayvil|3 years ago
Otoh, there's always the empirical approach.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
andsoitis|3 years ago
swayvil|3 years ago
yesdocs|3 years ago
vlunkr|3 years ago