Conspiracy beliefs, underlying causes.

[Tomef]

Big topic I know, but I’m interested in thoughts on why some people are disposed towards believing ideas that lack any credible explanation.

A few factors that seem to be common are:

1) An inability or unwillingness to recognise complexity: Conspiracy believers often claim something they believe is ‘the truth’, but are unable to participate in any meaningful discussion of the details of whatever the issue is.

2) Limited information: The more sophisticated conspiracy-ists use famous quotes, vague allusions to the ideas of someone famous and so on to support their assertions. When pressed, it becomes clear these quotes and allusions are based on a skim reading of whatever the original words or ideas are in order to find something they can re-interpret and press-gang into supporting their belief. Another variation on this is studying one aspect of a given situation but ignoring all other aspects, which might otherwise lead to a more balanced or reasonable understanding.

3) Over-riding conviction that the belief is true regardless of any evidence to the contrary, or that even if the details are accepted to be incorrect the general idea is still ‘true’ in some sense.

4) An inability to process information, for example where 2 public figures are subject to accusations, the preferred public figure is believed to be the victim of nefarious plots regardless of the situation, while the disliked person is believed to be guilty of anything and everything from the word go.

5) Conflation: cases of governments lying, harming citizens in some way, cooking up bizarre plots etc are conflated into a general notion that there is some sort of overarching ‘plan’ that is behind all the problems the conspiracy-ist is experiencing or sees in the world. This allows the believer to bypass any real attempt at understanding complex realities, since available information is seen as being manipulated or otherwise unreliable.

 

[Quintessence]

There's an entire field of academia dedicated to these questions. Visit your university library, tap into the collections expert for the social sciences and they can help you dig in. I suppose you could also pour over the profiles for various professors at universities all over and express your interest in learning more about their research, too. Here's a few who do related research and articles to start off with:

Buying into conspiracy theories can be exciting – that’s what makes them dangerous

Overcoming conspiracy theories isn’t just about information. A scholar of religion explains that the emotions they inspire are part of their appeal.

theconversation.com

Conspiracy theorists seem to favour an intuitive thinking style – here’s why that’s important

The pros and pitfalls of this type of thinking

theconversation.com

How people get sucked into misinformation rabbit holes – and how to get them out

People who dive into misinformation are driven to satisfy an emotional need, according to our new research.

theconversation.com

 

[Twilight Hue]

Sometimes conspiracy theories come true.

11 Unbelievable Conspiracy Theories That Were Actually True

There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there that help fuel the imaginations of the truly paranoid; NASA faked the moon landing, Paul McCartney has been dead since 1967, 9/11 was an inside job, and hybrid lizard humanoids are the real rulers of planet Earth. While it might be difficult to...

history.howstuffworks.com

 

[Left Coast]

Big topic I know, but I’m interested in thoughts on why some people are disposed towards believing ideas that lack any credible explanation.

A few factors that seem to be common are:

1) An inability or unwillingness to recognise complexity: Conspiracy believers often claim something they believe is ‘the truth’, but are unable to participate in any meaningful discussion of the details of whatever the issue is.

2) Limited information: The more sophisticated conspiracy-ists use famous quotes, vague allusions to the ideas of someone famous and so on to support their assertions. When pressed, it becomes clear these quotes and allusions are based on a skim reading of whatever the original words or ideas are in order to find something they can re-interpret and press-gang into supporting their belief. Another variation on this is studying one aspect of a given situation but ignoring all other aspects, which might otherwise lead to a more balanced or reasonable understanding.

3) Over-riding conviction that the belief is true regardless of any evidence to the contrary, or that even if the details are accepted to be incorrect the general idea is still ‘true’ in some sense.

4) An inability to process information, for example where 2 public figures are subject to accusations, the preferred public figure is believed to be the victim of nefarious plots regardless of the situation, while the disliked person is believed to be guilty of anything and everything from the word go.

5) Conflation: cases of governments lying, harming citizens in some way, cooking up bizarre plots etc are conflated into a general notion that there is some sort of overarching ‘plan’ that is behind all the problems the conspiracy-ist is experiencing or sees in the world. This allows the believer to bypass any real attempt at understanding complex realities, since available information is seen as being manipulated or otherwise unreliable.

One issue I see is that people infer conspiracy to situations when incompetence is more often the explanation.

"MY DOCTOR DIDN'T SEND MY PRESCRIPTION IN ON TIME!! HE HATES ME AND JUST WANTS ME TO SUFFER!"

When in reality, he didn't refill the prescription because he didn't see the request in his inbox, or was off that day and there was no one scheduled to cover him.

A small anecdotal example, but illustrative of the trend nonetheless. The longer I work in operations roles, the more I see people getting harmed not by personal malice or grand conspiracy, but failures to build adequate processes or systems and simple human error.

 

[Tomef]

Sometimes conspiracy theories come true.

11 Unbelievable Conspiracy Theories That Were Actually True

There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there that help fuel the imaginations of the truly paranoid; NASA faked the moon landing, Paul McCartney has been dead since 1967, 9/11 was an inside job, and hybrid lizard humanoids are the real rulers of planet Earth. While it might be difficult to...

history.howstuffworks.com

Occasionally, some elements of these beliefs/theories turn out to be real, but if you look at the list those are a handful of specific instances over a period of more than 100 years. That fits under category 5, in the OP. The types of beliefs that are quite common are much broader than did/didn’t this or that thing happen, they tend to be amorphous collections of ideas involving broad notions about the world, history, science etc. rather than some specific issue. What I mean by ‘conflate’ in part is that people sometimes point to something decades ago that some people denied but that actually happened (which isn’t so unusual, making the tiny number of actual ‘conspiracy’ type uncovers even less convincing as an argument) and claim this somehow justifies their whole belief system.

 

[Tomef]

One issue I see is that people infer conspiracy to situations when incompetence is more often the explanation.

"MY DOCTOR DIDN'T SEND MY PRESCRIPTION IN ON TIME!! HE HATES ME AND JUST WANTS ME TO SUFFER!"

When in reality, he didn't refill the prescription because he didn't see the request in his inbox, or was off that day and there was no one scheduled to cover him.

A small anecdotal example, but illustrative of the trend nonetheless. The longer I work in operations roles, the more I see people getting harmed not by personal malice or grand conspiracy, but failures to build adequate processes or systems and simple human error.

I know what you mean, people who get the notion that there is some small group running everything, that they have the future all planned out to the last detail, just don’t understand how any kind of organised activity works.

 

[Stevicus]

Big topic I know, but I’m interested in thoughts on why some people are disposed towards believing ideas that lack any credible explanation.

A few factors that seem to be common are:

1) An inability or unwillingness to recognise complexity: Conspiracy believers often claim something they believe is ‘the truth’, but are unable to participate in any meaningful discussion of the details of whatever the issue is.

2) Limited information: The more sophisticated conspiracy-ists use famous quotes, vague allusions to the ideas of someone famous and so on to support their assertions. When pressed, it becomes clear these quotes and allusions are based on a skim reading of whatever the original words or ideas are in order to find something they can re-interpret and press-gang into supporting their belief. Another variation on this is studying one aspect of a given situation but ignoring all other aspects, which might otherwise lead to a more balanced or reasonable understanding.

3) Over-riding conviction that the belief is true regardless of any evidence to the contrary, or that even if the details are accepted to be incorrect the general idea is still ‘true’ in some sense.

4) An inability to process information, for example where 2 public figures are subject to accusations, the preferred public figure is believed to be the victim of nefarious plots regardless of the situation, while the disliked person is believed to be guilty of anything and everything from the word go.

5) Conflation: cases of governments lying, harming citizens in some way, cooking up bizarre plots etc are conflated into a general notion that there is some sort of overarching ‘plan’ that is behind all the problems the conspiracy-ist is experiencing or sees in the world. This allows the believer to bypass any real attempt at understanding complex realities, since available information is seen as being manipulated or otherwise unreliable.

Most conspiracy theories tend to be rooted in certain assumptions, such as:

1. Power corrupts.
2. Businesses are in business to make money.
3. The wealthy in any given society tend to have more political influence than the poor.

Most governments throughout history rarely made any bones about what they did. If they wanted to invade a country, steal, kill peasants - they just did it, without any reason to invent any pretext or excuse to appease the masses. Think of the Romans, killing their leaders on the Senate floor and having open executions of political enemies. Politics is power. Politics is ruthless. This is how politics have operated for millennia of human history. When you're powerful enough that no one can challenge you, you don't need to conspire in secret, since you don't care what anyone else thinks. You might even want the people to think that you're ruthless and something to be feared.

It's only been within the past century or so (or even less than that) that governments and other public institutions have tried to pass themselves off as something honorable, decent, law-abiding, and fully reflective of the will of the people and the principles of democracy, freedom, and human rights.

So, the central idea is that government can't operate as openly as it once did. We can't go off and conquer for the "glory of Rome," so to speak, yet power still tends to corrupt and politics can still tend to be ruthless - although we just don't want anyone to believe that anymore. Therefore, a great deal of effort goes into political theater and propaganda - to make people believe that everything we do is for some sort of honorable or noble purpose. Our government wants people to believe that everything is legal and the result of the democratic process - all on the up and up.

This requires that people believe that human nature has changed immensely in the last century and has done a completely 180° turn from what it has been for the past 4000 years of human history. It also requires a strong belief in American exceptionalism, since Americans would never do anything that other human governments have done, such as assassinate political enemies or lie to their people. We just don't do that, because we're Americans. Anyone who would think that Americans would do such horrible things must be some kind of paranoid kook. Right?

 

[Left Coast]

I know what you mean, people who get the notion that there is some small group running everything, that they have the future all planned out to the last detail, just don’t understand how any kind of organised activity works.

I also see this from people who constantly blame their situations on "the oligarchy," "the elites," etc. Individual biases and political preferences will color the descriptions differently, but they're fruit from the same tree.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just want to say that affinity to conspiracy theories seems to be fueled to a considerable extent by the coexistence of magical thinking and a desire to flee from feelings of powerlessness and irrelevance.

Many people simply have a very bad need to feel that there are not many significant changes in their lives that are entirely beyond their ability to, if not influence, at least denounce.

 

[Tomef]

Americans would never do anything that other human governments have done, such as assassinate political enemies or lie to their people. We just don't do that, because we're Americans. Anyone who would think that Americans would do such horrible things must be some kind of paranoid kook. Right?

Is that kind of idea still quite widespread in the US? I mean it’s pretty common knowledge that the US (and other western powers) have done some pretty atrocious things, including in recent times. Does that set up some dissonance that people feel a need to overcompensate for, to maintain the belief in American rightness? I suppose that might explain why some people saw the 2nd Iraq war as some sort of holy crusade. Underlying that maybe there’s a sense that the killing and political interference may be justified, as in attempts to prevent the spread of communism, but maybe when the outcome is so disastrous, as in Iraq, the need to create an alternate fantasy world kicks in, to avoid having to deal with the reality of it.

 

[Tomef]

a desire to flee from feelings of powerlessness and irrelevance

I think there are a lot of things that feed into that, right? I was reading recently about Tartaria , a kind of revisionist history cum conspiracy theory. The theory posits a lost empire of grand architecture and imperial glory (etc), and is quite popular in Russia. One explanation of its popularity is that people are so worn down by being surrounded by and living in ugly, functional concrete slabs of buildings, and feel so diminished by the loss of Russian ‘greatness’ that on some level they just can’t take it and need to escape into a fantasy of uplifting environments that provide a sense of power and glory. Fiction just doesn’t cut it, there’s a need to believe this alternate history as true.

It shows the power of nationalist narratives I suppose. In the 90s some post-soviet states quite rapidly ‘westernised’ their economies and political systems, and most of them have done quite well. In Russia, it seems, the majority, especially outside of the major urban centres still live in relative squalor and poverty, and so perhaps yearn for that sense of being part of an empire or superpower to make their lives seem less ****ty. That seems to be part of what Putin and Kirill tap into, with their rhetoric about Russia’s great destiny and so on.

 

[LuisDantas]

Even that sounds halfway-perhaps-sane when contrasted to a recent invention, Ratanabá.

It comes complete with "confirming" websites, names of ancient civilizations that somehow come fully formed and with no evidence whatsoever of existence, and of course online webstores of themed gifts.

Brazilians, we are a crazy people with a bad craving for protagonism.

Ratanabá – Wikipédia, a enciclopédia livre

pt-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog

Ratanabá: o delírio de uma extrema direita desesperada

Nova fake news bolsonarista compartilhada por ministros quer desviar o foco de uma Amazônia entregue ao crime.

www.intercept.com.br

A cidade perdida de Ratanabá

No Início de junho, a teoria da conspiração sobre a “descoberta” de uma antiga civilização perdida há 450 milhões de anos se tornou um dos…

medium.com

 

[Estro Felino]

It's true that our society is founded upon mutual trust.
And mutual trust, not distrust makes a society functioning.

So...seeing conspiracies everywhere is both unrealistic and unhealthy.

At the same time, believing that all public servants are immaculate saints, flawless and impeccable workers, is believing in fairy tales.
Power and money corrupt people because human nature is flawed.

We need some balance. Some people have the opposite problem: they believe governments are all made up of saints who would never stab the people in the back. Out of money-hunger and greed.

For example...just see how several heads of state renounced their salary: that's the evidence that they don't want to become heads of state out of greed.

 

[Stevicus]

Is that kind of idea still quite widespread in the US? I mean it’s pretty common knowledge that the US (and other western powers) have done some pretty atrocious things, including in recent times. Does that set up some dissonance that people feel a need to overcompensate for, to maintain the belief in American rightness? I suppose that might explain why some people saw the 2nd Iraq war as some sort of holy crusade. Underlying that maybe there’s a sense that the killing and political interference may be justified, as in attempts to prevent the spread of communism, but maybe when the outcome is so disastrous, as in Iraq, the need to create an alternate fantasy world kicks in, to avoid having to deal with the reality of it.

It's not as pronounced or prevalent as it once was, although I think it still has a certain underlying legacy and staying power in terms of how people commonly view their government and America's role in the world. America's role as some kind of "savior" and defender of the free world is part and parcel of every underlying pretext for every military action undertaken by the U.S. I've observed that it's vitally important to actively maintain and foster such a view among the body politic, in order to gain their positive support and accession to many of our government's activities around the world.

I've also observed very sharp, somewhat hostile, and almost obsessive reactions when anyone questions or says anything that could undermine faith in the government's intentions or sense of honor in its activities around the world. That's usually what gets my attention, more so than the conspiracy theories themselves. I noticed this more and more around the time Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" came out. A lot of people believed there was a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, and it had been discussed among the public in the decades following that event.

Even the Church Committee in the 1970s did an investigation and was inconclusive, although admitted that a conspiracy was possible and perhaps even probable. But we'll never really know. It remains a mystery, although it was never more than just a detective story that some people have tried to resolve. It never really had to turn into a controversy, but it seems there were those who wanted to do exactly that.

Up until that point, conspiracy theorists were just a quaint but quirky little group of people with no ill intentions, other than wanting their government to take the high road, be more transparent, and to be more honorable in conducting its affairs, both domestically and overseas. They still believed in life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, along with the Bill of Rights and other principles of freedom and democracy.

There's also no indication that there was anything personal about it either. It wasn't because they themselves felt persecuted by government or that they were personally harmed in any way. They just don't like it when their government, presuming to act in their name, engages in heinous and atrocious acts which reflect badly upon the integrity and honor of those whom we trust to hold stewardship over the mechanisms of state power. I would suggest that to be the primary motivator, just as people openly protest against the misuse of state power - even when they are not personally affected by it. It's simply a matter of a good-faith desire for justice, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Alien826]

What constantly amazes me about believers in conspiracy theories in general, is how little logical thought is necessary to debunk many of the theories. Take the idea that the moon landings never happened and were all created in Hollywood studios. You don't need any actual investigation, just consider how many people would have to be involved in creating this deception, and how unlikely it would be that none of these people had ever admitted it.

So why did people still believe it? I can only conclude that they wanted/needed to believe it very very much.

 

[Stevicus]

What constantly amazes me about believers in conspiracy theories in general, is how little logical thought is necessary to debunk many of the theories. Take the idea that the moon landings never happened and were all created in Hollywood studios. You don't need any actual investigation, just consider how many people would have to be involved in creating this deception, and how unlikely it would be that none of these people had ever admitted it.

So why did people still believe it? I can only conclude that they wanted/needed to believe it very very much.

The first time I heard that one was in the late 70s/early 80s, although I don't think there were that many people who really, truly believed it. Maybe some did, but a lot of people didn't seem to really care that much one way or the other. It overlapped with other widespread beliefs about UFOs and possible government cover-ups of alien contacts. (Interest in Area 51 also ticked up around this time.)

Whenever it came to any "outer space" type theories, they grew to be rather diffuse and started to jump all over the map. I remember someone saying that the Moon landings really did happen, but suggested that the astronauts found something up there which got them spooked, so they never wanted to go back to the Moon again. He claimed that NASA was hiding tons of photographic evidence from the dark side of the Moon and wondered what could be in those photographs. That's a different kind of accusation against the government, as it still acknowledges that the Moon landings did happen, but that the government was still withholding vital information from the public.

For me, it's never been something that I felt I had any personal stake in, nor is it something that I believed so deeply that I cared all that much about it either way. One way this kind of talk might gain traction is that, all too often, the government's "official" explanation of events can sometimes appear insufficient and flawed, which is what gets people's initial attention. If the government is putting forth some BS story and not relating all the pertinent facts, then people notice that and start asking questions.

It's like listening to someone tell a BS story. You might get a sense of dishonesty, even if you can't directly prove that they're lying. But by the same token, they often can't always prove that they're telling the truth.

 

[Quintessence]

What constantly amazes me about believers in conspiracy theories in general, is how little logical thought is necessary to debunk many of the theories. Take the idea that the moon landings never happened and were all created in Hollywood studios. You don't need any actual investigation, just consider how many people would have to be involved in creating this deception, and how unlikely it would be that none of these people had ever admitted it.

So why did people still believe it? I can only conclude that they wanted/needed to believe it very very much.

If you take a gander at a couple of the articles written by scholars that I plopped up upstream in the thread, you'll get some idea.

It's not about logic (the human condition is almost never about logic so this is really no surprise), it's about emotions and humans are fundamentally emotional animals. Belief in conspiracy theories fulfills an emotional need, as you say. A need to belong to something, a need to be special or important:

[William James] was deeply interested in an issue that is urgent today: how information feels, and why thinking about the world in a particular way might be exciting or exhilarating – so much so that it becomes difficult to see the world in any other way.​

​

James called this the “sentiment of rationality”: the feelings that go along with thinking. People often talk about thinking and feeling as though they’re separate, but James realized that they’re inextricably related.​

​

....​

​

So how does conspiracy theory feel? First of all, it lets you feel like you’re smarter than everyone.​

​

...​

​

One of the most exciting parts of a conspiracy theory is that it makes everything make sense. We all know the pleasure of solving a puzzle: the “click” of satisfaction when you complete a Wordle, crossword or sudoku. But of course, the whole point of games is that they simplify things. Detective shows are the same: All the clues are right there on the screen.​

From - Buying into conspiracy theories can be exciting – that’s what makes them dangerous​

 

[Tomef]

believing that all public servants are immaculate saints, flawless and impeccable workers, i

Who would believe that about anyone? Thinking of anyone, in religion, politics or the bakery down the road as ‘flawless’ can be part of the pattern of thinking that leads to fantasy beliefs about the world. People wanting to put their trust in someone, a public figure, someone they really know nothing about beyond the image that person projects is one of the unrealistic expectations that can get people wrapped up in notions about this or that person being ‘good’ or ‘evil’ based on some set of random emotions. Imagining that anyone is flawless and impeccable is already in the world of make believe.

This is the danger with the fantasy of ‘strong’ leaders, individuals who work to consolidate all state power under their personal control, and who project a fantasy notion of who they are to their followers, people who for some reason are easily influenced in that way. Public gestures like renouncing their salary are all part of the show, not a reason to trust someone. Trump, for example, made a big show of giving away his $400.000 salary while in office, but made more than $2bn from businesses he refused to divest during the same period. It’s all smoke and mirrors, fancy gestures to fool the gullible. Sooner or later, ‘strong’ leaders lead their nations into unnecessary conflicts, as their egos begin to overflow the national borders, or sink into cycles of repression and control to satisfy some internal urge. That’s one of the reasons why western democracies fought so hard for so long to ensure checks against one person aggregating too much power to themselves.

 

[Estro Felino]

Who would believe that about anyone? Thinking of anyone, in religion, politics or the bakery down the road as ‘flawless’ can be part of the pattern of thinking that leads to fantasy beliefs about the world. People wanting to put their trust in someone, a public figure, someone they really know nothing about beyond the image that person projects is one of the unrealistic expectations that can get people wrapped up in notions about this or that person being ‘good’ or ‘evil’ based on some set of random emotions. Imagining that anyone is flawless and impeccable is already in the world of make believe.

I can promise such people exist.
I have read comments of people saying that it's impossible that the CIA is covering up the truth about JF Kennedy's death because the CIA is made up of people with integrity, who would never do something behind people's back.

This is the danger with the fantasy of ‘strong’ leaders, individuals who work to consolidate all state power under their personal control, and who project a fantasy notion of who they are to their followers, people who for some reason are easily influenced in that way. Public gestures like renouncing their salary are all part of the show, not a reason to trust someone. Trump, for example, made a big show of giving away his $400.000 salary while in office, but made more than $2bn from businesses he refused to divest during the same period. It’s all smoke and mirrors, fancy gestures to fool the gullible. Sooner or later, ‘strong’ leaders lead their nations into unnecessary conflicts, as their egos begin to overflow the national borders, or sink into cycles of repression and control to satisfy some internal urge. That’s one of the reasons why western democracies fought so hard for so long to ensure checks against one person aggregating too much power to themselves.

Okay...but the topic here is about psychology.
Many people have the Pollyanna syndrome (search for it, it's interesting), that is they have an excessively rosy and optimistic vision of life.

 

[Tomef]

Just came across this accidentally, sums up one of the main issues pretty well I think:

Philosophy & Literature on Instagram: "Stephen Fry on Today’s Method of Thinking . . . . . . . . #stephenfry #thinking #philosophy #actor"

13K likes, 221 comments - philosophyofexistence on June 17, 2024: "Stephen Fry on Today’s Method of Thinking . . . . . . . . #stephenfry #thinking #philosophy #actor".

www.instagram.com