An expert guide to Conspiracy Theories
January 24, 2021 2:00 AM   Subscribe

What's the difference between a theory about a conspiracy and a Conspiracy Theory? How to spot a conspiracy theory when you see one begins The Conversation's Expert Guide to Conspiracy Theories, which includes a 6-episode podcast if you prefer audio.

The final article in the series suggests that the recent Finnish approach of teaching critical thinking, media literacy and shared values together (equipping people to debunk things themselves) is more effective than providing correct facts for the problem of the week. At SXSW Edu 2018, danah boyd asked You Think You Want Media Literacy… Do You? (or try her transcript of the talk if video is not for you) and suggests including cognitive bias training as well as working on improving trust between groups with different epistomologies. Meanwhile, Quassim Cassam suggests that it might be useful to think of conspiracy theories as a type of propaganda (PDF) and tackle the problem that way.
posted by harriet vane (23 comments total) 40 users marked this as a favorite
 
One of my family's stories is the time my mum uncovered a conspiracy. As it turns out, I tell it better than my mum does, even though she was in it:

The principal of my brother's school, in a city called Goulburn, home of the Big Merino, was retiring due to ill health, and the vice principal, let's call him Mr Kennedy, was interested in stepping up. He was an excellent administrator, really cared about making sure that kids were not only learning, but that they were happy and safe. It wasn't just a straight promotion, though - there was an interview process, with the rather inelegant name of 'merit selection'. It was a four-person panel: one person from the Department of Education, one from the teacher's union, one from the Parents & Citizens Association (Americans might call this the PTA), which was my mum, and one person from "the community".

Mr Kennedy was a known quantity and a promising candidate, but there was another front-runner, who had been serving as principal in a remote school and was looking to move back to a more central part of the state. They deliberated a little bit, but some of his answers weren't quite as good and his application just wasn't as good, and besides, Mr Kennedy already knew the kids. Mr Kennedy was highest-ranked by three members of the panel, but the government rep ranked this other guy higher.

And then "Round 2" of merit selection was announced. They didn't say anything about a second round to mum, but it was all new panellists and all new questions. The new 'community member' was Mr Henderson, who happened to be the husband of one of mum's friends. He was a truck driver so his availability was a little tricky, but they made it work, and the result... was this other front-runner. Well, mum wasn't going to take this lying down, she was one of the previous panellists so she wanted to see what had happened in the second round, but it was "confidential" and a "majority decision". When she asked Mr Henderson, though, he said that he'd voted for Mr Kennedy, and the P&C were all in for Mr Kennedy, so how could it be a majority decision?

They ended up kicking up enough of a stink that the education department organised a community meeting to reassure people that, while they didn't get the result they expected, they were getting a great new principal by majority vote, and of course it's a shame that Mr Henderson couldn't make it tonight because he was out of state, but he was very complimentary to the incoming principal.

This was Mr Henderson's cue to rise from his seat - he'd been told about the meeting and pulled a double shift to get back in time, and the meeting ended in chaos.

They kept pushing the education department, and the teacher's union, to explain themselves, and then eventually a senior government bureaucrat brought them into a meeting room and explained.
Working in remote schools sucks, and no-one wants to do it, so the education department and the teacher's union cut a deal: if teachers went out to remote schools and did their time, they'd rig the merit selection process so they'd get a decent position in a bigger school. Not the best schools, but reasonably-sized regional school, the ones that aren't that competitive, and they still needed to convince the community they were an acceptable candidate. The candidate who got the benefit would use a particular codeword in their application so the government rep and the union rep would know who to vote for.

Mr Kennedy has coincidentally used the same codeword in his application, and the union rep had voted for the wrong candidate. So when they threw out the old panel, sorry, convened "round 2", they changed the codeword.

The system worked, the bureaucrat said. It solved a problem, and they were going to go right back to their school and suck it up. The appointment had been made, he was starting in a week, Mr Kennedy would get a principal job somewhere , and there was nothing the parents could do about it.

What they didn't count on was that my mum runs on spite. So she starts calling up every chapter of the P&C in the state and telling them what happened, and they stopped agreeing to participate in merit selection until the system was changed.

These days, my mum runs a post office, where her powers of spite have executives and politicians looking over their shoulders. One of the local teachers was talking about going for a promotion, but it was a merit selection one, and started telling her about how they used to do it for every position but now it's about half and half, and the other half are just appointed by the government. "There was some funny business with it back in Goulburn," she said, "and one of the ladies on the P&C kicked up a huge stink, so they changed it."
posted by Merus at 2:52 AM on January 24, 2021 [82 favorites]


How to spot a conspiracy theory when you see one.

Ha! Like I’m going to believe anything on a publicly hosted website. I know this goes all the way to the top.
posted by leotrotsky at 6:24 AM on January 24, 2021 [8 favorites]


These days, my mum runs a post office, where her powers of spite have executives and politicians looking over their shoulders.

Glorious.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 7:11 AM on January 24, 2021 [4 favorites]


An expert guide to Conspiracy Theories

well, first off, almost all of them aren't actually theories. They're hypotheses. They're at best plausible postulations (educated guesses?) which have not yet been backed up by peer reviewed research etc.

Because that's what a theory is, isn't it? It starts as a hypothesis and doesn't earn theory status until it has substantiated data to back it up, has endured repeated testing and achieved the consensus of a wide group of relevant experts.

But what do I know? I'm just an arts type. We're not bound by facts and whatnot, only the truth.
posted by philip-random at 8:46 AM on January 24, 2021 [3 favorites]


Did you read the article, philip-random? They make the point that what conspiracy theorists believe are not theories or hypotheses. They are axioms; "fundamental, unshakeable principles." That is a distinguishing characteristic of the conspiracy theorist.

That's from the first link, which I thought was very good. Many of the others were hit-or-miss IMO.

(MeFi's own) Jordan Ellenberg made a similar point in How Not to Be Wrong. His metaphor was that conspiracy theorists develop antibodies to conflicting information. They can always come up with a rational explanation for why it doesn't invalidate their hypothesis.
posted by mark k at 9:17 AM on January 24, 2021 [5 favorites]


where her powers of spite have executives and politicians looking over their shoulders

That’s not spite.
posted by Phanx at 9:39 AM on January 24, 2021 [1 favorite]


philip-random: "I'm just an arts type"

hah. That's what they want us to think.
posted by chavenet at 9:41 AM on January 24, 2021


Stealth helicopters first began service in the Vietnam war
posted by Jacen at 10:23 AM on January 24, 2021


Perhaps we need new language, a 'conspiracy' can be true or false (or some in between). "Conspiracy Theories" can not be falsified, but the similarity certainly confuses some folks.

...the way that real cases of collusion are usually brought to light presents a problem for the conspiracy theorist. It undermines their overall argument, by providing evidence that politicians, large business corporations, or the intelligence agencies are not all-powerful and all-controlling. (first link)

It'd be interesting to interview folks that had been pushing the Pizzagate wackiness, if when Welch shot at the pizzaria, they were "sorry" that it was quashed.
posted by sammyo at 10:32 AM on January 24, 2021


Oh and listening to the cable news commentary, heard discussion that one the previous administrations saddest accomplishments was an "end to shame". They would lie, but when explicitly caught, would just lie again and again. Probably indicating future growth of conspiracy theories.
posted by sammyo at 10:36 AM on January 24, 2021



Did you read the article, philip-random? They make the point that what conspiracy theorists believe are not theories or hypotheses. They are axioms;

which is why, whenever I encounter the phrase conspiracy theory, I don't care who it comes from, I immediately respond with, "I'm pretty sure it's not a theory. It's at best a hypothesis." Which I find can deflect some of the energy behind the noise, forces them to consider the meaning of words, gives them the option of backing down a bit. We may even agree. If they insist on pressing their "fundamental, unshakeable principles" anyway, at least I can feel I gave them a chance before I exited the discussion by whatever means were necessary.
posted by philip-random at 10:38 AM on January 24, 2021 [6 favorites]


Thanks for posting the Danah Boyd article. where she doubts the success of teaching critical thinking to thwart disinformation. There is a lot to pick apart when unraveling what makes people excited to take action against their own interests. The control part very likely comes down to managing other people's OODA loop, but not the decision part. The manipulation comes after we are shown something, as a limited observation, then oriented in a way by tradition to respond to it predictably. Even if using cold logic it works, because logic flows from assumptions and definitions of plausibility, which can be cultivated since birth. Therefore, this orientation phase is cultural, and what we are always really talking about in conspiracies is a form of control over people's values or priorities. It may never occur to someone that they are deciding against their interests if their interests come from group identity. Followers or adherents simply seek approval. This is essentially emotionalism, based on peer acceptance as a reward, and to lessen guilt. The jarring thing for many is to consider that their culture is a cult, demanding a personal commitment, while believing it to be free agency leading to an ideal cultural aspect which promises to advance their worth as a loyal member.
posted by Brian B. at 11:47 AM on January 24, 2021 [1 favorite]


But proponents of conspiracy theories don't think they're relying on unshakeable faith. They convince themselves that they've "researched" and "proven" it. They won't describe their position as a conspiracy theory. Quibbling about theory vs. hypothesis when the word theory is used just means arguing with people who already are applying critical thought, at least enough to identify the pattern of thinking that leads to unfalsifiable conspiracy theories.
posted by Scattercat at 12:15 PM on January 24, 2021 [4 favorites]


related: Demon Haunted World
Pulitzer Prize-winning author and distinguished astronomer Carl Sagan argues that scientific thinking is critical not only to the pursuit of truth but to the very well-being of our democratic institutions.

Casting a wide net through history and culture, Sagan examines and authoritatively debunks such celebrated fallacies of the past as witchcraft, faith healing, demons, and UFOs. And yet, disturbingly, in today's so-called information age, pseudoscience is burgeoning with stories of alien abduction, channeling past lives, and communal hallucinations commanding growing attention and respect. As Sagan demonstrates with lucid eloquence, the siren song of unreason is not just a cultural wrong turn but a dangerous plunge into darkness that threatens our most basic freedoms.[my bold, ed.]
posted by j_curiouser at 12:22 PM on January 24, 2021 [6 favorites]


I have no idea why we persist in treating conspiracy theories as if they should be based on some kind of reasonable analysis when we know they never are. They serve a specific set of psychological needs, invariably originating in some or other value judgment about the nature of power and our relationship with consensual reality. Frankly, I can see their appeal when pitted against propaganda, institutional capture, bad science and narcissistic media, particularly when numerous interest groups have become adept at conveniently shrugging off legitimate criticism as conspiracy theory. This is the slander du jour for all kinds of inconvenient truths, as sure as Donald Trump yelling “fake news!”

If there was ever a time when we could distinguish the phoney discourse from the rational hypotheses, that ship has long since sailed. By now, the media environment is so polluted that anything stated as fact immediately falls under suspicion, and we default to whatever seems closest to the “truth” most likely decided by whatever our friends are saying at the time. Nobody can tell the difference any more, because less important than factual evidence is tribal allegiance, and that holds true across the political spectrum. Not yet far enough down the rabbit hole to see whether the point has been made in the above articles, but damned if this is not being weaponised at the highest level, a thousand times worse than any real corruption or imaginary conspiracies further down. So when tackling this, it's vital that we understand it as a natural human reflex, because there will always be times when the siren song of unreason is actually an alarm call.
posted by Elizabeth the Thirteenth at 1:36 PM on January 24, 2021 [1 favorite]


There are some useful distinctions, although personally I would like for the allowance of the exception that proves the rule, to not get all dogmatic. All the various psychological theories may have some validity, but don't tell the whole story. For example, the go to dismissal used to be that conspiracy theories somehow made people feel the world was more orderly, but that doesn't make sense in the face of supposed terrifying enemies everywhere. People do want to know the truth, at least many do. In an environment of great power, wealth, and information disparity, with big companies incentivized to promote them, it's not surprising that it's such a breeding ground for wacky ideas. Add to that professional propagandists in what may amount to some kind of conspiracy in itself. There is a political element too - for those imaging vain plots, the ones pushing them, the debunkers, any involved in possible coverups. We have a terrible problem and trying to solve the underlying causes will be more effective than merely debating partial reasons.
posted by blue shadows at 4:58 PM on January 24, 2021


It is a constant irritation to me when ‘scientific thinking’ or scientific literacy is presented as a solution to cultic/occult/conspiratorial/hateful beliefs. It’s simply not the case that educational background immunises you intellectually against these phenomena, in fact quite the opposite—as anyone will know, who’s found themselves arguing with a retired engineer about climate change.

‘Scientific thinking’ is exactly what turns mysterious or inexplicable phenomena, which in other times would have been interpreted spiritually-religiously, into events caused by things that need explaining. It’s only the ‘scientific’ mode of thinking that lets us actually conceive of ‘hidden truths’ that only need work and insight to discover.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 5:10 PM on January 24, 2021 [7 favorites]


I think that's a bit of what danah boyd is getting at - scientific thinking and critical thinking and media literacy are tools which can be misapplied, or only selectively applied. Education fixes nothing by itself.

I wonder if practicing translating from scientific thinking to lived-experience thinking and religious mindsets might help us communicate the *results* of scientific thinking to people who don't value the process itself.
posted by harriet vane at 7:27 PM on January 24, 2021 [1 favorite]


Cassam's book is very good but he hasn't done many interviews or any talks about it, so it was hard to include in this post. He suggests that like propaganda, Conspiracy Theories are often started by people who know they're not true, but have something to gain from it (his example is the Sandy Hook deniers). And the people who spread them don't care about the truth of it, they're signalling an allegiance to a tribe. By the time you get to the people who consume and believe it, the damage has already been done.

The book was written before QAnon hit the mainstream, but it does seem to fit. Whoever started pretending to be an undercover agent had the message of "trust Trump, even though he looks like a stupid, selfish dickhead". It was very basic to begin with. People spread it and joined in for the shit-stirring lulz, not because they thought Trump was secretly a hero. Nazis added the usual antisemetic tropes because that's what they do to every Conspiracy Theory. And now we've got a Trump cult ready to die for him and completely opposed to democracy. As political propaganda, it's been very successful.
posted by harriet vane at 7:37 PM on January 24, 2021 [3 favorites]


The one thing that any conspiracy theory has been unable to sufficiently explain to me is:

One big facet of the further-fetched conspiracy is that "this is the truth that 'they' don't want you to know and 'they' will kill to keep their secrets". However, the bigger and juicier the secrets, the more videos and podcasts and books exist about them. So - if "they" would "kill to keep their secrets", how is it that so many people are able to talk about them and stay alive?

Most conspiracy theories are first cousin to urban legends in my head.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:20 AM on January 25, 2021 [1 favorite]


Floam, that explains the videos - but how about books?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:22 PM on January 25, 2021


"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." H.L. Mencken
posted by Brian B. at 3:41 PM on January 25, 2021


There's this pharmaceutical television commercial that's been catching my eye during the last week or so... a guy is portrayed as suffering from the disease and a concerned woman's voice (presumably a spouse) lists symptoms, one of them being, “he's been believing things that aren't true!” About a condition that does actually involve delusions as a symptom, evidently, but what I've been thinking about is how that'll look to a QAnon cultist.

And to some degree they'd be right... we opened the Pandora's Box of direct-to-consumer prescription pharmaceutical advertising here in the US and next thing you know we're medicalizing any belief in things that aren't true, in the popular imagination, in the midst of a Nazi insurrection and pedo-Satanist craze; except that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't have pills for those ones. Yet!
posted by XMLicious at 9:08 AM on February 2, 2021


« Older In government reform, there are always more Death...   |   Saviour of the Streetdogs Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments