Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Il Palazzo]

I believe the answer to that question is "Confirmation Bias".

Sure, confirmation bias plays a role in the CT thinking, but it's not how people first start to believe in them. It's used when one already has a preconceived notion of how they think the world works, in order to dismiss uncomfortable evidence and reinforce the 'truth'.
Conversely, there must be a set of factors that first prime people for buying into CTs.

Is the first step a perception of one's intellectual superiority stemming from intellectual isolation (in school, at work, in one's family)? Distrust of authority figures (but what factor makes one develop it)? Culturally inherited persecution complex? Gnostic-like worldview (belief in hidden knowledge, fight of good vs evil - and, again, where does it come from)? Feeling of inferiority or unimportance, and the resulting need for validation, finding one's very own tribe?
Etc.

What factors are necessary for developing the mindset, what factors are just conductive to it? Which are unimportant? Is there an explosive combination? Are there many paths? Is there even a simple answer?

You know, these kind of questions.

[Trekkin]

Conversely, there must be a set of factors that first prime people for buying into CTs.

Or just dubious things generally. The scope of crank magnetism makes me think that what's being potentiated isn't so much conspiracy theories specifically, let alone any one conspiracy theory, as some nebulous category of alternative explanations of reality that also includes alternative medicine, spiritual woo, free energy, the paranormal and so forth. To be clear, most of those things have attendant conspiracy theories, but in a way it's telling that that is the default explanation for why Woo Thing X isn't more widely accepted.

So perhaps the place to start is asking after the origins of disbelief in accepted facts, since that seems to be the common thread running through every bunch of true believers that sees this kind of cross-contamination.

[wierd]

A good portion may be "Who was first to provide an answer."

parents are often notorious about providing an opinion as if it were fact, especially to young children.

This article mentions the difficulty in getting human subjects to unlearn an association--
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-perils-of-trying-to-unlearn-2

If early learning gets an opinionated bias type result as the answer for an honest question, it can be very difficult to undo that damage.  EG, telling kids that "The government is out to get you." (which may well be true for the parent specifically, since the parent might be suffering a tax audit, or some other government entanglement)  may very easily predispose the child to CTs about government plots against private citizens.

So the initialization of the chain might start like this:

"Daddy, why are you upset?"
"The government is out to get me?"
"Why daddy?"
(Daddy then gives a "for children" response that does not basically admit to being a crooked liar on his taxes)
(Child thinks the government is mean for no reason.)
(IRS audit and subsequent wage garnishment cause a noticable reduction in the family's standard of living, which the child notices, and takes as proof daddy was saying the truth.)
(Association that Government gets involved with ordinary people for no justifiable reason created, Bias initiated, and pathological feedback loop begins.)

Rather than learn the proper life lesson "Dont cheat on your taxes.", the child learns the improper life lesson "The government is out to get you." 

I suspect that far back in these individual's childhoods there are formative experiences that predispose them to victim-culture, to false narratives about political authority, to the legitimacy of religious rhetoric over testable reality, etc.

These can be anything from "I got really sick when I got immunized as a baby, therefore the immunization practices of society as a whole are obviously not well controlled, and so the idea that immunizations cause autism is plausible."  to "The government has been destroying people in my family for generations (because of systemic multigenerational tax fraud), and seeing things like the Tuskegee syphilis experiment just reinforces my view that the US government is corrupt to its core, and will do anything to further is agendas."

I doubt that these kinds of associative dysfunctions occur spontaneously.

[milo christiansen]

PTW the insanity.

[wierd]

I suppose in some cases, the associative dysfunction at the root of the CT thinking chain of thought, might come from a combination of being exposed to a conspiracy theorist's expositions (Such as say, from History channel TV... Oh gawd..) coupled with actual occurrences. (Say, the whole "clipper chip" fandango.)

EG,

"There is this guy at work who rails constantly about how the government is constantly trying to spy on private communications, which I dismissed as absurd-- I mean why would the government really care about people calling their mom's on mothers day, and sticking their noses in like that?--- Then I learned that they honestly did try to introduce a mass surveillance technology for use against basically every citizen in the US, with the Clipper Chip. Opened my eyes."

This person, now primed for conspiracy nuttery, sees things like the NSA mass eavesdropping and data misuse scandal, as defacto evidence that the US is much less concerned about citizens rights as it is about its own sense of protection from its own citizens, and will preferentially accept accounts from one side over the other.

In this case, "Exposure to existing CT aligned thinker" is the causal agent, and "Totally legit dirty pool action" (even if isolated), becomes the catalyst.

[Trekkin]

If lies to children were the causal factor, though, one would expect an internationally popular conspiracy theory regarding who prevents Santa Claus from delivering gifts. (There's endless bad jokes about politics to be had here; please don't.) Or perhaps one about baby-delivering storks or the Tooth Fairy. Children are lied to about some subset of those three with great frequency. Or, in a different vein,  our whole educational system is based around a series of progressively less egregious and more complex lies to children, and yet some kids come out of it reasonably lucid and others eventually believe in perpetual motion or thetans or water memory or what have you, and the divide is not driven by differences in intelligence.

[wierd]

In those cases though, the parental figure does at some point recant, and tell a more favorable truth about the phenomenon.

In the case of "Daddy is a consummate tax fraud artist", Daddy does not want to admit that how he got his little boy that new game console was by lieing to the feds about his tax deductions, by claiming ridiculous things as write-offs and work related expenses.  Worse still, he me genuinely believe that what he is doing is totally legit, and not tax fraud, and that the IRS is just being stingy for no reason.

Others might be "Immigrant family fleeing a hostile foreign regime" (think Stalinist Russia, et al.) where the government REALLY WAS OUT TO GET THEM, imparting life lessons to their impressionable children out of PTSD like paranoia, even though in their new environment the government really does not give a fuck.

I would say this is more supportive of the "First authority" hypothesis than detracting.  If the first authority recants, and says "No, it was totally me and your mom. I have the costume in the attic." in regard to santa, it might cause the child to be less trusting of its parents afterward, but the first authority figure holds significant power over perceived legitimacy of an explanation. See also "Nu uh! My Mommy told me so!"

The most powerful CT scenarios seem to be from situations where first authorities make a truly extraordinary statement, and then never recant or revise to a less extraordinary statement-- or at least that has been my observation.

[Shazbot]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Terrorists did 9/11.

[Dorsidwarf]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Terrorists did 9/11.

Now thats crazy talk

[wierd]

Oh, but you dont know how deep THAT rabbit hole can go!

Spoiler: dont click me, spare your brain. (click to show/hide)

There is a conspiracy theory that the US keeps insurgent groups and radicals around explicitly to use as foils to deflect unwanted attention, or to use as easily dismissed tools of global dominance.  This is how they reconcile the prior CIA support of the Taliban, of  Quaddafi, and his ilk during the cold war.  So, while the terrorists are who flew the planes into the towers, who organized and manipulated their handlers to conceive of, and orchestrate the operation?

It can *STILL* be "911 was an inside job!!", even with terrorists being the ones who flew the planes.

Given that the US does indeed engage in a fair bit of dirty pool in many parts of the world to secure "Favorable conditions for US policy", (see central and south america, and US involvement for details, Just be very sure to sanitize your sources. It can be hard to distinguish fantasy from the actual facts.) such a position might even be considered "plausible."

However, one has to consider the instability of such an arrangement, the long term cost effectiveness, etc---  It is not reasonable to believe that the US grooms and sustains agent provocateurs simply to deflect internal criticisms of an elected high official, simply because the costs involved are unreasonable.

[Il Palazzo]

In those cases though, the parental figure does at some point recant, and tell a more favorable truth about the phenomenon.

In the case of "Daddy is a consummate tax fraud artist", Daddy does not want to admit that how he got his little boy that new game console was by lieing to the feds about his tax deductions, by claiming ridiculous things as write-offs and work related expenses.  Worse still, he me genuinely believe that what he is doing is totally legit, and not tax fraud, and that the IRS is just being stingy for no reason.

Others might be "Immigrant family fleeing a hostile foreign regime" (think Stalinist Russia, et al.) where the government REALLY WAS OUT TO GET THEM, imparting life lessons to their impressionable children out of PTSD like paranoia, even though in their new environment the government really does not give a fuck.

I would say this is more supportive of the "First authority" hypothesis than detracting.  If the first authority recants, and says "No, it was totally me and your mom. I have the costume in the attic." in regard to santa, it might cause the child to be less trusting of its parents afterward, but the first authority figure holds significant power over perceived legitimacy of an explanation. See also "Nu uh! My Mommy told me so!"

The most powerful CT scenarios seem to be from situations where first authorities make a truly extraordinary statement, and then never recant or revise to a less extraordinary statement-- or at least that has been my observation.

Sounds a bit too simplistic to me, in how strongly you present the correlation. I don't deny it could be a factor, but perhaps not a primary one.

There's plenty of cases where just one of a number of siblings turns to CTs (i.e. despite same environment), or is even the only such person in a family. You'd think if they picked it up from their parents' attitude, then the parents wouldn't be conformist to authority themselves. Then there are kids who don't follow in their parents' conspiratorial footsteps.

Or cases where they turn to CTs only later in life and selectively - e.g. pro-epidemics. They're often quite happy to trust the authority of a doctor in all things medical, sans vaccinations. They also don't seem to have much beef with governments in general - it's just the Big Pharma.

If it can prime people towards CTs, then only some of them. And if it works only with some of them, then what makes the difference?


My personal pet guess as to the main factor is the feeling of intellectual isolation.
Say, you're in secondary school, you're reasonably smart, and you have some relatively obscure interests. Your peers find you a major nerd, and your teachers don't know all that much about your narrow field of focus. So you start thinking you're surrounded by dumb masses, and false authority figures.
Or you're a young parent reading about vaccinations, and none of your acquaintances and family members wants to go deeper into it than simple conformity with opinions of experts. Again, feels like you're the only one who can think for themselves.

Seems like a good fertilizer for sprouting CTs.



Oh, and for something completely different: Did you know that Nazi Germany had it all wrong, and Germans weren't actually Arians? It's Poles who are real Arians, and their empire of 10 000 years was only recently brought down by the conspiring Vatican and the Holy Roman Empire (of the German Nation). True story.
The thing is not strictly new, but it has been experiencing resurgence in Poland lately, with books selling better than von Daniken's ever had. The following is the only English article I could find given the short googling, for those interested:
http://www.ancient-origins.net/history/hidden-story-poland-what-happened-forgotten-kingdom-lechia-006648

[Hanslanda]

Y'know, I think I'm going to steal "pro-epidemics." That's just too good a term to pass up.

Agreed.

[Shazbot]

Can we all agree jet fuel along with various plastics and wood easily produces sufficient heat to cause sufficient heating of steel beams that their plasticity increases, deformation and expansion occurs, structural linkages fail and skyscrapers already pushing the limits of material engineering subsequently suffer a catastrophic, runaway support failure?

I mean. If we're talking conspiracies, lets at least have a baseline sanity check for parties involved.

[Trekkin]

I mean. If we're talking conspiracies, lets at least have a baseline sanity check for parties involved.

A capital idea. We might begin by excluding people so entrenched in their beliefs that they attempt to unilaterally synonymize their particular worldview with sanity as a way of peremptorily dismissing competing viewpoints.

Alternatively we might dispense with such a litmus test altogether by way of acknowledging that two people can look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions without either being crazy.

Which would you prefer?

[Ghills]

I mean. If we're talking conspiracies, lets at least have a baseline sanity check for parties involved.

A capital idea. We might begin by excluding people so entrenched in their beliefs that they attempt to unilaterally synonymize their particular worldview with sanity as a way of peremptorily dismissing competing viewpoints.

Alternatively we might dispense with such a litmus test altogether by way of acknowledging that two people can look at the same evidence and arrive at different conclusions without either being crazy.

Which would you prefer?

The one that doesn't include 9/11 conspiracy theorists.