In addition to the sociological angle, which may be the primary driver of participation, I suspect there's a large "sense of agency" angle to conspiracy theories. Outside of the small things you...
Exemplary
In addition to the sociological angle, which may be the primary driver of participation, I suspect there's a large "sense of agency" angle to conspiracy theories. Outside of the small things you can control, it's rare to feel a sense of progress in the modern world. Given the availability of global information you'll rarely get to see something you're involved with on the news. There are too many political actors out there and the ones that are currently installed have connections, knowledge, and skills that you don't. Competing on their terms is a losing battle. But if you create an alternate reality with your community you can create an entire world in which only your in group knows the rules. If your in group grows large enough you can end up interacting with the real world in ways that look like victories. In reality those victories are clashes caused by a lack of shared understanding.
It's not unlike a "metaverse". Too poor to purchase land? Create a digital copy of the Earth and buy some land there for cheap with the hope that eventually your purchase means something to others.
I have a sort of tangent view of this. Conspiracies mean that bad things are happening because of "bad guys" and not just "bad guys" but "super hidden ultra competent bad guys" who must be fought...
I have a sort of tangent view of this.
Conspiracies mean that bad things are happening because of "bad guys" and not just "bad guys" but "super hidden ultra competent bad guys" who must be fought and resisted and so on.
Rather than the much less exciting truth of "it's mostly people just like you". There's very few people who have any idea what they're doing, and even then it's usually in a decently narrow field with all the usual human failings we all have. People with immense amounts of power have lucked into, and ruined, things over waking up cranky.
If you've ever worked with a large group in a company or a government, you quickly become aware how monumental it can be to get ANYTHING done, even if everyone agrees. Adding a ton of money, a license to kill, and super tech to that STILL wouldn't change how absurdly hard it is to just get 100 people to do what you want reliably, let alone the insane amounts of coverup, coordination, and orchestration any of these conspiracies would need.
That said, much like "the devil" or whatever evil force most religions attribute, it creates a common "them" for "us" to fight, and to some extent to offload responsibility.
It's a very understandable thing, but obviously becomes wildly dangerous very fast when you start fighting "them" and are cutting down 5G towers, or just deciding an entire culture/race/religion/region/country/whatever is the evil.
It’s also a lot easier to believe things are fixable if there’s a “them” causing the problem. Just defeat the “them”! That might be a monumental task, but at least it’s clear. Confronting the...
It’s also a lot easier to believe things are fixable if there’s a “them” causing the problem. Just defeat the “them”! That might be a monumental task, but at least it’s clear.
Confronting the reality that a lot of our problems are either unfathomably complex or, even worse, relatively simple to fix but would need everyone to start collaborating in a way that hasn’t happened in the last few millennia of human history is a fucking bleak realisation. Both mean that an awful lot of things are very unlikely to be fixed in our lifetimes.
I feel a lot of it is finding simple solutions to complex issues because actually learning how science works or whatever the specific topic is is too difficult. What gets me is when the conspiracy...
I feel a lot of it is finding simple solutions to complex issues because actually learning how science works or whatever the specific topic is is too difficult.
What gets me is when the conspiracy starts to get complex and they start to invent their own version of science to fit the conspiracy. The amount of effort that then goes into proving their theory would be the same as actually just learning science. Obviously by this point they are in too deep and rejecting the conspiracy would be social suicide.
I hope this made sense. Its early in the morning for me.
Yeah the “in our lifetimes” is one of the big hurdles of humans. It’s a shame because we can make great change, and have, in increments. Yes sometimes you get crazy bursts but even if you look at...
Yeah the “in our lifetimes” is one of the big hurdles of humans.
It’s a shame because we can make great change, and have, in increments. Yes sometimes you get crazy bursts but even if you look at progress of humanity before the Industrial Revolution there’s absolutely incredible progress being made.
It just takes time, and I understand the tragedy of that but it’s unfortunate how often a desire to “fix it faster” can sabotage people and causes.
When I was younger, I had an opportunity where I went to a new community where I knew nobody and had zero connection to my previous life. After a few months, I got to return back and restore those...
When I was younger, I had an opportunity where I went to a new community where I knew nobody and had zero connection to my previous life. After a few months, I got to return back and restore those old connections, mostly leaving that new community behind.
When I returned, I was immediately and profoundly shocked that my time in the community had altered my behavior, my expectations of others, my attitude, and even my personality. In hindsight, that new community was pretty small, so it was likely hard to find people that “fit” with my previous behavior.
So, without my own awareness, I had adapted and altered pieces of myself to fit my new community for the sake of finding connection. This process was so subconscious that I think this adaptation to new communities is evolutionarily built into human beings.
It’s crazy to me how much we can change if it allows us to find a community. My own experience made me much more understanding of cults, religions, and political movements. I’m not surprised that people are willing to believe in conspiracy theories, sometimes outright rejecting their own sensory evidence, in order to preserve their sense of belonging.
I was discussing something like this with a friend who lives a few hours away recently. Both of us are at a point in life where most of our social interactions are online and we're craving more...
I was discussing something like this with a friend who lives a few hours away recently. Both of us are at a point in life where most of our social interactions are online and we're craving more in-person community.
One of the things that is giving us pause is the idea that we may need to adapt to "fit in" with whatever communities we try to join. As people who spent a large part of their formative years trying to "fit in" before we found "our people" and became more comfortable being ourselves, the idea of doing it again in adulthood is somewhat off-putting.
The main concern I have is that attempting to adapt to a community might mean accepting or ignoring behaviour that I don't want to be part of. We're both into "nerd-shit", and while the broader sub-culture is largely progressive and welcoming these days, it's impossible to deny the rampant misogyny and other problems within the space.
Intellectually I know that if I visit a community and see something I don't like I can easily just look elsewhere, but the idea of looking for a place and not finding one is upsetting enough that it feels easier at times to stick with the uncomfortable-but-known.
Over five years, we sought out and got to know people on the cusp of becoming conspiracy theorists. And the results of our new study show that a sense of community activism is attracting people to these ideas.
Indeed, contrary to the stereotype of isolated keyboard warriors who have gone down the rabbit hole, conspiracy theorists are becoming organized, recruiting supporters, picketing vaccination centers and vandalizing telecommunication and traffic infrastructures.
Our research examined the growing interest in conspiracy theories and how associated activism emerges. Immersive research with conspiracy theorists is rare. But revealing our status as researchers actually allowed us to build relationships with people, who shared insights into what motivates their involvement.
In particular, we spoke to people about conspiracy theories concerning 5G technology, COVID-19, 15-minute cities and low-traffic neighborhoods. We also took part in online discussions and traveled the UK to sit in on public meetings and conferences. Ultimately, our insights revealed how people tend to follow a pathway from initial interest, to community engagement and potentially activism.
...
People rarely experience their awakening in isolation. In online group chats, people discover others with similar problems. In public meetings, beliefs in various theories are boosted by interactions where people discuss their suspicions over who is to blame for particular issues. In the process, these groups feed off their common emotions, building an atmosphere of energy and excitement.
...
The people we spoke to expressed surprise at the social connections they had found through these communities. As one participant put it, "there's a lot of support out there for people who are doing their own research… there is always someone wanting to hear more, building on the work of others, giving each other support. There's a real buzz in this community."
The term "conspiracy theory" and how it's used bothers me. A conspiracy is when people conspire to do something bad. A conspiracy theory is a theory of a conspiracy, and conspiracies of some form...
The term "conspiracy theory" and how it's used bothers me. A conspiracy is when people conspire to do something bad. A conspiracy theory is a theory of a conspiracy, and conspiracies of some form or another occur all the time. When someone is charged with conspiracy to commit a crime, the legal system is engaged in "conspiracy theories" before a ruling is made.
Politics is no exception. Iran-Contra was a conspiracy. Watergate was a conspiracy. It's almost certainly the case that the Trump administration has conspired to cover up what really happened with Jeffrey Epstein, for whichever reason. Before it's fully known what has happened, and, indeed, to do an investigation that holds people accountable, one must be ready to engage with "conspiracy theories".
The problem, of course, is that some people take it too far. I feel like there should be a completely separate term to describe theories like "the world is run by illuminati, free-mason lizard-people" or "the moon landing was a hoax". Perhaps the rough test of whether you're entertaining plausible theories of conspiracy or are going off the deep end should be how parsimonious you are in your analysis. Is it that the body of existing evidence is damning enough that it would imparsimonious to reject the possibility of conspiracy?
In addition to the sociological angle, which may be the primary driver of participation, I suspect there's a large "sense of agency" angle to conspiracy theories. Outside of the small things you can control, it's rare to feel a sense of progress in the modern world. Given the availability of global information you'll rarely get to see something you're involved with on the news. There are too many political actors out there and the ones that are currently installed have connections, knowledge, and skills that you don't. Competing on their terms is a losing battle. But if you create an alternate reality with your community you can create an entire world in which only your in group knows the rules. If your in group grows large enough you can end up interacting with the real world in ways that look like victories. In reality those victories are clashes caused by a lack of shared understanding.
It's not unlike a "metaverse". Too poor to purchase land? Create a digital copy of the Earth and buy some land there for cheap with the hope that eventually your purchase means something to others.
I have a sort of tangent view of this.
Conspiracies mean that bad things are happening because of "bad guys" and not just "bad guys" but "super hidden ultra competent bad guys" who must be fought and resisted and so on.
Rather than the much less exciting truth of "it's mostly people just like you". There's very few people who have any idea what they're doing, and even then it's usually in a decently narrow field with all the usual human failings we all have. People with immense amounts of power have lucked into, and ruined, things over waking up cranky.
If you've ever worked with a large group in a company or a government, you quickly become aware how monumental it can be to get ANYTHING done, even if everyone agrees. Adding a ton of money, a license to kill, and super tech to that STILL wouldn't change how absurdly hard it is to just get 100 people to do what you want reliably, let alone the insane amounts of coverup, coordination, and orchestration any of these conspiracies would need.
That said, much like "the devil" or whatever evil force most religions attribute, it creates a common "them" for "us" to fight, and to some extent to offload responsibility.
It's a very understandable thing, but obviously becomes wildly dangerous very fast when you start fighting "them" and are cutting down 5G towers, or just deciding an entire culture/race/religion/region/country/whatever is the evil.
It’s also a lot easier to believe things are fixable if there’s a “them” causing the problem. Just defeat the “them”! That might be a monumental task, but at least it’s clear.
Confronting the reality that a lot of our problems are either unfathomably complex or, even worse, relatively simple to fix but would need everyone to start collaborating in a way that hasn’t happened in the last few millennia of human history is a fucking bleak realisation. Both mean that an awful lot of things are very unlikely to be fixed in our lifetimes.
I feel a lot of it is finding simple solutions to complex issues because actually learning how science works or whatever the specific topic is is too difficult.
What gets me is when the conspiracy starts to get complex and they start to invent their own version of science to fit the conspiracy. The amount of effort that then goes into proving their theory would be the same as actually just learning science. Obviously by this point they are in too deep and rejecting the conspiracy would be social suicide.
I hope this made sense. Its early in the morning for me.
Yeah the “in our lifetimes” is one of the big hurdles of humans.
It’s a shame because we can make great change, and have, in increments. Yes sometimes you get crazy bursts but even if you look at progress of humanity before the Industrial Revolution there’s absolutely incredible progress being made.
It just takes time, and I understand the tragedy of that but it’s unfortunate how often a desire to “fix it faster” can sabotage people and causes.
When I was younger, I had an opportunity where I went to a new community where I knew nobody and had zero connection to my previous life. After a few months, I got to return back and restore those old connections, mostly leaving that new community behind.
When I returned, I was immediately and profoundly shocked that my time in the community had altered my behavior, my expectations of others, my attitude, and even my personality. In hindsight, that new community was pretty small, so it was likely hard to find people that “fit” with my previous behavior.
So, without my own awareness, I had adapted and altered pieces of myself to fit my new community for the sake of finding connection. This process was so subconscious that I think this adaptation to new communities is evolutionarily built into human beings.
It’s crazy to me how much we can change if it allows us to find a community. My own experience made me much more understanding of cults, religions, and political movements. I’m not surprised that people are willing to believe in conspiracy theories, sometimes outright rejecting their own sensory evidence, in order to preserve their sense of belonging.
I was discussing something like this with a friend who lives a few hours away recently. Both of us are at a point in life where most of our social interactions are online and we're craving more in-person community.
One of the things that is giving us pause is the idea that we may need to adapt to "fit in" with whatever communities we try to join. As people who spent a large part of their formative years trying to "fit in" before we found "our people" and became more comfortable being ourselves, the idea of doing it again in adulthood is somewhat off-putting.
The main concern I have is that attempting to adapt to a community might mean accepting or ignoring behaviour that I don't want to be part of. We're both into "nerd-shit", and while the broader sub-culture is largely progressive and welcoming these days, it's impossible to deny the rampant misogyny and other problems within the space.
Intellectually I know that if I visit a community and see something I don't like I can easily just look elsewhere, but the idea of looking for a place and not finding one is upsetting enough that it feels easier at times to stick with the uncomfortable-but-known.
From the article:
...
...
The term "conspiracy theory" and how it's used bothers me. A conspiracy is when people conspire to do something bad. A conspiracy theory is a theory of a conspiracy, and conspiracies of some form or another occur all the time. When someone is charged with conspiracy to commit a crime, the legal system is engaged in "conspiracy theories" before a ruling is made.
Politics is no exception. Iran-Contra was a conspiracy. Watergate was a conspiracy. It's almost certainly the case that the Trump administration has conspired to cover up what really happened with Jeffrey Epstein, for whichever reason. Before it's fully known what has happened, and, indeed, to do an investigation that holds people accountable, one must be ready to engage with "conspiracy theories".
The problem, of course, is that some people take it too far. I feel like there should be a completely separate term to describe theories like "the world is run by illuminati, free-mason lizard-people" or "the moon landing was a hoax". Perhaps the rough test of whether you're entertaining plausible theories of conspiracy or are going off the deep end should be how parsimonious you are in your analysis. Is it that the body of existing evidence is damning enough that it would imparsimonious to reject the possibility of conspiracy?