
People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features - Anon84
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/
======
tw000001
This is irresponsible journalism.

>You can spot hallmarks of fake theories, such as internal contradictions in
the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky assumptions, psychologists say.

Just look at the many legitimate sources of conflicting information regarding
COVID. Hell, many of our medical practices are based on "shaky assumptions"
and shoddy survey data, especially in psychology.

Conspiracies happen, speculation is valid and arguably necessary for a healthy
society. But this? This is just some kind of weird appeal to authority -
recognizing the possibility of conspiracies and attempting to piece them
together is not pathological and a society which believes it is it placing
itself firmly under an unyielding authoritarian boot.

~~~
austincheney
Weak evidence is not the same as a shaky assumption, which is not evidence at
all.

> Conspiracies happen

As do coincidences. This isn’t about _conspiracies_ but about _conspiracy
theories_.

A provable conspiracy is two or more agents coming together, even without
their awareness of alignment, to achieve a single specific secretive goal as
qualified with evidence. Qualified evidence is any single or series of
provable facts that directly links each participating agent to the secretive
goal with intent. The most important part of that is proving intent. A
conspiracy theory is a belief there should be a conspiracy but without the
necessary qualified evidence.

Coincidence -
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence)

Conspiracy theory (nonsense) -
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory)

Conspiracy -
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy)

Intention -
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention)

Given the terms I find it’s not at all far fetched to conclude there exists
some common mental health defect that allows conspiracy theories to flourish
amongst some people and not others.

~~~
ColanR
Conspiracy theory often happens when coincidence becomes unbelievable. (I like
the phrase someone else coined in this thread, 'coincidence theory', when we
hold onto the coincidence explanation too long.) NSA spying was believed by
many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though
intent was not proven.

I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people
more skeptical of the status quo (If we want to go that route, perhaps there
is a similar mental health defect that allows belief in improbable coincidence
to flourish among some people and not others?).

~~~
austincheney
> I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people
> more skeptical of the status quo.

It’s not about fair, popularity, perceptions, or belief systems. It is only
about the inability to separate evidence from belief. The strength or
popularity of the belief does transform that belief into evidence.

~~~
ColanR
Let me say it differently then. It isn't _intellectually honest_ to dismiss
someone's opinion by claiming them mentally defective. It would be just as
easy to say that you're in denial, because you're asking for unreasonably high
levels of evidence.

~~~
austincheney
I can dismiss conspiracy theories as nonsense, regardless of any mental
defect, because they are nonsense. Perhaps that is horribly unfair, but it’s
entirely intellectually honest. If you want intellectual honesty pursue
evidence instead of agreement.

~~~
ColanR
a) You're skipping right past my point, that dismissing a conspiracy theory by
calling its proponent mentally defective is intellectually dishonest. Also, it
comes dangerously close to an _ad homenim_ , if not done right.

b) NSA surveilance was a conspiracy theory 15 years ago. Was that nonsense?

~~~
austincheney
> Also, it comes dangerously close to an ad homenim, if not done right.

Equating mental illness or impairment to an ad hominem ignores the medical
nature of the subject in preference for an ignorant social stigma. See the
last paragraph of this comment to discover what mental illness is according to
the medicine:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867)

~~~
ColanR
Citing yourself and a paper that isn't published or peer-reviewed puts you at
exactly the same level of evidence that you have expressed such disdain for.

The definition of mental illness has nothing to do with whether what you said
is an _ad homenim_. If you were to diagnose someone with a relevant mental
illness, _and then_ have a conversation with them which brought their
conspiratorial ideas to your attention _for the first time_ , then saying
their conspiratorial talk was the result of a mental illness would be
legitimate. However, to have a conversation with someone, hear them theorize
the existence of a conspiracy, and _then_ conclude they must be part of a set
of people with a mental deficiency? That is absolutely an _ad homenim_.

So, again: I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect
in people more skeptical of the status quo.

~~~
austincheney
If you need a more expanded definition that otherwise says much the same
things try this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition)

Diagnosing somebody with a broken arm is not a personal attack and neither
should be a mental health diagnosis.

> I don't think it's fair

Life isn't fair. Fairness is a subject best left to small children and courts
of law. To address your concern though, evidence is not about agreement.

~~~
ColanR
> If you need a more expanded definition

Logically speaking, we could be talking about how belief in conspiracy theory
is affected by mental deficiency, a preference for apple pie, or a broken arm.
Giving me a definition of 'thing-that-is-bad' is irrelevant to its use as a
potential _ad homenim_. And as I said - if you already have a diagnosis of the
person, then feel free to mention it as a point against their theory of a
conspiracy. But if you do not already have that diagnosis, then claiming the
theory implies a mental deficiency is absolutely an _ad homenim_ against the
theory. The order of the cause and effect matters.

I think you mistook my use of the word "fair". I was using the first
definition from merriam-webster: "marked by impartiality and honesty." Maybe I
should just keep using "intellectually honest" since that appears to cause
less confusion. We do agree on your other point, though, that "evidence is not
about agreement." Maybe I should use the phrase 'theorize about the existence
of a conspiracy' instead of 'skeptical of the status quo'.

With that addressed: I don't think it's intellectually honest to conclude
there's a mental health defect in people who theorize about the existence of a
conspiracy.

------
softwaredoug
People try to “debunk” conspiracy theories rationally, when really it’s the
emotional content that matters.

It’s like talking to someone believing their cheating spouse did X, Y, Z crazy
thing. If you responded to that person trying to debunk X, Y, and Z rationally
you’d just anger them further. What matters is really the underlying anger
that they’re feeling. Not litigating actual facts. In fact such litigating can
feel like an attack or invalidation of the underlying emotion.

Same is true with feeling threatened by the appearance of “gracias” signs at a
restaurant. Or a blue collar person losing status in an increasingly knowledge
economy.

I feel like to make progress as a society we have to speak to the underlying
“emotional truth” and not come across as pedants over facts.

~~~
dade_
Social media is what is making people anxious in the first place. Then they
serve as the platform for the circular referencing "proof". Facebook &
WhatsApp posts are supported by YouTube videos, are supported by tweets, are
supported by more YouTube videos and then back to more Facebook.

So some people I was visiting in a small town started going on about
'chemtrails' they learned about from someone on Facebook. These contrails
control the weather, while dispensing chemicals that get into the ground water
to control people's minds. They showed me a video on YouTube, it was polished
bullshit if I ever saw it. Then there were more FB posts about people who
"know the truth".

It was hopeless, even with apps that showed the flight origin and destination
of of the planes overhead for commercial cargo, passengers, etc. Apparently
hundreds of international and domestic flights are all part of a conspiracy to
make it cloudy and dispense chemicals to control the minds of this town.
Further, the chemicals are clearly not working since they are even be able to
have these thoughts.

I blame social media. The real disaster is coming, this is just the second
inning.

~~~
vezycash
> Social media is what is making people anxious in the first place.

What you're saying is ignorance is bliss. Without social media, a few phone
calls to media houses would have been sufficient to squelch the recent murder
of a black male by the police.

The medium is not at fault.

We all hailed Facebook helped organize 'successful' revolutions in some
'oppressive' states.

It's easier to believe tales about people I distrust.

I prefer we focused on ways to increase transparency and fairness in
government. That's the conspiracy theory vaccine we need.

~~~
dade_
No, what I am saying is that social media is actually causing mental health
issues including anxiety. If anxiety us at the root of people falling for
conspiracies, then consider social media the fertilizer and the field.

I haven't hailed FB for squat. I don't even use it, but FB algorithms have
been responsible for one genocide already, and I won't give it credit for the
Arab Spring even for the small successes that were achieved.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-
facebo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-
genocide.html)

------
TheHeretic12
Point of Information: the phrase "conspiracy theorist" was developed and
fielded by the CIA as a counterintelligence effort.

Among other tactics, they wished to be able to use the term as a dismissal of
anyone who got information about their real operations. This is very well
documented, and is common among intel agencies of many countries.

It is also well documented, that the CIA and others (KGB etc.), have
intentionally spread disinformation, from AIDS to Apollo hoaxes, in the same
channel as (limited) legitimate information. This tactic is called "poisoning
the well," the limited real info is a "limited hangout." If you put those
terms into any search, youll find reams of documents detailing examples.
Usually, these are the actions of some foreign service, analysed and released
for the public service.

When the author began to align obviously false information with more credible
things, what he is seeing are these intentional networks of lies that our own
services have created. These things are not organic. He identifies common
psychological features in these posters, because the intel agencies strongly
select based on personality.

Also, how many of the accounts he investigated are bots? Was he able to prove
that real individual people were doing this?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Its been debunked already!

~~~
JoeSmithson
> "Point of Information: the phrase "conspiracy theorist" was developed and
> fielded by the CIA as a counterintelligence effort."

Why do you think this?

I had never heard this before, and to be honest it immediately gave off whacko
vibes, so I Googled it and found this article that says it is false -
[https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-
that-...](https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-the-cia-
invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-heres-why-132117)

~~~
ColanR
Original sources work better. Apparently, this where it all came from:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20191121033812/https://www.nytim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191121033812/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/cable-
sought-to-discredit-critics-of-warren-report.html)

------
mellow2020
I'm sure that even if we lived in (or better: actively maintained) a much more
sane and just world, some people, because they're sick or for other reasons,
would still try to find fault with it. But it wouldn't spread like a wildfire.

The rich are getting richer, people who start wars of aggression and whatnot
aren't punished, companies have battalions of lawyers and Jane Doe has
nothing, we are on the course for environmental collapse and mass extinction,
and so on. These are shorthands for huge and very much real issues. And yes,
conspiracy theories aren't helping, either, and many people spouting them
don't _really_ want to roll up their sleeves and turn this ship around. But
that's also true for many people obsessing about conspiracy theorists, too.

Let's say the emperor is naked. Most people say variations of "nice clothes!
maybe some issues here and there, but nothing major". Some people go "he's
butt naked!". And yet others go "he's wearing planet Jupiter as a hat!". The
latter are obviously wrong, but it's still just so awkward when the people who
think he has nice clothes on start to laugh at those thinking he is wearing
Jupiter as a hat, and lump everyone who doesn't think he's wearing nice
clothes into that category. It's as if the mainstream is using these even
sicker people to pretend it itself is not sick, contrary to the mountains of
evidence.

~~~
ghthor
> and many people spouting them don't really want to roll up their sleeves and
> turn this ship around

I don't know if I agree with you here.

> It's as if the mainstream is using these even sicker people to pretend it
> itself is not sick, contrary to the mountains of evidence.

I feel quite strongly that this is happening.

~~~
mellow2020
> > and many people spouting them don't really want to roll up their sleeves
> and turn this ship around

> I don't know if I agree with you here.

Would it help if "many" was changed to "some"? I was thinking of people who
are more interested in scapegoats than anything, but I didn't mean to make a
point about distribution, it was just to acknowledge that it isn't black and
white.

~~~
ghthor
Yes It does make it a little better.

------
nabla9
I have a cousin is into conspiracy theories and this explains him very
accurately.

He is highly intelligent and used to be very analytical but got sidetracked in
his life. Anxiety, disappointment and disenfranchisement describes his current
state. Year after he became unemployed he started to watch X-files and all
kind of conspiracy related entertainment. It was just entertainment. He saw it
was silly. Then became History Channel and conspiracy internet tubers and all
kinds of serious conspiracy stuff and it became more real to him.

Five years later he is deeply into that stuff. When we talk about it, he can
follow my thinking perfectly and usually realizes that those theories are
silly and laughs it off. Few hours later he is back into it. It's like he has
tracks in his brain. He has walked the path so many times that his thinking
goes back to the same things over and over. Maybe conspiracy theories protect
him from negative emotions and facts of his situation as long as he keeps
thinking them. He is harmless and nice person but his world view is crazy.

~~~
Avicebron
In this particular case then maybe it's worth (generally, not saying you in
particular) how he became anxious and disenfranchised. Maybe the problem isn't
the people themselves, but the systematic circumstances that lead people down
this road. If there's an upstream problem, then it's better to work on a fix
for that than to out of hand dismiss people as crazy.

~~~
thephyber
> Maybe the problem isn't the people themselves, but the systematic
> circumstances that lead people down this road.

What is the difference? Systemic circumstances define us if they occur for
long enough.

~~~
Avicebron
But empathy would dictate that we don't blame the victim of those
circumstances and work to change those such that the victim is defined by a
different set.

------
User23
The entire concept of "conspiracy theories" is a persuasive device. Calling
someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument, it's a rhetorical trick to
discredit and disqualify the target, independent of the truth value of the
target's claim. Or, as Harry Frankfurt calls it, bullshit.

I think I'm going to have to expand my list of normative sciences to four:

1) Logic, the normative science of what is true.

2) Aesthetic, the normative science of what is beautiful.

3) Ethic, the normative science of what is good.

4) Rhetoric, the normative science of what can be persuaded.

To be rigorous, which I admit often isn't worth the effort, one would have to
examine a so-called conspiracy theory along every one of those axes that's
germane.

~~~
dennis_jeeves
>The entire concept of "conspiracy theories" is a persuasive device. Calling
someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument, it's a rhetorical trick to
discredit and disqualify the target, independent of the truth value of the
target's claim. Or, as Harry Frankfurt calls it, bullshit.

Great analysis

------
Lammy
Why is it so weird that people will turn to non-mainstream sources to explain
a world that has been screwing them over for decades while mainstream sources
say everything is better than ever?

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-
us...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-
real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)

~~~
oblio
Who is claiming things are universally better?

~~~
frabbit
Stephen Pinker. Hans Rosling.

~~~
oblio
I don't know about the first one, but Rosling is right. The world as a whole
is doing better than it ever has. If you, personally, are about to be hit by a
2 ton truck, that's probably of not much comfort to you.

But it doesn't make him wrong.

~~~
frabbit
Just out of interest: you posed the question 'who is claiming that things are
universally better?' and you are now acknowledging that you are aware of the
arguments of a very mainstream (TED Talks, etc) source.

Why did you pose that question in response to the OP's explanation that some
people are frustrated at the disconnect between their lives and the very
standard narrative of a world which has benefitted from 'progress' in recent
history?

~~~
oblio
Because there is a huge burden of proof when you say "universally". It's
disingenuous to make claims such as those about Rosling. Risking was basically
fighting the 24/7 negative news cycle but it would be ridiculous to claim he
said everyone was better off. What he was saying was: things aren't going to
crap as you keep hearing and reading and statistically (key word:
statistically!), for the whole globe, things are kind of looking up.

~~~
frabbit
Do you think that your introduction of the word 'universally' accurately
reflected the ideas expressed by the person to whom you were responding?

------
yostrovs
Scientific American has changed its coverage drastically in the last few
yeard. If you look at the headlines, there's an incredible amount of articles
that discuss society, racism, government,etc. It's not science. This article
is yet another example.

~~~
blix
I find Scientific American has been deeply disappointing for 5 years if not
more. They infrequnetly cover meaningful science, and when they do try their
work is full of errors.

------
walterbell
If human language can be manipulated for commercial gain, it will be. Taken to
its logical conclusion, the economically contested term ceases to have any
meaning. Think of SEO search keywords or fashionable technology buzzwords
(cloud, big data, AI).

The adversarial weaponization of language by economically motivated actors
should not be confused with the use of language for communication. Real humans
have an amazing ability to communicate even on noisy channels.

------
sremani
I do not believe in all conspiracy theories and I do not ignore all conspiracy
theories.

When you understand that there are certain unprovable things and layers of
gatekeepers for what is called "news". You have to connect the dots - and some
would call it conspiracy theory.

~~~
thephyber
I think the attack on “news” gatekeepers is a red herring. The National
Enquirer has long been one of these, but they have never had any legitimate
journalism credentials.

I think it’s more important to distinguish that there are good faith
investigations into conspiracies and there are bad faith investigations (more
commonly called conspiracy theories, but this terminology is overloaded to
muddy the difference).

Good faith investigations acknowledge there are limits to what
government/power/authority is reasonably able to do. Conspiracy theorists tend
to attribute an impossibly high level of coordination, organization, ability
to execute with no leaks, believe contradictory theories, accept complex
assertions while rejecting simpler ones, etc. Additionally, people who believe
in one conspiracy theory are likely to believe in many. I would argue that
there’s a pathology in attributing the worst intentions to everyone in power
and an inability for believers to impartially weigh evidence against their
beliefs, so they aren’t incentivized to Only believe hypotheses with more
coherence.

------
holidayacct
If you want to be able to tell if a story is conspiracy or not ignore the
messenger of the theory. Integrate knowledge of psychology, behavioral biology
and basic physics. You're going to find that a lot of conspiracy theories are
easy to prove or disprove.

------
winstonewert
It seems to me that there are two kinds of conspiracy theories which should
not be conflated.

On the one hand, there are theories which postulates a conspiracy to explain
the available evidence. Nothing wrong with that, sometimes that is the correct
explanation.

On the other hand, there are theories which invoke a conspiracy to invalidate
the available evidence. Such theories are unfalsifiable, no evidence could
possibly prove them wrong because all contrary evidence is just part of the
conspiracy. This kind is problematic because its necessarily unhinged from any
evidence or reality.

------
arminiusreturns
I love how easily people see through bullshit articles like this. So tired of
coincidence theorists!

I ought to do a post some day: "I'm one of HN's resident conspiracy theorists,
ama."

~~~
JoeSmithson
What do you think is the theory you believe that is most outside the
mainstream?

~~~
arminiusreturns
Mainstream of of which community? Some things that seem out there to most
people are regularly accepted by the conspiracy community, and vice versa
sometimes too.

Almost any conspiracy theory of any depth is outside the mainstream.

The furthest in both cases would probably have to do with aliens (whether real
or fake but useful aka project blue beam). Or perhaps quantum mechanic related
phenomenon. Not saying these are ones I subscribe to but giving examples.

I'll give you an example of one that is very much not accepted: Pizzagate
(please don't misunderstand, I don't necessarily think pizzagate is "real", I
think it very much could be a limited-hangout, etc). To many it sounds
completely crazy, beyond ever being considered. For those of us who are aware
of the larger pattern it matches though, it fits into that pattern. A great
example of a similar case in which we have deductive evidence is the Dutroux
affair (aka the Belgian X-Files). Epstein was on the periphery of the same
type of operation, but was more of a front man/procurer, much like Dutroux. I
could list many similar examples (Franklin scandal, finders cult, Saville,
Jersey, Kinkora, Elm Guest House, Roy Cohn, etc) where we have witnesses and
testimony and evidence that usually got buried, assassinated, etc if it ever
got closer to the heart and away from the front men/fall guys (and gals,
looking at you Ghislaine Maxwell).

This is the power of inductive logic.

~~~
JoeSmithson
Yes sorry, I meant outside the non-conspiracy community.

For example (apologies if this is rude to ask, I don't know!) which of these
would you subscribe to;

\- Neil Armstrong did not walk on the moon

\- JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald

\- WTC towers were destroyed in controlled demolition

\-----------

EDIT: nevermind, you edited your comment - thanks!

------
emsign
What notion is really interesting to me is the underlying believe that if
"everything would be back to normal if those people responsible for this mess
were exposed and removed". The adversity to accepting that most of life is
just random and that evil things are a normal part of it is probably one
fundamental trait of a conspiracy theory believer.

------
csommers
Cool story. We’d still believe the Earth is flat (some idiots still do) if we
went by this logic and didn’t question the status-quo.

~~~
Lammy
Idiots == people who are questioning the status quo of their day?

~~~
krapp
If the status quo is trivially provable, and has been for thousands of years,
yes.

~~~
Lammy
If it were trivially provable to these people they wouldn't question it.

~~~
CyberDildonics
I'm sure we all wish that were true.

There are people who have flown around the world many times who have gone down
the flat earth rabbit hole.

Unfortunately the people who aren't confident they can actually learn about
what they are afraid of, or correctly judge probabilities of things being
true, spend their energy choosing who to believe instead of gathering
information and forming a coherent understanding.

------
olivermarks
I wonder if investigative journalists also share 'a cluster of psychological
features' too? Inquiring minds would like to know...

You can spot 'hallmarks of flaws' in official narratives, such as internal
contradictions in the “evidence” and contentions based on shaky assumptions,
and this makes thinking people question the mainstream media...

------
mythrwy
Maybe so.

I wonder if people who accept official or authoritative accounts of everything
in spite of overwhelming evidence also share a cluster of psychological
features?

------
vezycash
This article reads like string theory from big bang theory. A search for one
explanation that explains all.

With humans things rarely fit neatly.

------
yamrzou
> A 2017 study reported that believing in work-related conspiracies—such as
> the idea that managers make decisions to protect their own interests—causes
> individuals to feel less committed to their job.

That's not a conspiracy. It's a prior about the intent of others. Given that
we humans are generally selfish, it's a justified prior.

------
yters
can the opposite also be true, that people who refuse to accept true
conspiracies may also be anxious to preserve their worldview, ignore
contradiction, and eschew rational analysis for emotion ladden thinking?

e.g. this is the popular portrayal of religious people who refuse to accept
the claim their religions are massive lies made up to control and console

in which case these psycological factors may just be generally indicative of
people who have trouble accepting the truth when it contradicts their
cherished worldview, conspiracy or otherwise

on the other hand, if someone possesses this psychological makeup, and refuses
to accept a certain proposition, i am not sure there is much we can conclude
from this study. maybe they are being irrational, or maybe not. we would have
to examine the actual reasons they reject the belief, and not rely on
psychoanalysis, since if we did so it would ironically be irrational on our
part

------
dependenttypes
Remember that the NSA spying thing was considered a conspiracy theory until
the snowden leaks. Same goes for things like the Glomar Explorer. Being aware
that there are conspiracies and being sceptical is not a mental defect, but
rather a successful evolutionary strategy.

~~~
tropdrop
From the article:

> Encouraging analytic thinking may also help. In a 2014 study published in
> Cognition, Swami and his colleagues recruited 112 people for an experiment.
> First, they had everyone fill out a questionnaire that evaluated how
> strongly they believed in various conspiracy theories. A few weeks later the
> subjects came back in, and the researchers split them into two groups. One
> group completed a task that included unscrambling words in sentences
> containing words such as “analyze” and “rational,” which primed them to
> think more analytically.

Also:

> In addition, false conspiracy theories have several hallmarks, Lewandowsky
> says. Three of them are particularly noticeable. First, the theories include
> contradictions. For example, some deniers of climate change argue that there
> is no scientific consensus on the issue while framing themselves as heroes
> pushing back against established consensus. Both cannot be true. A second
> telltale sign is when a contention is based on shaky assumptions. Trump, for
> instance, claimed that millions of illegal immigrants cast ballots in the
> 2016 presidential election and were the reason he lost the popular vote.
> Beyond the complete lack of evidence for such voting, his assumption was
> that multitudes of such votes—if they existed—would have been for his
> Democratic opponent. Yet past polls of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants
> suggest that many of them would have voted for a Republican candidate over a
> Democratic one... A third sign that a claim is a far-fetched theory, rather
> than an actual conspiracy, is that those who support it interpret evidence
> against their theory as evidence for it. When the van of the alleged mail
> bomber Cesar Sayoc was found in Florida plastered with Trump stickers, for
> instance, some individuals said this helped to prove that Democrats were
> really behind the bombs. “If anyone thinks this is what a real
> conservative’s van looks like, you are being willfully ignorant. Cesar Sayoc
> is clearly just a fall guy for this obvious false flag,” one person posted
> on Twitter.

This article is about encouraging skepticism and analysis, not discouraging
it. Notice how it discusses _false_ conspiracy theories, as an acquiescence
that sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth.

~~~
ColanR
> acquiescence that sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth

If there was an intention of acknowledging the truth behind some theories,
they would / should have come right out and said so. As it is, the article is
sending a much clearer message that 'if people were to think analytically,
they wouldn't believe conspiracy theories'.

------
coinward
Why can't we just call them myths? Conspiracy theory has become so dismissive,
it can't be good for truth overall

------
giardini
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/)

Just a reminder!8-))

------
mrfusion
Cigarettes causing cancer was once a conspiracy theory.

------
White_Wolf
(sarcastic) summary: If you don't take things at fac(k)e value, you're not
part of the herd and would rather check the facts: you a conspirationist.

------
tal8d
Wow, not even a quarter of the way through and I'm seeing what would most
charitably described as "lies by omission". Also, I don't know if the writer
would prefer I assume she is stupid, or that she conspired with her editor to
structure things in such a way as to drive traffic through outrage - for
example:

"...claiming that Jewish people were stealthily supporting illegal
immigrants."

Well I'll go ahead and touch the third rail. There were a lot of non-profits
involved, some would obviously fit the the conspiracy theorist's description
(Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for example), others had 990s that further
strengthened the theory. Was there a shadowy conspiracy? I doubt it, the
majority of involved non-profits were classic left-wing open-borders types,
some communists, and a bunch of Christian alliances. So why lie instead of
presenting the results of a statistical sample?

"...positing that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a
child sex ring..."

Pizzagate was a 4chan inside joke that got taken seriously by people who
already had cause to be suspicious, and Epstein didn't kill himself. It
reminds me of something Saddam Hussein admitted under FBI interrogation: he
wanted the US to think he had WMDs, because that would cause his regional
adversaries to think the same. Obviously he miscalculated. After years of
weird spirit cooking talk and association with known degenerates, people are
going to start thinking you mean it.

Finally: does anybody remember the satanic panic? Surprise, there was a
government cover-up of weird cult ritual stuff involving abused children. If
you said so, for almost 30 years, you were a wacky conspiracy theorist...
until the FBI released the file to zero interest: [https://vault.fbi.gov/the-
finders](https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders)

------
andarleen
When i was little (14 or so) i used to read a lot about alien and Egyptian
mummies conspiracy theories, about various phenomena and was fascinated by
them. As i grew older i realised they were just stories. Wondering if some
people never left that intellectual development stage. A certain degree of
suspicion and caution around what governments do is healthy. But strongly
believing there are microchips in vaccines, and 5G networks are meant to cause
viruses that’s just adults with the analytical power of a child.

~~~
yters
The quantum magnetic dot is not exactly a microchip, but it does provide a
weak signal that can be read electronically, and could be administered during
a vaccination injection

UPDATE: here's the MIT article on their research.
[http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-
skin-1218](http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218)

"MIT engineers have developed a way to store medical information under the
skin, using a quantum dot dye that is delivered, along with a vaccine, by a
microneedle patch. The dye, which is invisible to the naked eye, can be read
later using a specially adapted smartphone."

~~~
vezycash
What I read is that the so called quantum dot is just invisible ink.

A stamp that tells the next health care worker if a person has been
vaccinated, when, the type...

My friend who believes in stuff like these seems to have a thinking impairment
in some areas. He latches on to the first idea his mind likes and never lets
go.

Example was two days ago. He downloaded GTA3 game.

The file was a 147mb 7zip archive. Which magically expanded 147mb expanded to
over 2GB after he ran a batch file!

He immediately started singing the praise of 7zip.

Without knowing any detail I told him the uploader was the wizard not 7zip.

He sent me the setup.bat file and the stuff became clear.

The uploader converted wav to MP3. MPG videos to low quality MP4.

The setup.bat used ffmpeg to upscale things.

No logical explanation from me changed his mind.

Last straw, told him to uninstall 7Zip and run setup.bat.

That was the end of the discussion.

~~~
yters
Here's the research article from MIT. [http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-
vaccine-history-skin-1218](http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-
skin-1218)

------
raincom
Another ad hoc explanation is sold as science. Just because a group of people
share some features, those set of features won't explain any thing.

------
calibas
I'm not convinced all the recent research on "conspiracy theorists" is
objective science. It seems politically motivated to me.

What bugs me the most is that authoritarians will use this as "scientific
proof" that people who question their government are mentally ill.

