I want to do something with this. Please forgive me, if it seems obtrusive to your thread purpose; my intention is not to discourage
anyone from reading this work. But I find the impulse to point out "how" such works can truly be at least damaging, and at worst wrong-minded about what a "conspiracy theorist" is and is most definitely
not.
For example, the abstract.
[for those unfamiliar, the abstract, in most academic publishing (as this seems to be,) is simply a place to condense and summarize the totality of the authors' purpose... the simplistic who, what, where, how, and/or why of the message.
Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event.
A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States.
Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law.
The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined.
Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality.
Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy.
Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.
Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.
The sentence beginning "
Many millions..." is a very neutral beginning. It points to a very specific thought, name that "
powerful people" have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event." It doesn't indicate the person holding belief is incorrect. So essentially it doesn't matter if the "conspiracy theorist" has a point or not. Simply holding the belief casts the individual under the author(s) presuming judgement.
The continuing example offered is ultimately self-defeating. There are numerous things wrong with the idea that an example should be so 'tabloidesque' within a presumably serious treatise and would appear to be intending to serve as a foundation for widespread generalization; the example seems unlikely to apply to "any and all" conspiracy theorists.
Another tremendously strong indicator of impending bias is demonstrated the sentence that starts as "
Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks..." is brazen fear-fodder. The authors seem to be engaging in propaganda, making anyone who thinks conspiracies exist a threat. Almost as if it was made to be marketable for a specific interest.
The following... "
The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined." Lays out the true reason for the document. 1) resolve a describable "mechanism" that makes 'conspiracy theories" a "thing," and 2) how to eliminate them. That's fairly direct... but it also demonstrates exactly "how" they intend to create the narrative of this work.
The truth is the only way to "eliminate" any conspiracy theory is to destroy the conspiracy through illumination (or simply don't conspire in the first place.) Since this apparently cannot be done, what they choose to do is characterize any such "theorist" as deviant (read 'dangerous'.) They also telegraph that they intend to proceed with the tactic of "never talk about the contextual conspiracy, focus on the conspiracy theorist(s)" as a main effort.
As if to confirm my point, re-read the first phrase of the next line ...
"Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences..." as "
Such theories typically spread as a result of [stupidity] ..." Congratulations... every reader inclined to embrace your expertise can now feel superior to all "conspiracy theorists" as I'm certain the authors would strongly agree. Then they follow with "
informational and reputational influences..." which is clearly code for [lies and bias].
Then, their ultimate coup d'gras "A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality." To which I can only respond one of two ways ... NO, you are describing paranoia, not conspiracy theories ... or ... In fact, all proper "theories" are 'self-sealing' - if they weren't, they wouldn't survive inquiry.
Insofar as the line "
Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy." I can only imagine that he has met many for whom that may be true, but flagrant generalizations are to be expected at this point. But if that were universally true, we would have to start considering them a form of religious expression, wouldn't we?
Finishing up, "
Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a “crippled epistemology,” in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups." I think this is most egregious... for one thing, epistemology is wrongly applied here, perhaps "social epistemology," if anything... but the impulse to characterize the dilemma of "dealing with conspiracy theorists" in the light of some religion-equivalence is just unavoidable with this approach... which leads to the "punch"... "
...cognitive infiltration of extremist groups..." ... Just WOW!... can anyone explain "extremist groups" in terms of general conspiracy theory?
Given the thrust of this abstract I can only imagine where their considerations are as to "ignore" or "acknowledge" conspiracy theories as a matter of top-level policy will go.
I am not at all ungrateful that this work exists, if for no other reason than to understand the fear which certain groups wish to instill in the common understanding of "people who believe... conspiracy ... " But I am not hopeful that this is to be nothing more than "support doctrine" for those who just want to say to all conspiracy theorists.... "Just stop... OK? ... Just stop!"
Thanks for the link! You Rock!
