05-09-2024, 06:03 PM
This post was last modified 05-09-2024, 11:22 PM by Maxmars. Edited 1 time in total.
Edit Reason: spelling
Another TLDR from me...
I may be alone in my interest in the way the term "conspiracy theory" is used in today's society. It probably has to do with my... natural disaffection with how casually the words are thrown around, steeped in tropes, memes, and bias... with utter disregard for truth... or fact. This thread is inspired, ultimately, by the recurrence of a practice in popular media to presumably "educate" people about "conspiracy theory" and regrettably, in the final analysis, "conspiracy theorists."
A short fictional story with many unfair characterizations:
An intelligent, well-educated person has had encounters with people whom she believes suffer from an affliction. The affliction is not medical, nor even strictly behavioral. But it manifests in these people choosing to take on an obtusely inquisitive approach to events and assertions about which they find inconsistencies. The events and assertions are all 'normal' and acceptable as they are, in her opinion.
Over time she amasses a series of personal observations. The subject of these observations is simplified and coalesces into a term she embraces to categorize them; "conspiracy theorists." She finds many of these conspiracy theorists often rely on communicative practices and characteristics that can be used to define patterns, and has created a 'wish list' of sorts; a list with which she can project the weaknesses of the conspiracy theorists she has observed on all such people who risk challenging what she deems 'normal' and 'acceptable'...
For the record, I believe: Conspiracy theories are universal in the human condition. It is a function of collaborative, or collective analysis of the shared environment. It is something that - taken at its true meaning - is not exclusively the stuff of paranoia, personal weakness, nor even evil.
Humans plan... always... and those plans are most often benign and run of the mill. When two people plan anything, and someone is deliberately excluded from the knowledge of it, a conspiracy exists. From surprises parties to social interventions, all manner of things all involve a degree of conspiracy... hopefully most are not 'bad' or 'evil.'
A theory is an idea of "how" something takes form and holds it, it is an expression of modelling - another particularly "human" thing to do... humans 'model' everything.
The sense of the main objection we see continuously in "conspiracy theory" discussions is that it is a repugnancy - it should be shunned socially, if not , it is the subject of disdain... only exceptional cases merit consideration... as long as the boundaries of 'conspiracy' are strictly contained within an almost always undefined 'acceptable' range. Those who shun conspiracy theory are the only one's empowered to ascertain its actual validity...
I will be referring to one professor who crafted a 7-step guideline telling us how we judge if a conspiracy theory is false... without ever considering the theory itself... just it's form and how it is communicated. The author speaks authoritatively, with conviction... but I have some issues (as those of you who know me thought I might.)
From Digg.com: How To Tell If A Conspiracy Theory Is Probably False
Subtitled: Conspiracy theories abound. What should you believe — and how can you tell?
Under any other circumstances, me telling you "what you should believe" and "how you can tell what to believe" should be considered presumptuous and wildly pretentious. Belief is an existential and personal aspect of being human. Frankly, I have, for most of my life, endured a modicum of uncertainty about everything I believe. It appears to me as an unavoidable function of "believing" anything. But perhaps that's just me.
From the publication:
People believe false conspiracy theories for a wide range of reasons – including the fact that there are real conspiracies, like efforts by the Sackler family to profit by concealing the addictiveness of oxycontin at the cost of countless American lives.
The extreme consequences of unfounded conspiratorial beliefs could be seen on the staircases of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and in the self-immolation of a protestor outside the courthouse holding the latest Trump trial.
But if hidden forces really are at work in the world, how is someone to know what’s really going on?
That’s where my research comes in; I’m a social psychologist who studies misleading narratives. Here are some ways to vet a claim you’ve seen or heard.
There are already some points within the introduction which merit analysis, but since this is derivative work, I'll forgo any extensive effort because some of the elements may be associated with the 'reworked' and not the original material (which I could not locate.) I will limit my comments to the fact that "social psychology" is tackling this subject as if it were a problem, rather than a normal situation. I point out the use of the phrases "false conspiracy theories," and "unfounded conspiratorial beliefs," are prejudicial and can all be considered hallmarks of "misleading narratives." (Also, 'vetting' is an exercise that requires focused diligent effort, not casual knee-jerk judgement.)
The seven steps the author offers are:
Step 1: Seek out the evidence
Step 2: Test the allegation
Step 3: Watch out for tangled webs
Step 4: Look for a motive
Step 5: Seek the source of the allegations
Step 6: Beware the supernatural
Step 7: Look for other warning signs
In her "Step 1: Seek out the evidence" our author acknowledges that some conspiracy theories have been confirmed... because there was evidence found. Then she adds...
But unfounded conspiracy theories reveal their lack of evidence and substitute instead several elements that should be red flags for skeptics:
Dismissing traditional sources of evidence, claiming they are in on the plot.
Claiming that missing information is because someone is hiding it, even though it’s common that not all facts are known completely for some time after an event.
Attacking apparent inconsistencies as evidence of lies.
Overinterpreting ambiguity as evidence: A flying object may be unidentified – but that’s different from identifying it as an alien spaceship.
Using anecdotes – especially vaguely attributed ones – in place of evidence, such as “people are saying” such-and-such or “my cousin’s friend experienced” something.
Attributing knowledge to secret messages that only a select few can grasp – rather than evidence that’s plain and clear to all.
Never dismissing "traditional" sources is ultimately equivalent to saying "traditional sources" are always admissible"... that there can be no reason to question them... does she not remember the COVID "pandemic" and the ongoing "vaccine" debacle?
Can anyone remember when there was NO traditional sources offering information about something (UFOs anyone?)
When the only available sources were non-"traditional" should they be excluded from consideration? How will 'fact' be determined if you are excluding information? Had the cigarette companies not "hidden" their knowledge? The only sources for that "proved" conspiracy were anecdotal, and none were "traditional." Cigarette company "secrets" existed, did they not?
When data which should be equivalent contradicts, is that not an inconsistency? Someone referring to that as "lies" may be a way of saying a "purposeful" inconsistency? That "someone" is NOT the theory itself. (A common counter-tactic to oppose a theory is to assume the speakers weaknesses in argumentation belong to the theory, not the person... it's a choice she makes.)
"Lack of evidence" as a primary reason to completely eject any theory is unscientific. Most theories lack evidence, hence their status as "theory." That which you might regard as "evidence" is NOT always "plain to see" and "out in the open." Shall we presume it does not exist, or invalidate it out of hand?
In Step 2: Test the allegation she makes generalizations that lack strength, because they single out theorists of the conspiratorial kind... ignoring that her observations are not so restricted.
Often, a conspiracy theorist presents only evidence that confirms their idea. Rarely do they put their idea to the tests of logic, reasoning and critical thinking.
While they may say they do research, they typically do not apply the scientific method. Specifically, they don’t actually try to prove themselves wrong.
So a skeptic can follow the method scientists use when they do research: Think about what evidence would contradict the explanation – and then go looking for that evidence.
Sometimes that effort will yield confirmation that the explanation is correct. And sometimes not. Like a scientist, ask yourself: What would it take for you to believe your perception was wrong?
Here, she speaks of conspiracy theorists specifically, not conspiracy theory. Part of a 'redirect' that when reversed is often characterized as "mean spirited" and more.
For example: "Often, a conspiracy theorist presents only evidence that confirms their idea..." To which I might say, "No. you're thinking of politicians, sales staff, marketers, economists, stock brokers, research investigators, and religious zealots..."
In fact, the entire point of talking about a "conspiracy theory" is to tell "why you are considering it" which accounts for focusing on that which confirms it. So the description of that practice as a "negative" is biased and prejudicial... and avoids the reality that this is what many people do when the try to explore any topic.
Modern academic social exploration of conspiracy theory is largely 'unscientific' so far, relying heavily on personal characterizations, and transient social considerations. Often focusing on the nature of the "theorists" and projecting their findings on any and all theories.
No one casually tries to "prove themselves wrong" and that is not how most I know of try to affirm their positions, theoretical or not. Science distinguishes itself in that concept is directly incorporated in the scientific 'method'... or at least it used to be, before "appearances" became a common mantra of science publication.
Frankly I have personally found many people became conspiracy theorists when they pursued the scientific method and found that some cherished assertion wasn't consistent with reality. But that is just me.
In Step 3: Watch out for tangled webs our esteemed author recognizes something perennial in some conspiracy theories... multi-interest conspiracies which endure over longer time spans, characterizing them as a "tangled web" to be 'watched for" as an indication of invalidity.
When theories claim large groups of people are perpetrating wide-ranging activities over a long period of time, that’s another red flag.
Confirmed conspiracies typically involve small, isolated groups, like the top echelon of a company or a single terrorist cell. Even the alliance among tobacco companies to hide their products’ danger was confined to those at the top, who made decisions and enlisted paid scientists and ad agencies to spread their messages.
False conspiracies tend to implicate wide swaths of people, such as world leaders, mainstream media outlets, the global scientific community, the Hollywood entertainment industry and interconnected government agencies.
The online manifesto of Max Azzarello – the man who self-immolated on the steps of a New York courthouse in April 2024– railed against a conspiracy allegedly including every president since Bill Clinton, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, even the writers of “The Simpsons.”
Remember that the more people who supposedly know a secret, the harder it is to keep.
I hate to directly invalidate some ideas, because they are almost never 'absolutely' wrong. But trying to create an impression that only "small" groups are capable of being a foundational element of a conspiracy is simplistic and wishful. I probably don't have to get into examples of published long-range plans of certain global ideologies to 'affect' their enemies, of large-scale exploitations of cabals of industrialists to 'fix' markets for exploitation, or even local political shenanigans carried out to effect purely political ends... many non-conspiracy theorists acknowledge them openly now. She does not, apparently they can't exist.
Her final thrust in this segment is to evoke the public behavior of a troubled man... thus forever associating it with "conspiracy theory." His troubles are now forever associate with ALL conspiracy theory. Yes, I find that weak.... and by the way when a lot of people know something it is NOT a secret... that doesn't mean it is not conspiracy.
She advises us in Step 4: Look for a motive that an idea of motive should be considered. She is correct. I'm uncertain of exactly who the "conspiracy theorist" are who make up the bulk of her 'observations'... I for one have never heard that the existence of Finland was in question... but the idea of excluding "agendas" as a motive seems oddly highlighted.
Confirmed conspiracies tell stories about why a group of people acted as they did and what they hoped to gain. Dubious conspiracies involve a lot of accusations or just questions without examining what real benefit the conspiracy nets the conspirators, especially when factoring in the costs.
For instance, what purpose would NASA have to lie about the existence of Finland?
Be particularly suspicious when conspiracies allege an “agenda” being perpetrated by an entire sociodemographic, which is often a marginalized group, such as a “gay agenda” or “Muslim agenda.”
Also look to see whether those spreading the conspiracy theories have something to gain. For example, scholarly research has identified the 12 people who are the primary sources of false claims about vaccinations. The researchers also found that those people profit from making those claims.
Most allegations of agendas that I was aware of regard "agendas" as the stuff of individual machinations... ultimately, one. That situations and circumstances could be so affected by a single person, or idea, or ideal shared between persons, is not the stuff of "fear" but instead of intrigue to the conspiracy theorist.
How each individual characterizes that intrigue is personal... and often fraught with whatever baggage the conspiracy theorist brings to it. Whether passion or compulsion drives the theorist into 'supposition' masquerading as deductions is a personal affectation - not all theories are built upon this. That reality is, however, easily preyed upon to dismiss a theory 'out of hand.' This seems reasonably natural.
When a racist holds a theory, he or she will accommodate that bias in all narratives, almost without fail. It is not pertinent to any but the most egregiously specific racially constructed theories. You know the kind, and you know from whom you hear them... yes... those conspiracy theories. While there are only a few of those kinds of conspiracy theories, there are many (many) people suffering from some form of bias.
But racially aligned conspiracy theories do not represented ALL conspiracy theories by any means. Most have absolutely nothing to do with race or "flavor of human" at all. Most have to do with some single-purposed ambition, towards whatever gain can be ascertained by deduction. Conspiracy theories are a mystery, not a vice. A vice is what people engender, through their own internalization of passion and desire... Conspiracy theories are just collections of data, some reliable, some not so much.
Perhaps inexplicably (perhaps not) there has been an ongoing and pervasive projection of negativity onto any theorist... regardless of the actual subject of inquiry.
Step 5: Seek the source of the allegations seems to imply that knowing who asked the first question... once again dropping back to the default position of making the conspiracy theory about the 'validity' of the person communicating it, not the subject itself. If you find the person objectionable in any way, the theory can be ignored.
If you can’t figure out who is at the root of a conspiracy allegation and thus how they came to know what they claim, that is another red flag. Some people say they have to remain anonymous because the conspiracists will take revenge for revealing information. But even so, a conspiracy can usually be tracked back to its source – maybe a social media account, even an anonymous one.
Over time, anonymous sources either come forward or are revealed. For instance, years after the Watergate scandal took down Richard Nixon’s presidency, a key inside source known as “Deep Throat” was revealed to be Mark Felt, who had been a high-level FBI official in the early 1970s.
Even the notorious “Q” at the heart of the QAnon conspiracy cult has been identified, and not by government investigators chasing leaks of national secrets. Surprise! Q is not the high-level official some people believed.
Reliable sources are transparent.
I kind of recoil at this content...
The identity of "Deep Throat" was revealed decades later, although the way it is presented here seems to indicate that "we all knew all about "Deep Throat."
Judging by the "Q" assertion, it seems clear that the author still doesn't get "Q" and simply believes "traditional" media reporting and nothing else.
And as for the last line... "Reliable sources are transparent." I can't resist the urge to simply ask... "Really? You just said that.... really?"
Coming in at Step 6: Beware the supernatural Some more convenient wordsmithing comes into play... attributing validity based on the way you characterize "theory." Conflating fandom and zealotry, misjudging timelines, and making broad assumptions.
Some conspiracy theories – though none that have been proven – involve paranormal, alien, demonic or other supernatural forces. People alive in the 1980s and 1990s might remember the public fear that satanic cults were abusing and sacrificing children. That idea never disappeared entirely.
And around the same time, perhaps inspired by the TV series “V,” some Americans began to believe in lizard people. It may seem harmless to keep hoping for evidence of Bigfoot, but the person who detonated a bomb in downtown Nashville on Dec. 25, 2020, apparently believed lizard people ran the Earth.
The closer the conspiracy is to science fiction, the closer it is to just being fiction.
The reason they are called 'theories" is precisely because they haven't been proven. Faulting a theory because it hasn't been proven is circular, and most people will figure that out... I don't think the author is helping her case here.
By the way, people have maintained a firm belief in "reptilians" for millennia. Apparently she thinks "Hollywood" actually 'created' the idea... When was the last time that ever happened?
Finally, the entire idea of Science Fiction is that it is fiction about scientific possibilities... Transmission of energy via wireless was science fiction for long time (relatively speaking)... would assertions about it's active suppression be a conspiracy theory; maybe it was... but it was demonstrably true. Almost anything we see and do was once closer to fiction than reality... where is the weakness in that assertion?
In Step 7: Look for other warning signs we find the "potpourri" category, whatever else.
There are other red flags too, like the use of prejudicial tropes about the group allegedly behind the conspiracy, particularly antisemitic allegations.
But rather than doing the work to really examine their conspiratorial beliefs, believers often choose to write off the skeptics as fools or as also being in on it – whatever “it” may be.
Ultimately, that’s part of the allure of conspiracy theories. It is easier to dismiss criticism than to admit you might be wrong.
Another attempt to conflate conspiracy theory with racists and racially motivated objectives. Yet another characterization of "conspiracy theorists" (not theories) being deficient in analysis, understanding, and manifesting ignorance. She does get one thing right though... "It is easier to dismiss criticism than to admit you might be wrong."
I hope I haven't made this too difficult to follow. A new friend of mine and I were discussing my ability to be incomprehensible from time to time, if so, I only hope you can forgive me...
Be well everyone.
MaxMars
I may be alone in my interest in the way the term "conspiracy theory" is used in today's society. It probably has to do with my... natural disaffection with how casually the words are thrown around, steeped in tropes, memes, and bias... with utter disregard for truth... or fact. This thread is inspired, ultimately, by the recurrence of a practice in popular media to presumably "educate" people about "conspiracy theory" and regrettably, in the final analysis, "conspiracy theorists."
A short fictional story with many unfair characterizations:
An intelligent, well-educated person has had encounters with people whom she believes suffer from an affliction. The affliction is not medical, nor even strictly behavioral. But it manifests in these people choosing to take on an obtusely inquisitive approach to events and assertions about which they find inconsistencies. The events and assertions are all 'normal' and acceptable as they are, in her opinion.
Over time she amasses a series of personal observations. The subject of these observations is simplified and coalesces into a term she embraces to categorize them; "conspiracy theorists." She finds many of these conspiracy theorists often rely on communicative practices and characteristics that can be used to define patterns, and has created a 'wish list' of sorts; a list with which she can project the weaknesses of the conspiracy theorists she has observed on all such people who risk challenging what she deems 'normal' and 'acceptable'...
For the record, I believe: Conspiracy theories are universal in the human condition. It is a function of collaborative, or collective analysis of the shared environment. It is something that - taken at its true meaning - is not exclusively the stuff of paranoia, personal weakness, nor even evil.
Humans plan... always... and those plans are most often benign and run of the mill. When two people plan anything, and someone is deliberately excluded from the knowledge of it, a conspiracy exists. From surprises parties to social interventions, all manner of things all involve a degree of conspiracy... hopefully most are not 'bad' or 'evil.'
A theory is an idea of "how" something takes form and holds it, it is an expression of modelling - another particularly "human" thing to do... humans 'model' everything.
The sense of the main objection we see continuously in "conspiracy theory" discussions is that it is a repugnancy - it should be shunned socially, if not , it is the subject of disdain... only exceptional cases merit consideration... as long as the boundaries of 'conspiracy' are strictly contained within an almost always undefined 'acceptable' range. Those who shun conspiracy theory are the only one's empowered to ascertain its actual validity...
I will be referring to one professor who crafted a 7-step guideline telling us how we judge if a conspiracy theory is false... without ever considering the theory itself... just it's form and how it is communicated. The author speaks authoritatively, with conviction... but I have some issues (as those of you who know me thought I might.)
From Digg.com: How To Tell If A Conspiracy Theory Is Probably False
Subtitled: Conspiracy theories abound. What should you believe — and how can you tell?
Under any other circumstances, me telling you "what you should believe" and "how you can tell what to believe" should be considered presumptuous and wildly pretentious. Belief is an existential and personal aspect of being human. Frankly, I have, for most of my life, endured a modicum of uncertainty about everything I believe. It appears to me as an unavoidable function of "believing" anything. But perhaps that's just me.
From the publication:
People believe false conspiracy theories for a wide range of reasons – including the fact that there are real conspiracies, like efforts by the Sackler family to profit by concealing the addictiveness of oxycontin at the cost of countless American lives.
The extreme consequences of unfounded conspiratorial beliefs could be seen on the staircases of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and in the self-immolation of a protestor outside the courthouse holding the latest Trump trial.
But if hidden forces really are at work in the world, how is someone to know what’s really going on?
That’s where my research comes in; I’m a social psychologist who studies misleading narratives. Here are some ways to vet a claim you’ve seen or heard.
There are already some points within the introduction which merit analysis, but since this is derivative work, I'll forgo any extensive effort because some of the elements may be associated with the 'reworked' and not the original material (which I could not locate.) I will limit my comments to the fact that "social psychology" is tackling this subject as if it were a problem, rather than a normal situation. I point out the use of the phrases "false conspiracy theories," and "unfounded conspiratorial beliefs," are prejudicial and can all be considered hallmarks of "misleading narratives." (Also, 'vetting' is an exercise that requires focused diligent effort, not casual knee-jerk judgement.)
The seven steps the author offers are:
Step 1: Seek out the evidence
Step 2: Test the allegation
Step 3: Watch out for tangled webs
Step 4: Look for a motive
Step 5: Seek the source of the allegations
Step 6: Beware the supernatural
Step 7: Look for other warning signs
In her "Step 1: Seek out the evidence" our author acknowledges that some conspiracy theories have been confirmed... because there was evidence found. Then she adds...
But unfounded conspiracy theories reveal their lack of evidence and substitute instead several elements that should be red flags for skeptics:
Dismissing traditional sources of evidence, claiming they are in on the plot.
Claiming that missing information is because someone is hiding it, even though it’s common that not all facts are known completely for some time after an event.
Attacking apparent inconsistencies as evidence of lies.
Overinterpreting ambiguity as evidence: A flying object may be unidentified – but that’s different from identifying it as an alien spaceship.
Using anecdotes – especially vaguely attributed ones – in place of evidence, such as “people are saying” such-and-such or “my cousin’s friend experienced” something.
Attributing knowledge to secret messages that only a select few can grasp – rather than evidence that’s plain and clear to all.
Never dismissing "traditional" sources is ultimately equivalent to saying "traditional sources" are always admissible"... that there can be no reason to question them... does she not remember the COVID "pandemic" and the ongoing "vaccine" debacle?
Can anyone remember when there was NO traditional sources offering information about something (UFOs anyone?)
When the only available sources were non-"traditional" should they be excluded from consideration? How will 'fact' be determined if you are excluding information? Had the cigarette companies not "hidden" their knowledge? The only sources for that "proved" conspiracy were anecdotal, and none were "traditional." Cigarette company "secrets" existed, did they not?
When data which should be equivalent contradicts, is that not an inconsistency? Someone referring to that as "lies" may be a way of saying a "purposeful" inconsistency? That "someone" is NOT the theory itself. (A common counter-tactic to oppose a theory is to assume the speakers weaknesses in argumentation belong to the theory, not the person... it's a choice she makes.)
"Lack of evidence" as a primary reason to completely eject any theory is unscientific. Most theories lack evidence, hence their status as "theory." That which you might regard as "evidence" is NOT always "plain to see" and "out in the open." Shall we presume it does not exist, or invalidate it out of hand?
In Step 2: Test the allegation she makes generalizations that lack strength, because they single out theorists of the conspiratorial kind... ignoring that her observations are not so restricted.
Often, a conspiracy theorist presents only evidence that confirms their idea. Rarely do they put their idea to the tests of logic, reasoning and critical thinking.
While they may say they do research, they typically do not apply the scientific method. Specifically, they don’t actually try to prove themselves wrong.
So a skeptic can follow the method scientists use when they do research: Think about what evidence would contradict the explanation – and then go looking for that evidence.
Sometimes that effort will yield confirmation that the explanation is correct. And sometimes not. Like a scientist, ask yourself: What would it take for you to believe your perception was wrong?
Here, she speaks of conspiracy theorists specifically, not conspiracy theory. Part of a 'redirect' that when reversed is often characterized as "mean spirited" and more.
For example: "Often, a conspiracy theorist presents only evidence that confirms their idea..." To which I might say, "No. you're thinking of politicians, sales staff, marketers, economists, stock brokers, research investigators, and religious zealots..."
In fact, the entire point of talking about a "conspiracy theory" is to tell "why you are considering it" which accounts for focusing on that which confirms it. So the description of that practice as a "negative" is biased and prejudicial... and avoids the reality that this is what many people do when the try to explore any topic.
Modern academic social exploration of conspiracy theory is largely 'unscientific' so far, relying heavily on personal characterizations, and transient social considerations. Often focusing on the nature of the "theorists" and projecting their findings on any and all theories.
No one casually tries to "prove themselves wrong" and that is not how most I know of try to affirm their positions, theoretical or not. Science distinguishes itself in that concept is directly incorporated in the scientific 'method'... or at least it used to be, before "appearances" became a common mantra of science publication.
Frankly I have personally found many people became conspiracy theorists when they pursued the scientific method and found that some cherished assertion wasn't consistent with reality. But that is just me.
In Step 3: Watch out for tangled webs our esteemed author recognizes something perennial in some conspiracy theories... multi-interest conspiracies which endure over longer time spans, characterizing them as a "tangled web" to be 'watched for" as an indication of invalidity.
When theories claim large groups of people are perpetrating wide-ranging activities over a long period of time, that’s another red flag.
Confirmed conspiracies typically involve small, isolated groups, like the top echelon of a company or a single terrorist cell. Even the alliance among tobacco companies to hide their products’ danger was confined to those at the top, who made decisions and enlisted paid scientists and ad agencies to spread their messages.
False conspiracies tend to implicate wide swaths of people, such as world leaders, mainstream media outlets, the global scientific community, the Hollywood entertainment industry and interconnected government agencies.
The online manifesto of Max Azzarello – the man who self-immolated on the steps of a New York courthouse in April 2024– railed against a conspiracy allegedly including every president since Bill Clinton, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, even the writers of “The Simpsons.”
Remember that the more people who supposedly know a secret, the harder it is to keep.
I hate to directly invalidate some ideas, because they are almost never 'absolutely' wrong. But trying to create an impression that only "small" groups are capable of being a foundational element of a conspiracy is simplistic and wishful. I probably don't have to get into examples of published long-range plans of certain global ideologies to 'affect' their enemies, of large-scale exploitations of cabals of industrialists to 'fix' markets for exploitation, or even local political shenanigans carried out to effect purely political ends... many non-conspiracy theorists acknowledge them openly now. She does not, apparently they can't exist.
Her final thrust in this segment is to evoke the public behavior of a troubled man... thus forever associating it with "conspiracy theory." His troubles are now forever associate with ALL conspiracy theory. Yes, I find that weak.... and by the way when a lot of people know something it is NOT a secret... that doesn't mean it is not conspiracy.
She advises us in Step 4: Look for a motive that an idea of motive should be considered. She is correct. I'm uncertain of exactly who the "conspiracy theorist" are who make up the bulk of her 'observations'... I for one have never heard that the existence of Finland was in question... but the idea of excluding "agendas" as a motive seems oddly highlighted.
Confirmed conspiracies tell stories about why a group of people acted as they did and what they hoped to gain. Dubious conspiracies involve a lot of accusations or just questions without examining what real benefit the conspiracy nets the conspirators, especially when factoring in the costs.
For instance, what purpose would NASA have to lie about the existence of Finland?
Be particularly suspicious when conspiracies allege an “agenda” being perpetrated by an entire sociodemographic, which is often a marginalized group, such as a “gay agenda” or “Muslim agenda.”
Also look to see whether those spreading the conspiracy theories have something to gain. For example, scholarly research has identified the 12 people who are the primary sources of false claims about vaccinations. The researchers also found that those people profit from making those claims.
Most allegations of agendas that I was aware of regard "agendas" as the stuff of individual machinations... ultimately, one. That situations and circumstances could be so affected by a single person, or idea, or ideal shared between persons, is not the stuff of "fear" but instead of intrigue to the conspiracy theorist.
How each individual characterizes that intrigue is personal... and often fraught with whatever baggage the conspiracy theorist brings to it. Whether passion or compulsion drives the theorist into 'supposition' masquerading as deductions is a personal affectation - not all theories are built upon this. That reality is, however, easily preyed upon to dismiss a theory 'out of hand.' This seems reasonably natural.
When a racist holds a theory, he or she will accommodate that bias in all narratives, almost without fail. It is not pertinent to any but the most egregiously specific racially constructed theories. You know the kind, and you know from whom you hear them... yes... those conspiracy theories. While there are only a few of those kinds of conspiracy theories, there are many (many) people suffering from some form of bias.
But racially aligned conspiracy theories do not represented ALL conspiracy theories by any means. Most have absolutely nothing to do with race or "flavor of human" at all. Most have to do with some single-purposed ambition, towards whatever gain can be ascertained by deduction. Conspiracy theories are a mystery, not a vice. A vice is what people engender, through their own internalization of passion and desire... Conspiracy theories are just collections of data, some reliable, some not so much.
Perhaps inexplicably (perhaps not) there has been an ongoing and pervasive projection of negativity onto any theorist... regardless of the actual subject of inquiry.
Step 5: Seek the source of the allegations seems to imply that knowing who asked the first question... once again dropping back to the default position of making the conspiracy theory about the 'validity' of the person communicating it, not the subject itself. If you find the person objectionable in any way, the theory can be ignored.
If you can’t figure out who is at the root of a conspiracy allegation and thus how they came to know what they claim, that is another red flag. Some people say they have to remain anonymous because the conspiracists will take revenge for revealing information. But even so, a conspiracy can usually be tracked back to its source – maybe a social media account, even an anonymous one.
Over time, anonymous sources either come forward or are revealed. For instance, years after the Watergate scandal took down Richard Nixon’s presidency, a key inside source known as “Deep Throat” was revealed to be Mark Felt, who had been a high-level FBI official in the early 1970s.
Even the notorious “Q” at the heart of the QAnon conspiracy cult has been identified, and not by government investigators chasing leaks of national secrets. Surprise! Q is not the high-level official some people believed.
Reliable sources are transparent.
I kind of recoil at this content...
The identity of "Deep Throat" was revealed decades later, although the way it is presented here seems to indicate that "we all knew all about "Deep Throat."
Judging by the "Q" assertion, it seems clear that the author still doesn't get "Q" and simply believes "traditional" media reporting and nothing else.
And as for the last line... "Reliable sources are transparent." I can't resist the urge to simply ask... "Really? You just said that.... really?"
Coming in at Step 6: Beware the supernatural Some more convenient wordsmithing comes into play... attributing validity based on the way you characterize "theory." Conflating fandom and zealotry, misjudging timelines, and making broad assumptions.
Some conspiracy theories – though none that have been proven – involve paranormal, alien, demonic or other supernatural forces. People alive in the 1980s and 1990s might remember the public fear that satanic cults were abusing and sacrificing children. That idea never disappeared entirely.
And around the same time, perhaps inspired by the TV series “V,” some Americans began to believe in lizard people. It may seem harmless to keep hoping for evidence of Bigfoot, but the person who detonated a bomb in downtown Nashville on Dec. 25, 2020, apparently believed lizard people ran the Earth.
The closer the conspiracy is to science fiction, the closer it is to just being fiction.
The reason they are called 'theories" is precisely because they haven't been proven. Faulting a theory because it hasn't been proven is circular, and most people will figure that out... I don't think the author is helping her case here.
By the way, people have maintained a firm belief in "reptilians" for millennia. Apparently she thinks "Hollywood" actually 'created' the idea... When was the last time that ever happened?
Finally, the entire idea of Science Fiction is that it is fiction about scientific possibilities... Transmission of energy via wireless was science fiction for long time (relatively speaking)... would assertions about it's active suppression be a conspiracy theory; maybe it was... but it was demonstrably true. Almost anything we see and do was once closer to fiction than reality... where is the weakness in that assertion?
In Step 7: Look for other warning signs we find the "potpourri" category, whatever else.
There are other red flags too, like the use of prejudicial tropes about the group allegedly behind the conspiracy, particularly antisemitic allegations.
But rather than doing the work to really examine their conspiratorial beliefs, believers often choose to write off the skeptics as fools or as also being in on it – whatever “it” may be.
Ultimately, that’s part of the allure of conspiracy theories. It is easier to dismiss criticism than to admit you might be wrong.
Another attempt to conflate conspiracy theory with racists and racially motivated objectives. Yet another characterization of "conspiracy theorists" (not theories) being deficient in analysis, understanding, and manifesting ignorance. She does get one thing right though... "It is easier to dismiss criticism than to admit you might be wrong."
I hope I haven't made this too difficult to follow. A new friend of mine and I were discussing my ability to be incomprehensible from time to time, if so, I only hope you can forgive me...
Be well everyone.
MaxMars
