Belief in conspiracy theories (CT) is driven by psychological mechanisms and is linked to other belief systems, such as religious beliefs. These theories have a real impact on people’s health, relationships, and safety, and are universal in that belief. They have ego-defensive benefits by making people feel important and help people rationalize their actions.
Recent research on conspiracy theories has tended to focus on beliefs that seem outlandish from a mainstream perspective. Conspiracy beliefs and an overarching conspiracy mentality are hot topics in psychology, not least due to potential societal costs. Conspiracy beliefs are higher in nations that are more corrupt, more collectivist, and lower in GDP per capita. The present research examined intergroup conspiracy beliefs in the United States and Chinese samples at the peak of the trade war.
The allure of conspiracy theories lies in their evolutionary origins, specifically in our capacity to communicate unrepresented threats. The most common theory is that it’s psychologically uncomfortable to live in a world where bad things just happen. Belief in conspiracy theories appears to be driven by motives that can be characterized as epistemic (understanding one’s environment) and existential (being safe).
In conclusion, conspiracy theories have a significant impact on people’s lives, with their appeal stemming from their ability to communicate unrepresented threats and their psychological discomfort.
📹 Conspiracy Theories and the Quest for Truth | Rachel Runnels | TEDxTexasStateUniversity
Conspiracy theories have piqued the public’s interest for centuries, and current culture gives no indication to expect any change.
📹 The 3 Reasons People Believe in Conspiracy Theories
Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire.
So we should discount anything that is labeled a conspiracy? There is a saying that just because you are paranoid does not mean that they are not out to get you. We need to look at all the information and then decide what has the most truth, as truth is not an all-encompassing thing. Most truths are based on assumptions and if that assumption is wrong then that truth is also wrong.
I found the talk pretty good, but the problem is, as she stated herself, not only do conspiracy theories follow this narrative, but storys also do (*insert list of cinema movies she mentioned here*). As do challenges in life themselves, for example a soldier making the decision to risk his life (and potentially take other’s) and going to war and the belief system he needs to build to come to such decisions. So the talk is really not about conspiracy theories alone, but about a deeply engrained kind of motivation system many of us seem to have (in our brains). What we really want to know are the other differences.
From my perspective, there are some problems with this presentation. * I found Ms. Runnells’ tone a bit too patronizing – she was talking down to her audience, as if she were a parent addressing children who lack the ability to apply critical thinking. She attempted to distill down all so-labeled “conspiracy theories” to fairy tales – stories that have no basis in reality. While that is certainly the case with some of these theories, it certainly is not the case with all of them. * The definition of a “conspiracy theory” she used is a straw man argument, especially in the use of the word “conjuring,” as if every theory involves an act of deception. * She attempted to equate events and beliefs that are not on equal footing. It’s absurd to compare the beliefs of the Flat Earth Society or the imagined death of Paul McCartney with the criminal acts of an assassination of a US president or a terrorist attack in New York, both of which led to profound changes in our society. But, of course, this plays into her view that anyone who questions the narratives presented by the corporate media and the government should be seen as someone who has emotional problems – very similar to a member of a cult who needs to be de-programmed. * There was little indication in her talk that she considered the serious examination of evidence as a factor in determining the truth or falsehood of a claim about a certain event. Nor did she make a distinction between rhetoric and evidence, implying that both are the same, nor did she raise the important question of who may benefit from a particular narration of an event.
A problem with this is that believers of one Conspiracy also believe in another. While there may be lots of information out there, there also lacks concrete knowledge that disqualifies the theory out of whole cloth. Conspiracy theories are predicated on the lack of concrete knowledge of an event. It requires a reliance on shared knowledge and that can have many interpretations.
Conspiracy Theory DEFINITIONS : 1. A theory that rejects the standard explanation for an event. 2. A belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a covert group: 3. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of deceptive plots that are largely unknown to the general public: Basically then, a person who does not believe a story, no matter if the story does not match the scientific facts is a Conspiracy Theorist ? So engineers and scientists are pretty much wasting their time then ?
CT continue to grow in popularity bc there are more questions than answers to most things that have happened. This woman is sad and ironic, she says theorists “shouldn’t blindly trust sources” and yet she says it’s astounding that CT are around Bc we have so much information now (implying that the info we get is 100% truth)
Of course, during The American Revolution, there were 50,000 to 70,000 Loyalists that fled to Canada during The American Revolution. Is that not where you are from TEDx? Oh…and Separatists during The American Revolution were Protestants especially in The New England States. Our American Revolution Dot Org knows all about that. Who are you TEDx to dictate America’s History especially when you come from Canada?
Great speech. She talked about how the conspiracy theory stories are written in a relatively easy narrative format, for most of the readers to understand. She could have mentioned that real scientific information, peer reviewed publications for example are written in a much dryer language, which may not appeal to everyone, perhaps even turn people away in frustration, since they cannot understand it. Our educational system needs much improvement in order for misinformation to be laughed at and ignored.
I truly hate blatantly biased opinions which negatively distort an idea or phenomena. Why use some ‘psychologists’ definition of what a conspiracy theory is (‘sinister plots’… ‘conjured’) which instantly show the direction of the talk is coming from a point of ridicule rather than focusing on the dictionary definition of the words ‘conspiracy’ and ‘theory’? Whether by design or through the sheer mass of absolute nonsense that has been given the ‘Conspiracy Theory’ title, in most people’s minds the term instantly dismisses the subject or the person trying to discuss the subject as a nut. As a result many actual Conspiracies not only don’t get the attention that they need but in most cases are totally ignored/ridiculed.
There are so many untruths in this presentation that it s difficult to know where to start. The most shocking part is when the presenter says in effect that conspiracy theories mislead you by making you feel like a Hero by asking you to choose what you believe and in effect by asking you to “think for yourself”. So in this presenter’s warped view of the world, we should not be thinking for ourselves but simply accept other people s opinions as our own. This is an orwellian presentation.
The other reason they don’t believe that people went to the moon is because it was $280,000 miles away and 280,000 mi back so round trip it’s over a half a million miles and that little thruster thing that that little the limb gave wasn’t enough to boost it but 280,000 miles let alone if there was another one orbiting the Moon that would give it enough thrust 280,000 miles was another reason people didn’t believe it
she is very condescending, which makes me not want to respect her opinion. She treats conspiracy theorists like they are silly children, comparing their beliefs to marvel movies (soy face). It isnt fake news that makes people think this stuff, its the actions and inactions of our leaders and the things their funders do that make them think this. Its their mistakes and their intentional actions that make them think this kind of thing.
The conspiracies that she is talking about are not even the real deal here, it goes far beyond that. You don’t even have to read on google or youtube or books or try to explain the psychology behing the conspiracy believers…. You just have to observe the world we live in and be aware of the effect it has on us to see what is really going on…To be the silent observer without judgment.
People who talk about conspiracies are deamd to be conspiracy theorists when really they should study the correct information 🙂 when really there all just theories and 99% of people don’t know what is real ..so really everyone is a conspiracy theorist. People really believe in language and love to talk when they don’t know what they are saying 🙃
The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book “The Underground History of American Education” historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today, it hasn’t been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is hard to lie to people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of logic or the art of rhetoric. ••• “Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori.” -Arthur Schopenhauer, “The Art of Controversy”, (“A priori” is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) •••••••••• “Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. ” -“Webster’s Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary” •••••••••• “Infer … v.,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence …” -“Webster’s Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary” •••••••••• “For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth.” -Celestine N. Bittle, “The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic”, •••••••••• “We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is”.
A useful lecture thank you. I would reconsider the use of language with the sentence; “Joseph Campbell created The Heroes Journey. I think he compiled transcutlural understandings of human development and wrote about the Heroes Journey. He did not ‘create’ it, being a universal archetypal process, it is part of every cultural narrative probably in every culture on earth. Because I have not studied all cultures, I used the word ‘probably’. It is also probably the journey every living creature makes. It seems to be a ‘physical life’ process rather than something specific to humans.
It’s so sad to see someone fall to this. Really a decent into madness. This article helped me a lot. It help me rationalize a friend’s behavior. I really sympathize with the ones that are isolating themselves due to their opinions on conspiracies. Next step is to figure out how to help. That’s a tough one cuz predispositions seem to be deep rooted.
My brother is like that. In my country there is extreme political turmoil due to an event in 2019, coupled with the pandemic. All this has led him to an exacerbation in those tendencies, polarizing his political view and of course being a pandemic negationist. It is completely impossible to have a nuanced conversation with him, everything is always redirected to the same groves and narratives. Every effort to have a discussion leads to a cascade of counterpoints that follow no consistency whatsoever in forming a unified opinion, just trying to “be right”. For him, we are sheep, asleep, willfully blind. It is really tedious for me to have conversations with him. I have tried to point out the deeper communication issue but he just defaults to some of his deeply researched groves of discourse and nothing gets through. I see right through to his anger and despair but I just don’t see how I can help him. It is just something that is so deeply intertwined with his ego that I don’t see a way for him to be set free from it. And it affects most of his relations with other people. In my family, we approach the issue by trying to just not engage, but I don’t see how that solves anything. Can you give some advice on how should I approach him?
Automatic denial of anything that could be labeled a conspiracy theory is no better than adopting a philosophy that completely inverts another that you despise. Ken Wilber said rightly that no one is smart enough to be wrong all the time. And let’s not pretend that the very feeling of superiority conspiracy theorists are being accused of is not a motivation of their detractors.
“distress as a result of feeling uncertain” i’ve been working on sitting with uncertainty. I know i personally have a tendency to latch onto whatever makes sense when my reality is uncertain. but in reading esoteric philosophy, ive begun to understand that there is value in just sitting with that distressing uncertainty. im not as good with words as this guy is, so i cant really explain why. but i’ve found im less likely to jump up into arms defending things i dont know for certain.
Perfectly unpacked! I will be revisiting this to get the words straight. I do want to add a thought here, though…the universe is far stranger than we can really conceive, and I’m not so sure Reptilians (etc, but I’m gonna zero in on these) aren’t real in some sense, even if it’s only a psychological impulse that plays out in the world & is subconsciously represented by the reptile (cold-blooded? base-brained?). I have never been inclined towards conspiracy theories, but I have had hallucinatory experiences which strongly suggested their reality anyway (which, going against my deep belief, caused me to question). This is just to say, I think some of these things become real the way our Gods have become real: they take on such strength as symbols that they are written into the etheric. (The unconscious? I struggle with terms.) Still I say, NO CONSPIRACY THEORIES! Because while they may be valid reality tunnels, they sure aren’t pleasant ones, and you can simply choose a different tunnel (liberation, individuation!).