Dennis Mancl - dmancl@acm.org
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The 30 articles in this book are an attempt to analyze the origins, psychology, and consequences of conspiracy theories: why they get started, why people believe them, how they are resistant to debunking, and what can be done to minimize the damage they may cause to society.
Uscinski wrote an overview essay to be the first chapter of the book - pointing to the conspiracy theories spread by politicians and their supporters in the 2016 election.
Uscinski also turned to discuss to the popular conspiracy theories in other countries. In France, some blame the French government for involvement in recent terrorist attacks. In Germany, some blame the government for covering up crime and violence perpetrated by Muslim immigrants. In Turkey, there are many popular conspiracy theories about foreign and outside political influence. Some of these conspiracy theories may have been used by the Turkish government to suppress opposition political parties.
Conspiracy theories are an important way for people with little political power to "undermine the establishment." Political partisans often blame some all-powerful billionaire for nefarious activities: the Koch brothers are a target of liberals and George Soros is blamed by conservatives.
I particularly like Chapter 6: Conspiracy Theories and Philosophy by R. X. Dentith (University of Auckland). The analysis starts with a proposed view of "Conspiracy theories are false beliefs." These conspiracy theories might be deliberately and secretly fabricated by a powerful group, or they might be just the manifestation of paranoia or widespread fear in a population that cause them to make up explanations to explain their fears. So conspiracy theories (in this viewpoint) are either carefully crafted for a purpose or they are irrational fabrications.
But many scholars argue that conspiracy theories are not always constructed as deliberately false. They might start as naive explanations of the world, but over time the advancement of knowledge and science continues to cast doubt on the validity of these folk theories. Note that even as certain worldviews become less and less tenable - the probability of their validity is shrinking with further scientific study - there are still adherents who cling to the old theories, and they use "conspiracy" as a mechanism to reject some of the new data.
This article touches on the social consequences of conspiracy theories. One reason why conspiracy theories are viewed as detrimental is that we most often view conspiracies as a sinister activity. In rare circumstances, a conspiracy theory might actually expose a true problem (government corruption, for example), but most of them are too unfocused and irrational... the conspiracy theory can't prove anything, but it may "weaken social bonds" and reduce belief in useful public institutions.
In the public realm, there is often a battle between the "official version" of some event or decision and one or more "unofficial versions." We don't know of an unofficial version is a real conspiracy theory or not. The official story might be expressing a conspiracy theory. The author cites the 2003 buildup to the Iraq war (and the claims of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction on faulty evidence).
Chapter 7, On the Democratic Problem of Conspiracy Politics by Alfred Moore (University of York), is an analysis of the problem of "trust" and "distrust."
In a democratic society, both trust and distrust are important. It is a bit of a paradox: effective democratic governance requires that we trust our representatives to act in our interests, but we need enough distrust to keep them in check if they seek to abuse their power. In most cases, a "vigilant watchdog" who raises possible issues is a good thing - as problems are resolved, our trust in the system increases. A "questioning mindset" becomes a cooperative process. But... conspiracy theories create a negative spiral - where distrust promotes further distrust.
Representatives are constantly under pressure to "reason with their constituents" - even the people who have conspiratorial suspicions and fears. So partisan politics can make conspiracy theories more destructive over time. We have seen many intelligent and rational politicians who start to weasel about vaccines and global warming.
The second "mistrust" effect of conspiracy theories is the self-fulfilling prophesy of distrust. We would like to think that if we select good government leaders, they will have the self-motivation to do an effective job. But we might wind up making our voting decisions based on the assumption that we have to keep voting out the bad guys... the leaders who seem to act in their own interests and always need to be carefully watched. "Treating people as being incapable of acting morally can be a self-fulfilling treatment." We see the same when a company or a government agency establishes an "audit culture." He cites the philosopher Onora O'Neill: "Plants don't flourish when we pull them up too often to check how their roots are growing: political, institutional, and professional life too may not flourih if we constantly uproot it to demonstrate that everything is transparent and trustworthy." So distrust may make the authorities less trustworthy over time.
This idea is expanded in Chapter 8: The Politics of Disruption by Matthew Atkinson (Long Beach City College) and Darin Dewitt (California State University, Long Beach). They discuss an important political tactic for minority parties - changing the subject.
Instead of trying to use direct persuasion to win over the electorate, "activating new issues" is a way to win. Politician might reframe existing problems and challenge existing norms. It's a kind of innovation of ideas that can sometimes pay off.
Conspiracy theories can help. They can increase the turbulence in the current political arguments. Simplistic solutions often rise to the top: "reduce regulation," "cut taxes," and "soak the rich," have been recent political rallying points - whether or not they are rational. This chapter gives a few good recent political examples.
Chapter 9, Learning about Conspiracy Theories, takes on some of the issues related to science and communication about risk. The chapter goes through a number of issues related to nuclear power and the Fukushima disaster in Japan. In this disaster, there were many sources of misinformation that scientists needed to counter.
Chapter 10, In Whose Hands the Future?, is an entertaining personal story by Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Bristol) about his studies of the conspiracy theories related to climage change, including a lot of hate mail and blog posts. Lewandowski is an expert Cognitive Scientist, and he has done significant work in the field of "debunking" false claims.
This chapter is an event-filled account of a study of science denial. Lewandowski conducted a survey of visitors to climate blogs in 2010 - and he published results in early 2012. The paper, NASA Faked the Moon Landing - Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax, is an analysis of "motivated rejection of science." This paper caused a huge uproar, including ethics charges (although survey participants did have to submit consent forms, and Lewandowsky was careful to get ethics approval for the survey).
When Lewandowski decided to write a followup paper, the story swerves into a discussion of defamation. One good Lewandowski quote: "My view on this issue is that scholarly analysis of public speech is an essential scientific and public good. The idea that it would not be permissable, say, to analyze the meaning and implications of President Trump's tweets without his consent is incompatible with democracy." Posting comments or complaints on a public blog is public speech - often by actors who seek publicity, even if they are using a pseudonym.
Chapter 12, Conspiracy Thinking, Tolerance, and Democracy, is Steven Smallpage's analysis of how best to tolerate conspiracy theories as part of academic debate. Smallpage explains that it is a matter of where you draw the line between healthy and unhealthy suspicion. One of the problems we see when we talk with a motivated advocate of a conspiracy theory in an educational setting... they are fixated on their theories. These people tend to be less engaged in traditional politics, but also less curious and less open to learning - and curiosity and learning are fundamental values in any educational community.
Chapter 16, Conspiracy Theory Psychology is an initial attempt by Michael Wood (University of Winchester) and Karen Douglas (University of Kent) to explain the kinds of people who engage in conspiracy theories, and how their worldview and states of mind are important. Conspiracy theory belief correlates with more interpersonal mistrust. People who believe more conspiracy theories not only mistrust government, they are less trusting of other people in general (friends, neighbors, and co-workers). Also, there seems to be a link between people who are skeptical of conspiracy theories and those who are skeptical of the paranormal, alternative medicine, urban legends, and extreme politics.
The authors talk about the connections between pattern recognition and conspiracy theory belief. They talk about holistic and intuitive thinking - people who see broad patterns and recognize trends at the cost of ignoring some smaller details. The opposite - sometimes called analytical or rational thinking - is focusing on details and interrelationships between part of a system at the expense of looking at the whole. We all use some of both, but "when thinking more analytically, conspiracy theories seem much less plausible than otherwise."
Attitude about some people or groups can also have an impact on the believability of a conspiracy theory. Sometimes it reinforces an individual's prejudice against the rich and powerful - and some people just love believing that there is a conspiracy covering things up. If there is a hint of immorality, some conspiracy theories about them reinforces our suspicions.
Chapter 30, Empowerment as a Tool to Reduce Belief in Conspiracy Theories by Jan-Willem van Prooijen (VU Amsterdam) examines some ways to fight conspiracy theories without the effort of "debunking." Many people adopt conspiracy theories because they feel powerless, so "empowerment" might be one approach to reduce the lure of conspiratorial thinking. This idea goes back to a 1964 essay by the political scientist Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Conspiracy theories allow people to comprehend complex but distressing events by simplifying them into explanations that blame powerful people. Empowerment is the feeling that one is in control of one's own life and can influence the decisions that shape one's future - which may make us less suspicious. Van Prooijen introduces the idea of "procedural justice" as a way to make a difference. If we see the processes for running society as being fair and open, and we get a chance to include our input, we may feel more empowered and less paranoid.
This book is a great resource for multiple ways to view the sources and values of conspiracy theories, and there are some practical lessons we can take from the authors. Everyone believes in some conspiracy theories - and there are so many. Both conservative and liberal politicians resort to conspiratorial thinking, sometimes just to follow their constituencies. Conspiracy theories and anti-science attitudes go together.