Conspiracy theories. Why some people believe them.

[vnx205]

Rather than hijack one of the other threads in which we have been presented with a conspiracy theory, I have started a new one to discuss the phenomenon of why conspiracy theories are so popular.

I don't want to discuss any particular conspiracy but will need to refer to one to illustrate some of the points I want to make.

Often conspiracy theories are started and believed by people who didn't pay attention in class while the maths teacher was covering the topic of probability. If an unusual combination of events occurs leading to a very beneficial outcome, those who paid attention in maths lessons would probably say something along the lines of, "I couldn't have organised that better myself if I had tried." The conspiracy theorist would look at the same series of events and the outcome and their first assumption would be that it must have been arranged, because the outcome was so beneficial and that they had never seen that sequence of events before.

Conspiracy theories often appear to have the support of experts in the field. That is very easy to arrange. All that is needed is for the expert to be given a particular version of the facts and the desired answer will naturally be forthcoming.

For example, the claim is often made that only an expert marksman could have achieved what Martin Bryant did in the Broad Arrow Cafe. Of course experts will be impressed by the marksmanship if they have only some of the facts. If they learn that most of his shots were at point blank range and that some of them were fired into people lying wounded on the floor, they would be less impressed. There is plenty of evidence of just how close the gun was to the victims when it was fired. One woman had her eardrum damaged by the blast when she was shot in the back. That only happens at very close range.

If the experts assume or are led to believe that Bryant fired from a distance at moving targets, of course they respond with the answer the conspiracy theorist want. The fact is that when Bryant shot at people over longer distances, he missed a lot.

Give the expert the right information and they will give you the answer you want.

Often the reason people believe the conspiracy is because they simply don't understand that there is another simple explanation.

Much is often made of the fact that Bryant's lawyer took photos of him in gaol and had his camera confiscated. The reason offered by the conspiracy theorists is that it was part of some plot to prevent witnesses correctly identifying the gunman. That doesn't even make sense when you consider that Bryant's photo had already been published in national newspapers. Confiscating the lawyer's photos would not keep Bryant's appearance a secret.

The real reason the camera was confiscated is that unauthorised photography is forbidden in Australian gaols. Years ago, I was outside Grafton gaol, preparing to take a photo with my Brownie Box Camera, when a member of the prison staff rushed across the road and warned me that photos were not permitted.

There was no pointless attempt to keep Bryant's appearance secret. What happened was normal procedure. If conspiracy theorists don't know what the normal procedure is, they are able to dream up an explanation that suits them.

A further example of conspiracy theorists being unaware of normal procedure is the fact that Bryant was held in isolation. They see something sinister in this. The simple explanation is that prisoners who have harmed children tend to be at the bottom of the pecking order in prisons. Many of Bryant's victims were children. Had he not been kept isolated, he would almost certainly have come to harm. He was isolated for his own protection.

Those are just some of the reasons that conspiracy theories gain traction. Others are much simpler. Often they depend on the repetition of information that is quite simple wrong.

We all tend to want answers; we want things to make sense. Some people want simple answers to complex questions. The real world is complex. Often events occur which are hard to explain. As someone said, "Truth is stranger than fiction." Coincidences do occur. Unlikely events do occur. After all the chances of winning a lottery are depressingly small, yet someone always has the winning ticket.

Research has shown that the best indicator of whether a person will believe a conspiracy theory is that they believe other conspiracy theories. The belief is not a response to a single event; it is part of a world view held by the believer. The evidence is really irrelevant.

Believing in a conspiracy theory gives people a sense of power. They can convince themselves that in spite of the efforts of the government, multinational companies, Big Pharma, etc, through their own efforts they have found out the truth. That allows them to believe that they have outsmarted those authorities.

It may be that we all have some genetic disposition to believe conspiracies, but that most people look at the evidence and see that there is no need for a conspiracy theory to explain events. Evolution could explain why we instinctively imagine that we are surrounded by threats. The cavemen who always assumed that the rustling of leaves in the bush was just the wind rather than some predator would have been less likely to survive to pass on their genes.

I am going to take a leaf out of JohnF's book and repeat that I want this to be a discussion about why people believe in conspiracies. I don't want an argument about the Bryant case.

[isuzurover]

It is not just conspiracy theories, I think there is a cross section of the community who need some sort of cause to believe in. You find such zealots in a range of areas, however the main ones seem to be:

environmentalism
religion
health

However I have noticed that the conspiracy theorists also tend to have "fringe" views on many of the above issues as well.

I think it boils down to the mantra of Fox Mulder in the X-Files: "I want to believe"

[Sparksdisco]

It's all about building on obscure truths then telling believable lies.

Also building a sense of fear of the unknown and the unknown being bad.

[Chucaro]

IMO conspiracy theories are the result of lack of trust by people to those that have important positions in society like politicians, directors of organizations, church leaders,media, etc.
There is nothing new about them, just read the bible and talk about Judas and you have one there (Then again better no, this thread will go for ever )\

There are 3 main conspiracy types:
Systemic conspiracy theories
Superconspiracy theories
Event conspiracy theories ( We can classify Bryant's case in this one)
The case of some politician that have been removed from office also can be included in the Event type of conspiracies.

[jonesfam]

I don't believe in all that stuff!
The moon landings weren't filmed from Arizona, it was really outback QLD & there was no-one on the grassy knoll, Jackie shot him with a .22 pistol!

Really, after the GFC where a whole lot of banks in the world were definitely doing some very funny & secretive book keeping I can understand how some people could believe in some of this stuff, even I think that was some sort of conspiracy.

But I think some of it is just trying to not admit to reality & some of it is to blame others for your lot in life. I.E. If the USA Govt can take out 1000's of people & demolish 2 iconic buildings just to start a war they are definitely keeping ME down.

And, maybe, some people should just get a life. I Googled said Martin Bryant a while back, there were more sites about how he didn't do it than about the facts. To sit there & come up with that & then write a great big essay about it, get a life.
Worse than us writing about Land Rovers & conspiracy theorists.
Jonesfam

[4range]

I reckon any one that tries to debunk conspiracy theories, is probably in the employ of the CIA, & the secret society within the freemasons, & are only trying to prevent the truth from comming out!

Ok - I am crawling back into my hole now!

[korg20000bc]

Isn't this just another soapbox topic?

All it will do is create division among our members.

[frantic]

Let me give you an example of "false" conspiracy theorists. Where you agree with the evidence but not the proposed solution.
I understand and do not argue the massive evidence of global warming but do dispute the Gillard-brown / E.U/ U.K solution that even the U.K govt has proven to be a failure through their own figures. Put this up and you get labelled an -anti global warming conspiracy type.
I may take my kids to church but also teach them about evolution(not the 5k bunkum creationist spiel), Darwin and his work. It's about looking at all the evidence and forming an opinion, not cherry-picking half the facts or having a vested interest influence those presented and the course taken.

[superquag]

Cynicism and/or a very deep understanding of human nature...

Bear in mind that the disposition we refer to (loosely) as a 'psychopath' or 'sociopath' is found in disproportionally higher %'s amongst leaders/Pollies/rapidly upwardly mobile executives/greedy wannabees, it is no surprise that such folk are quite happy to trample on others to obtain their ends, whatever the motives.

Using the examples mentioned, I see no surprise in a survival situation (War, or my own political/military career...) in England witholding info on Pearl Harbour. The result of bringing the USA into the war and thus taking heat of the British 'justifies' such perfidy.

On the other end of the balance staff, Gen Macarthur was at one stage quietly but bluntly reminded that the longer-term interests of America were more important than supporting his requests for matieriel to defend Austrtalia and/or win battles in this area...
Or, Australia could be sacrificed for the greater good of America if the Leaders so determined. WE (Congress & faceless lobbyists etc) run the war, NOT you (a mere soldier and employee)...

Most of us exhibit empathy for our fellows, psycho/Sociopaths dont and can't. But they're adept at adapting themselves to 'interface' with us, behaving in whatever way they - correctly - interpret as being most beneficial for them.

People range in capacity and dispositions from the softest to the most vicious, and logically, the most intelligent and merciless - coupled with competance - are more likely to rise to positions of power, honour, riches and influence.
(- Four highly desirable 'assets' that can be parlayed into any and everything.)

Again, with a reference to 'Logic', groups of like-minded "winners'' are likely to band together to obtain an end, at the expense of everyone else. ie, Phoebus light bulb cartel, c1920.

As well as this, there is what I call GroupThink. A simple example is the excuse "Nothing personal, it's just Business" - says the hitman as he pulls the trigger.
If you push an idea long, hard and skillfully enough, the sheep eventually accept it. This can be called 'Propaganda', but 'Marketing' is the current term... - Just google 'Ed Bernay' and spend a long time.....

For the more indolent readers... click on this link. Propaganda by Edward Bernays (1928)

My last 2 cents worth... I have no problem with the existance of Conspiracies, the challenge is working out which ones are true...and which are the results of incompetance, miscommmunication, paralysing corporate structure and/or sheer bad judgement.
- Such as the wasted 30 minute warning of Peal Harbour.

Just don't start me on the Great Conspiracy of the Type II Diabetes Industry

[vnx205]

Isn't this just another soapbox topic?

All it will do is create division among our members.

Division isn't necessarily a problem. Differences of opinion appear frequently on the forum and don't seem to cause any problem.

For example, I have been following with great interest, (though at this stage just academic interest) the differences of opinion about wide V narrow tyres on the "Frazer Island" thread. I see those differences as enlightening rather than alarming.

Surely as long as the discussion is about the topic rather than the people who hold those views, the the discussion is worthwhile. I am interested in why people hold the views that they do. I had expected that some others might find i t an interesting topic.