belief, judgement, and clear thinking

Conspiratorial or conspiracist thinking (paranoid conspiracy%20theories’)

A type of naïve social theory, as well as a form of pattern-seeking  – important features involve:

·      Conspirators: those actors supposed by the ‘conspiracy theorists’ (conspiracists) to be perpetrating or perpetuating a conspiracy, for example, a plan to assassinate an important public official and then to suppress or more likely erase key information which, if scrutinized, would publicly expose the true nature of events, or, the capture of an extraterrestrial craft or communication with extraterrestrials and the steps taken to cover-up those happenings;

·      Saviours: those who believe they have uncovered “the truth” about the conspiracy and who energetically take on the responsibility and privilege of exposing the evil deeds;

·      Dupes: those who conspiracists believe have been mislead and manipulated by the conspirators – the more that the ‘dupes’ point to the unsupportive nature of the evidence and the ‘holes’ in the theory, the more likely it will be that Saviours see them as foolish and insensible to the dangers and implications of the conspiracy;

·      Scapegoats: those, minority groups or ‘outsiders’, who can provide a ready “fit” for blame in a conspiracy scenario, for example, members of U.S. intelligence services supposed to have committed the atrocities of 11^th of September to justify the course-of-action for America to launch itself into the so-called War-on-Terror.

·      Patsy: one who is alleged to be a naïve player in events and who is ‘set-up’ by the conspirators to ‘take the fall’, that is, be branded with the blame for the principle action or goal of the conspiracy, for example, Oswald in the presidential assassination;

·      Cover-up: a ruthless, pervasive concealment or elimination of evidence – or even the planting of false evidence – concerning the conspiracy, actively advanced or supported by Conspirators;

Conspiracists will contend that the sweep of their theory can “explain” all relevant facts concerning the events in question, insisting that their theory cannot on logical or empirical grounds be refuted because any potentially damaging information is only to be interpreted though the lens of their theory†, all the while relentlessly attacking critics and their presumed failings.

The psychological tendencies underlying or contributing to this thinking concern such things as:

·          People’s perception of a mismatch between the importance or significance of an event and the seemingly mundane or unremarkable nature of an official account or explanation for that event (implausibility);

·          People’s uneasiness with inconsistencies about and shortcomings with what is known of particular, especially unexpected and disturbing, events of importance or interest, and how this uncomfortableness affects our view of the world as a stable and predictable place, for example, officials telling us that the death of Princess Diana was merely the result of a tragic accident (unresolved doubts and worldview);

·          People’s proclivity to simplify the representation of events and relationships to aid in organizing and understanding these events and relationships in the attempt to make sense of the world (oversimplification);

·          In the face of jarring or disconcerting events people’s ever-present appetite for story-telling to find meaning and to “make sense” of things becomes even more prominent, leading us to construct fulfilling narratives into which we can place pieces of information seen as relevant to those events (schema, pattern-seeking).

Real conspiracies such as “Watergate” or the Pentagon Papers affair seldom remain concealed from the public for long.

The issue should not be whether those touting any given conspiracy theory are delusional and their theory ‘crazy’, but rather whether there seems a reasonable basis for taking any particular conspiracy theory seriously and utilizing one’s intellectual resources on a thorough examination of the ‘theory’ and a careful evaluation of the available evidence pertinent to it.

Asserted, but unsubstantiated (and quite likely ludicrous or odd) conspiracies include:

The Hidden+Cancer+Cure+conspiracy, the New+World+Order+conspiracy, and the British Secret Service/Government/Royal Family conspiracy+to+silence+Princess+Diana.

†Conspiracists will not shy away from arguing that any lack or paucity of credible evidence for their conspiracy theory is not because the ‘theory’ is false or fatally flawed, but is a testament to the remarkable effectiveness of the cover-up which has made sure that no convincing evidence of the conspiracy has been permitted to remain available for examination (see: irrefutable hypothesis).