The difference between real conspiracies and conspiracy theories
Real conspiracies exist. Volkswagen conspired to cheat emissions tests for their diesel engines. The U.S. National Security Agency secretly spied on civilian internet users. The tobacco industry deceived the public about the harmful health effects of smoking. We know about these conspiracies through internal industry documents, government investigations, or whistleblowers.
Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, tend to persist for a long time even when there is no conclusive evidence for them. These conspiracy theories are based on a set of thinking patterns that are known to be unreliable tools for tracking reality. Conspiracy theories are typically not supported by evidence that withstands scrutiny, but that doesn’t stop them from flourishing. For example, the widespread belief that the September 11 terrorist attacks were an “inside job” persisted for many years after the event.
Conventional versus conspiratorial thinking: Actual conspiracies do exist, but they are rarely discovered through the methods of conspiracy theorists. Rather, real conspiracies are discovered through conventional thinking – a healthy skepticism of official accounts, careful consideration of available evidence, and a commitment to internal consistency. Conspiratorial thinking, in contrast, is characterized by being hypersceptical of all information that does not fit the theory, overinterpreting evidence that supports a preferred theory, and inconsistency.
Why are conspiracy theories widespread?
A number of factors can contribute to people believing and spreading conspiracy theories:
Feeling of helplessness: People who feel powerless or vulnerable are more likely to support and spread conspiracy theories. This is seen in online forums where people's perceived level of threat is strongly correlated with the proposal of conspiracy theories.
Dealing with threats: Conspiracy theories allow people to cope with threatening events by focusing blame on a group of conspirators. People find it difficult to accept that “big” events (e.g., the death of Princess Diana) could have a common cause (drunk driving). A conspiracy theory fulfills the need for a “big” event to have a big cause, such as a plot involving MI5 to kill Princess Diana.
Explanation of impossible events: For the same reason, people tend to propose conspiratorial explanations for events that are highly unlikely. Conspiracy theories act as a coping mechanism to help people deal with uncertainty.
Main policy challenge: Conspiracy theories are used to challenge mainstream political interpretations. Conspiracy groups often use such narratives to claim minority status.
Social media spreads conspiracy theories
Social media has created a world in which any individual can potentially reach as many people as the mainstream media. The lack of traditional watchdogs is one reason why misinformation spreads farther and faster online than real information, often fueled by fake accounts or “bots.” Similarly, consumers of conspiracy theories have become more likely to “like” and share conspiracy posts on Facebook.
This article is excerpted from the booklet titled "The Conspiracy Theory Handbook".