Society/Culture The 12 Steps... To spotting conspiracy theories.

Remove this Banner Ad

TWELVE STEPS ON HOW TO DISTINGUISH AN ACADEMIC THEORY FROM A CONSPIRACY THEORY by James D. Rietveld and his daughter Kristina V. Rietveld

Originally my daughter and I posted this in August of 2016--this figures in her academic field as well (Communications), but with all the CONSPIRACY THEORIES going on as related to the CORONA VIRUS I've seen on Facebook and other places, this information is relevant again. Obviously, I am not doubting the legitimacy of the Virus itself or what it is doing, but I see many additional "spins" that are the product of conspiratorial thinking!

I am teaching a course on Conspiracy Theories as related to the Social Sciences in the Fall at Cal Poly Pomona.

So let's get started:

1. A Scientific Theory can be proven false, while a Conspiracy Theory can become more elaborate to accommodate new observations and so is difficult to disprove, morphing so as to circumvent possible challenges to the legitimacy of the theory.

2. A Scientific Theory is not necessarily based upon a distrust of authority, while a Conspiracy Theory often has the distrust of authority and expert opinion at its central root. “Expert opinion" here is defined as opinions as expressed by government studies, academic research, and privatized think-tanks. They avoid evidence that goes through any legitimate peer review process.

3. A Scientific Theory always examines the totality of the body of evidence within the context of any given proposition, while a Conspiracy Theory will typically “cherry pick” through the evidence, finding what supports the already pre-believed and conceived proposition and disregard evidence that goes contrary to it.

4. Conspiracy Theories often involve what is called a “monological belief system,” whereby any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies, often reflecting the individual’s personal sense of paranoia. They often operate like a web, where there is a central truth, but the Conspiracy Therapist focuses upon the interconnectedness of everything as opposed to going through a step-by-step process.

5. Scientific Theorists apply critical thinking skills and are often skeptics, while Conspiracy Theorists are NOT Skeptics but “selective doubters”, already favoring a worldview, which they uncritically defend (and so have already made up their mind of what the “truth” is, with no plans to change that part of their proposition).

6. Those who have trust issues with other people in general are more likely to believe others are colluding against them, and so are often more susceptible to Conspiracy Theories than others.

7. Conspiracy Theorists often omit situational factors and chance, believing everything has deliberate intention behind it, creating imaginary links to fill in the gaps in order to make the conspiracy idea “fit” and often entertaining ideas outside the realm of logical deduction in order to do so.

8. Those who entertain Conspiracy Theories often enjoy mystery and intrigue in general, seeking something sensational and thrilling to relieve mundane daily affairs. The fact that they know something others do not makes them feel special and important. A Conspiracy Theorist's goal is typically not the advancement of knowledge, but to shock or impress you with information that will demonstrate how intelligent they are, seeing factors that the so-called experts failed to note. At the center of those who design such theories is ego, as opposed to benefiting others.

9. The simplification of complex events to human agency and evil in Conspiracy Theories overrides not only their cumulative implausibility (which, perversely, becomes cumulative plausibility as you buy into the premise) but also, in many cases, their incompatibility. Morality is applied to Conspiracy Theories, where there is a right or a wrong.

10. Timothy Melley (Empire of Conspiracy [2000]) asserts that Conspiracy Thinking arises from a combination of two factors, when someone: a) holds strong individualist values and b) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to people who care deeply about an individual's right to make their own choices and direct their own lives without interference or obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine this with a sense of powerlessness in one's own life, and you get what Melley calls agency panic, “intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy” to outside forces or regulators. Conspiracy Theorists at no point will accept fault, but will displace responsibility to factors outside of themselves.

11. Conspiracy Theorists often gravitate to “echo chambers” in which they often expect to have their own opinion parroted back at them rather than have it challenged as it would be in the academic community.

12. Conspiracy Theorists attempt to create an alternative reality, whereby they legitimize themselves and their theories by creating supportive networks that seek to displace mainstream consensus. In the age of the Internet, they will create a webpage that provides them with more credibility than they already have—but this credibility is “implied” having not undergone a peer-review process.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Aug 1, 2008
15,149
25,674
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
TWELVE STEPS ON HOW TO DISTINGUISH AN ACADEMIC THEORY FROM A CONSPIRACY THEORY by James D. Rietveld and his daughter Kristina V. Rietveld

Originally my daughter and I posted this in August of 2016--this figures in her academic field as well (Communications), but with all the CONSPIRACY THEORIES going on as related to the CORONA VIRUS I've seen on Facebook and other places, this information is relevant again. Obviously, I am not doubting the legitimacy of the Virus itself or what it is doing, but I see many additional "spins" that are the product of conspiratorial thinking!

I am teaching a course on Conspiracy Theories as related to the Social Sciences in the Fall at Cal Poly Pomona.

So let's get started:

1. A Scientific Theory can be proven false, while a Conspiracy Theory can become more elaborate to accommodate new observations and so is difficult to disprove, morphing so as to circumvent possible challenges to the legitimacy of the theory.

2. A Scientific Theory is not necessarily based upon a distrust of authority, while a Conspiracy Theory often has the distrust of authority and expert opinion at its central root. “Expert opinion" here is defined as opinions as expressed by government studies, academic research, and privatized think-tanks. They avoid evidence that goes through any legitimate peer review process.

3. A Scientific Theory always examines the totality of the body of evidence within the context of any given proposition, while a Conspiracy Theory will typically “cherry pick” through the evidence, finding what supports the already pre-believed and conceived proposition and disregard evidence that goes contrary to it.

4. Conspiracy Theories often involve what is called a “monological belief system,” whereby any and all events can be explained by a web of interconnected conspiracies, often reflecting the individual’s personal sense of paranoia. They often operate like a web, where there is a central truth, but the Conspiracy Therapist focuses upon the interconnectedness of everything as opposed to going through a step-by-step process.

5. Scientific Theorists apply critical thinking skills and are often skeptics, while Conspiracy Theorists are NOT Skeptics but “selective doubters”, already favoring a worldview, which they uncritically defend (and so have already made up their mind of what the “truth” is, with no plans to change that part of their proposition).

6. Those who have trust issues with other people in general are more likely to believe others are colluding against them, and so are often more susceptible to Conspiracy Theories than others.

7. Conspiracy Theorists often omit situational factors and chance, believing everything has deliberate intention behind it, creating imaginary links to fill in the gaps in order to make the conspiracy idea “fit” and often entertaining ideas outside the realm of logical deduction in order to do so.

8. Those who entertain Conspiracy Theories often enjoy mystery and intrigue in general, seeking something sensational and thrilling to relieve mundane daily affairs. The fact that they know something others do not makes them feel special and important. A Conspiracy Theorist's goal is typically not the advancement of knowledge, but to shock or impress you with information that will demonstrate how intelligent they are, seeing factors that the so-called experts failed to note. At the center of those who design such theories is ego, as opposed to benefiting others.

9. The simplification of complex events to human agency and evil in Conspiracy Theories overrides not only their cumulative implausibility (which, perversely, becomes cumulative plausibility as you buy into the premise) but also, in many cases, their incompatibility. Morality is applied to Conspiracy Theories, where there is a right or a wrong.

10. Timothy Melley (Empire of Conspiracy [2000]) asserts that Conspiracy Thinking arises from a combination of two factors, when someone: a) holds strong individualist values and b) lacks a sense of control. The first attribute refers to people who care deeply about an individual's right to make their own choices and direct their own lives without interference or obligations to a larger system (like the government). But combine this with a sense of powerlessness in one's own life, and you get what Melley calls agency panic, “intense anxiety about an apparent loss of autonomy” to outside forces or regulators. Conspiracy Theorists at no point will accept fault, but will displace responsibility to factors outside of themselves.

11. Conspiracy Theorists often gravitate to “echo chambers” in which they often expect to have their own opinion parroted back at them rather than have it challenged as it would be in the academic community.

12. Conspiracy Theorists attempt to create an alternative reality, whereby they legitimize themselves and their theories by creating supportive networks that seek to displace mainstream consensus. In the age of the Internet, they will create a webpage that provides them with more credibility than they already have—but this credibility is “implied” having not undergone a peer-review process.
Is this about global warming or COVID?
 
Last edited:
Apr 12, 2010
14,674
23,284
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Examples of the former I've seen on countless you tube conspiracy videos, particularly 9/11.

They'll throw up things like:

The fire department didn't have their regular Friday beers the weekend preceding. Why?

Look at the dark figure in the background of this shot, what is he holding?

And all sorts of s**t like that. I genuinely believe that CTs pathalogically favour options and possibilities over making decisions and coming to conclusions. Simple as that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jan 12, 2011
25,397
35,576
AFL Club
Collingwood
So who killed JFK?
I think in that case it was the Conspirators who first put forward the notion that any alternative to the Warren Commission were just Conspiracy Theories
One way of keeping the truth hidden is to deceitfully down play any alternative theories and call them crack pots or crazy people
However proper well researched theories will counter that approach

Of all the thousands of books and video's available, you only ever need to read one book, it explains Why, Who and How with well researched supporting evidence including FOI Public Documents, Court Transcripts and Official Police, CIA, and FBI Reports and Interviews

Once you understand that the US political System has been Criminalised for over 150 years and that murders were/are relatively common in US politics everything else falls into place

If the 12 points above were applied to JFK they would show there is no conspiracy in the sense outlined but that there was in fact a conspiracy

An American Coup D'ETAT - Colonel John Hughes-Wilson

Climate Change is currently going through exactly the same denial process as that used in the JFK Murder by the then conspirators
 
My favourite catchcry of the nutjobs is "do your own research". What constitutes "doing your own research" for these people is quite laughable.
"They're not telling you the whole story!"

Well, often 'they' aren't. But the details they leave out are usually mundane and irrelevant. But the fact 'they' didn't include them means the details MUST be important!

Sometimes there is a coverup. But how often is it driven by some overarching conspiracy of the NWO and Soros and the grey aliens? Never. It's almost always people flick-passing stuff to avoid embarassment, or to avoid being caught with their hand in a victim/cash register.
 
Last edited:
Jul 5, 2011
15,250
22,990
AFL Club
Collingwood
Over the past few years I've become a bit more skeptical of everything, cynical even. It's unpleasant at times, I wish I could take things at face value but there's so much bs out there.

With an issue such as covid19 I feel lost. I don't believe the mainstream narrative of how the virus originated, but I don't believe the conspiracy theories either (especially not the paranoia about Bill Gates wanting to take over the world). As such, I have NFI of what the truth is, which can be frustrating for a curious fella like me. Oh to be a fly on the wall at a few high level intelligence agency meetings across the world.
 

Thegibbsgamble

I beg to meg
Oct 28, 2017
5,601
3,259
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think in that case it was the Conspirators who first put forward the notion that any alternative to the Warren Commission were just Conspiracy Theories
One way of keeping the truth hidden is to deceitfully down play any alternative theories and call them crack pots or crazy people
However proper well researched theories will counter that approach

Of all the thousands of books and video's available, you only ever need to read one book, it explains Why, Who and How with well researched supporting evidence including FOI Public Documents, Court Transcripts and Official Police, CIA, and FBI Reports and Interviews

Once you understand that the US political System has been Criminalised for over 150 years and that murders were/are relatively common in US politics everything else falls into place

If the 12 points above were applied to JFK they would show there is no conspiracy in the sense outlined but that there was in fact a conspiracy

An American Coup D'ETAT - Colonel John Hughes-Wilson

Climate Change is currently going through exactly the same denial process as that used in the JFK Murder by the then conspirators

The article in the op is pretty sick s**t, considering they're meaning people just like you.

And the op believes that rubbish, otherwise they would posted a disclaimer of some sort

And yes, have read the book and seen the doco made from it. Its amazing how serious crimes are committed out in the open and all the evidence there, but you're a labelled for studying it

I reckon a 12 step to spot a brainwashed sheep is the go

First one would be clueless lawyers and politicians who think domestic violence is a male crime only
 
5610D8B8-DF89-4988-99D4-C06B619B376A.jpeg

“Therorists”
 

HardcoreGeelongFan

Club Legend
Dec 31, 2019
1,279
903
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
St Kilda
I could only 7

1. Bill Clinton
2. Hilary Clinton
3. Malcolm Turnbull
4. Sarah Hanson Young
5. Unions
6. ABC
7. Millennials
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back