It is linked in the article, but for those of you looking for the title of the meta-analysis, it's: "The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates," published in the American Psychological Association journal.
Thank you for being willing to write on this subject. My heart aches for the people in my life who are just like this woman you describe. Full of fear and anxiety, and feeling beaten down by the life they’ve been dealt. Most are just trying to cope with a society that inherently does not value social safety and stability and tells them that they must, as individuals, learn to navigate the overwhelming amount of information out there.
It’s easy to be angry at them, but we’re all stuck on this planet together, so we’ve got to figure out how to move forward. It’s probably too much to hope that after this election things settle down. So I really, truly hope that we as a society can figure out how to get along with our neighbors again. And from there - we need to make serious, lasting change in education, in social programs, in mental health, so that individuals like this can’t be preyed on in the future.
All of those things sound good, and I agree they will make the world better and safer. However, conspiracists are not harmless victims. There are dangerous consequences to their beliefs, and they make the world less safe.
Right, no disagreement here. We are seeing the consequences of the harm they pose daily. We need to address the societal cause of these issues, or it will never improve. Half the US population didn’t just decide to stop thinking critically- there’s a reason people are coming to these crazy internet conspiracies.
Agreed. I don't think a huge swath of the country suddenly lost the ability to think critically. And there are sharp folks who at least verbally buy into the conspiracy theories. It's got to be something deeper, some kind of willingness to bypass reason for belief.
I’m all for questioning what you don’t understand. The problem comes when you settle for easy answers which are frequently bound with conspiracy theories. Children asking why can frustrate you and sometimes make you give unreliable answers rather than simply saying I don’t know. Better to say we need to investigate. That works for everyone if you ask me.
What actually makes me mad isn't that ordinary people, especially people who are distressed, believe these things. It makes me mad that they didn't come up with the conspiracies. And the people starting the conspiracies today often know exactly what they're doing - making up lies to prey on the minds of people who are receptive to the lies. They do it to get power or to sow chaos. The chaos sowers (as in foreign actors) have a special place in H E double hockey sticks, but the ones doing it to gain power (as in American politicians) are even worse in my opinion. Hurting our own people to get rich (or remain rich) and powerful is sick, sick, sick!
I almost started crying reading this. My one-time best friend fell into a dark internet-hole of conspiracies after some tragic life events and now perceives the way I see the world as me being a sheep who believes all the bullsh*t the government puts out. It makes me better to remember that there are reasons behind this for her, and gives me hope that one day, someone might be able to get through to her. Thanks, Sharon. 💛
Hi Beth. There is hope. :) And I believe the work that Sharon and Mosh help to dispel conspiracy like thinking.
As someone who started to go down conspiracy holes in 2020- out of fear and my own mental health, I started do more research and also stopped following many conspiracy spreaders. I also found Sharon and Mosh news- and that helped tremendously.
Hopefully your friend comes out of that dark place soon.
This was a great post and I learned a lot from it, including a great new phrase.
I feel like social media makes it so much easier to engage in effortLESS thinking; people scan and quickly share without diving deeper. I'm an educated writer and have shared things on social that ended up being false/from another incident, etc. because I was rushing through a feed and not thinking deeply enough or bothering to read further about what I was sharing--because those feeds are designed to work quickly, not deeply. I now make an effort to not share something on a topic without looking into it further, reading the full article, etc.
IMO, no, most people don't and they don't even realize that's a skillset they need to practice and hone. The sheer number of folks disagreeing with research scientists by citing "Pubmed" as a source suggests a lot of people believe that if the information is accessible then it is available to be understood by the layperson. "Do your own research" is not terrible advice, per se, but it is telling that advice is so often parroted by the conspiracy-minded.
Yes! And there is a difference between lay people research and actual research. When I am checking for factual news sources I'm letting those news outlets do the research and then looking for the same story from different sources. If we all tried to do a literature search on every story out there we wouldn't have time for life. Which is why quality, fact based news sources are so important!
Jonathon, I think people who exist in bubbles probably do not. I see misinfo from the left and right on social. I think you make a good point and that it is one facet of the problems posed by social media. Mis/disinfo designed to seem legitimate, existing in bubbles created by algorithms that prioritize outrage, people only trusting certain sources, design features built for skimming and quick sharing vs. deep thinking, people engaging less in person with people of different viewpoints, the shrinking of local newspapers as sources of reliable journalism. We've got quite a hairball to untangle here.
I also wanted to note that "researching" a social post is a bit different than pausing to read an article a post is promoting, for example or even checking to see who created the post - is is a PAC, a content mill, an influencer, or the Chicago Tribune? Just slowing down and digging a tiny bit deeper is a simple action we can all take. Not every claim on social requires research, but often headlines or social cards are designed to get clicks when the article itself is a bit different than what the headline implies, for example. This is true across media. The reason I shared my original post is that I'm a fast reader/scanner and so there has been a time or two when I've shared something outdated or inaccurate because I moved too fast. One of the gifts and curses of a fast ADHD mind.
I find it extremely difficult (read: currently impossible 😟) to get through the "conspiratorial wall of defiance". So far, I have been unable to find a safe starting point.
When every source, no matter how vetted and reliable, is at best "questionable", and most likely "completely incompetent"; the government is beyond suspect; and even Ad Fontes is "biased and skewed" - I find I have no starting point. I have asked my husband to check out Ad Fontes (for example), to read about their process and systems of rating for himself - he refuses. He says he "knows" how "those sites work". I have yet to find a way past Fox News. I even tried to watch a Fox "news" show so I could better understand where he's coming from, but I couldn't even make it a half hour due to all the name-calling, denigrating language, and behavior that as an educator and parent, I would never allow, nevertheless, foster.
I refuse to fight and argue and I am a terribledebater. I know what I believe and why, but in a hostile environment I have a really hard time articulating those things. So, the gulf widens. I just don't know how to find a safe starting place. I guess, for both of us.
Studies have shown that countering this kind of thinking with facts almost never works--people feel threatened by the idea that they are wrong and will shut down or dig in.
The only way in is to show kindness and compassion patiently over time, while also refusing to engage or reinforce the conspiratorial thinking (doing a lot of redirection or deflection). We're trying to lower the temperature, quiet the anxiety, and create or reinforce a relationship of trust. Approaching with curiosity or concern patiently over time is the only way through (i.e. "The hurricane was really upsetting and scary, wasn't it, I'm glad our family is safe here/I heard about ____ organization that is helping and donated $ to help.").
I'll be honest, I haven't done so well over the years on this with my dad, but saw a turning in him in late 2020 and early 2021. His media consumption shifted to more local and mainstream sources and he stopped trying to provoke at least.
I so feel your pain, truly! I have a very close relative who has bought the conspiracy stuff and I'm so sad, disappointed and discouraged. As with your husband, it seems there is nothing to be said, or shown that can change her thoughts. I try to avoid talking about any of the most common disagreed upon topics, and yet I find discussions that I think are benign are somehow brought around to the conspiracies and lies. I've also tried to share adfontes and UPI and tell her I think she'd want to find unbiased resources, but it doesn't matter. The best improvement I've tried is to end in person comments before they get to agitated, and share some ideas in a text, while frequently reassuring her that I'm sharing my ideas in kindness, not anger, acknowledging that written communication can be misinterpreted. I got a voice message with a calm response, so I feel at least that the intensity has been brought down to a kinder, less angry discussion is a major improvement. She has family members that will be hurt by her beliefs and political leanings, but doesn't see it. It is truly heart breaking, and again, I share your frustration in your struggles. I'm interested in looking into Dr Steve Hassan. cult expert listed below. I'm trying to live what Sharon has recommended: keep your enemies close as you don't know when they might have a change of heart. Hugs.
I think a lot of us have similar connections and it a simple conversation that we tried to keep neutral finds its way into conspiracy theoryland. I hope you will find Dr. Hassen's model helpful in these encounters.
This must be so challenging for you. Might check out Dr Steve Hassan, a cult expert that has been working in the cult field for over 40 years. He gives a model and tips on how to talk with people on these difficult topics. Best to you.
That's sad to hear, living in that environment sucks. In my OPINION, the only safe starting point for those conversations is finding out his own personal reasons on why he believes so strongly in what he believes. All the rhetorics everywhere is designed to trigger emotional responses to really reinforce those beliefs, so talking through what triggers those emotions for him. So yes, I realize I'm describing what a therapist does which is a loooooong process. But in my opinion that kind of conversation is the only kind that leads to understanding where each person's beliefs come from, or you just avoid the topic altogether or "agree to disagree"
It's time to build a bigger tent 🥲⛺ I love how you ended that, Sharon! All people are deserving of respect and kindness, and that's the way we move forward.
This has also really opened my eyes to why one candidate has had such a draw with people who are angry and depressed, and who tend to have conspiratorial thinking. The way he speaks stokes the flames of anger and gives them a sense of belonging.
Thank you so much for addressing this. As someone who lives with a conspiracist and has a friend who looked at me seriously telling me the hurricane was man-made, I found this comforting and reassuring.
"Shame is not a motivator of positive change." -- Can this be on a shirt?? Thank you for always encouraging calm, respectful dialogue, the best tool we have to impact the world around us. ❤️❤️
I have a friend whom I respect and whom I know, at their best, is a reasonable person. They got wrapped up in Q-Anon after some devastating life changes. I can see how these circumstances would leave someone prone to conspiracy theories.
But I also know others who are super sharp and have bought into bullsh*t. They seem to be confident and self-possessed, but they are a part of a larger community that views the world as dangerous and evil. For them, dark powers lurk around every corner and their narrative dovetails nicely into conspiratorial thinking. I have come from this same community, and I see in myself tendencies to still think in these ways.
Sharon, I appreciate your focus of treating people with respect and not shaming anyone into "right" thinking. My fear is that studies like these can be used to insult those wrapped up in conspiracy theories or to discount them as folks who can never change. I know that's not what you're saying. I feel that fear anyway. God knows I believe all kinds of things that aren't scientifically verifiable.
Interesting post. This specific conspiracy theory about the government responsible for the hurricanes reaches a new level of absurdity.
However- is there a healthy level of skepticism we should have with the government? (Not as it relates to natural disasters). People are skeptical of the government/government officials for some good reasons. Especially some of the once conspiracy theories during 2020- later to be proven true.
(Hunter Biden laptop and Covid origination as examples).
This is often a concept people say: "Well what about XYZ thing that turned out to be true?" You can and will always be able to find bad things that happen, and people prone to conspiratorial thinking will cite them as evidence to bolster their way of thinking. I think it's more helpful to think about conspiratorial thinking and bullsh*t receptivity as a LENS through which the world is viewed. It's a LACK of effortful thinking and an unwillingness to engage when presented with new and better information. It's a belief that thinking this way will protect you (it doesn't), make you happier (the opposite), and give you a sense of control over the world (again, no). Skepticism is different than cynicism. Skepticism is healthy -- skepticism says, "It will require a good amount of clear and convincing evidence to get me to believe that XYZ is true, and if I am presented with that, I will believe it." Skepticism is the opposite of bullsh*t receptivity. Don't confuse "I don't like the government" with "I am smarter than y'all and know the secret truth." That is conspiratorial thinking, which is correlated with anxiety, depression, and a host of personality disorders and mental health issues (again, this is from a LARGE meta-analysis of MANY studies, not a single study by one dude). Skepticism=good.
I think it is easy to get confused! Something else I think about is that those who don't believe in conspiracy don't believe everything they read from any news source as 100% factual. There's why healthy skepticism, alongside reputable sources are so important!
"Something else I think about is that those who don't believe in conspiracy don't believe everything they read from any news source as 100% factual"
To add to that point, because I this is someone I've noticed more and more often: folks who are conspiracy minded will very, very often take a phrase like "There are two sides to every story" to mean "There are two *truths* to every story" or "There are two possible *realities* for every situation."
The original phrase suggests that context matters: how stories are framed matters. What you choose to leave out *can* be as informative as what you choose to include. That's a healthy level of skepticism, especially when you're trying to keep a diverse information diet; you'll start to notice how often News Source A declines to note the things that News Source B often mentions, and vice versa. It's not to suggest that we can never know the truth, but that the truth is often complicated and the same truth might be perceived differently by different people (see: so many foreign conflicts). Instead of saying "News Source A is wrong!" and choosing to only listen to News Source B, we can instead recognize that both are reporting on the same issue but their framing might be incomplete and you really need to read both of them to get a glimpse of the bigger picture.
So true Emily! It is always interesting how the way the news is told varies as well. The tone if you will of certain news sources is very easy to perceive. I try to remember that when I both agree and disagree with take aways from hyper partisan sources. There is one truth but the framing matters so much in how we perceive that truth.
Neither of the conspiracy theories you cited has been proven true at all. Most of the hysterical reporting in the beginning regarding Hunter’s laptop was mostly that it contained “bombshell proof of the foreign corrupt dealings of the Biden family crime syndicate.” Of course it contained nothing of the kind, which is why some media outlets were hesitant to run with such salacious allegations without further investigation. Because as we all know, once a conspiracy theory gets a head start, no amount of fact checking can derail it. What the laptop did contain was evidence that Hunter was using drugs when he purchased a firearm, which is against the law and which his father’s Justice Dept. used to convict him. And FYI, almost no one is ever prosecuted under that law and it is a law that most Republicans hate because they consider it an unwarranted restriction on the 2nd Amendment. As far as the origins of the coronavirus, there has been no substantiation of any of the conspiracy theories surrounding it. In fact, there is no scientific consensus to this day whether the virus originated because of natural spillover or a lab leak and there may never be because China is a closed society to a substantial extent and the evidence necessary to make such a determination was lost or not available to experts outside of China. Saying conspiracy theories have been “proven true” when they have not, only helps to perpetuate them.
When you say Hunter Biden laptop and COVID origination, what specifically about those two things are you talking about that was conspiratorial in nature and later proven to be true? And please provide sources.
I think I used incorrect language in my comment. I was really pointing out some skepticism that was present in 2020 and later proved to be different. I’m sure a quick google search can get you any sources you may need. I was also basing my comment on podcasts I’ve listened to.
The only reason I asked is that those two thing specifically are really loaded topics so when someone drops them into conversation, there is a whole bunch of assumed context and conclusion they expect everyone else to have when talking about them, hence the reason I asked. I just have no idea what you’re bringing to the table with those two topics while also associating them with the idea of “later to be proven true.”
I, too, am not sure what you're referring to. There are lots of opinions about both subjects, and some of those opinions stray from the evidence. A Google search will definitely give me results, but I don't think my results will necessarily reflect what you're referring to.
With regard to the Hunter laptop, we were repeatedly told in 2019 that it wasn’t true, was a Russian hoax, etc. and later found it did indeed exist and wasn’t Russian interference. I see examples such as this contributing to a lack of mistrust in what we are told from DC. In some, who already may have a propensity to not trust, these types of things only elevate those feelings.
I agree Robn. The legacy media isn’t trustworthy and creates so much skepticism. I have only known one true conspiracy theorist- and is as Sharon describes. I believe majority, like myself, have skepticism and questions. And don’t believe everything legacy media tells people.
Hi again! I was referring to story the press pushed in 2020 that the content in Hunter Biden’s laptop was disinformation - likely Russian. Which obviously came out as different.
And then the origin of Covid in a lab being a conspiracy. Which is still debatable.
I’m happy to share some links, but not interested in debating these topics. The point of my original comment was to understand when we should question government. And as I mentioned- I was confusing skepticism with conspiracy.
Links that I found- but I’m sure there are others.
Again, I fail to see how we can ever put a dent in conspiracy theories when people throw out statements and attest to their truth and then say they’re not interested in a back and forth or debate on the subject. Also, saying you believe something “came out different” or “is still debatable” is a very far cry from saying they’re conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. I’m pretty sure if you took the top 100 right wing conspiracy theories - Obama was born in a foreign country, Pizzagate, chemtrails from aircraft dropping toxins on us, FEMA concentration camps, they’re going to confiscate all the guns, kindergarten teachers are grooming children to be gay or trans, the election (pick any one) was stolen, voter fraud is rampant, Haitians are eating pets, to cite just a few examples - 99% of them would turn out to be untrue. So it seems that one very effective way to reduce the harm done by conspiracy theories is to not vote for people who spread them. It would be a great start anyway.
Yeah, it’s tough on the Republican side to find any candidates that don’t engage in conspiracy theories. But you can always just do what all of those other Republicans are doing this election and vote for Kamala Harris!😄
Just as bad? Kate had quite a list there and you have.... Hunters laptop, and that wasn't really a conspiracy theory. Please name 3-5 more conspiracy theories originated by democrats. I haven't heard any, so clearly I am not getting news from the same sources that you are and I would really like to know what I am missing.
Sharon, can you provide some links to studies you found in your search? I’d love to go through them. Yeah, definitely from personal experience it is really hard to have a conversation with someone who is already convinced of the truth, but I can also attest to the gracing giving and respect extending part actually working to making the conversation more productive. Daryl Davis is the man known for convincing the grand dragon of the KKK to give it up. He goes around talking about the five core values to help guide all difficult conversations and situations. Those things are: love, respect, fairness, truthfulness, and the desire for all to be heard. Daryl was amazingly patient and extended the curiosity of these values to someone he knew fundamentally hated him because of his skin color. But they eventually became friends. And the truth Daryl communicated eventually won the day, but it wasn’t easy to get there. Just like conspiracy thinking takes the easy way out, I also think our responses to that can just as likely take the easy way out. At a fundamental level, trust has eroded in our society and we just can’t function without that and I think it is going to take a lot of people who choose the hard road to rebuild that.
It is linked in the article, but for those of you looking for the title of the meta-analysis, it's: "The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates," published in the American Psychological Association journal.
Thank you for being willing to write on this subject. My heart aches for the people in my life who are just like this woman you describe. Full of fear and anxiety, and feeling beaten down by the life they’ve been dealt. Most are just trying to cope with a society that inherently does not value social safety and stability and tells them that they must, as individuals, learn to navigate the overwhelming amount of information out there.
It’s easy to be angry at them, but we’re all stuck on this planet together, so we’ve got to figure out how to move forward. It’s probably too much to hope that after this election things settle down. So I really, truly hope that we as a society can figure out how to get along with our neighbors again. And from there - we need to make serious, lasting change in education, in social programs, in mental health, so that individuals like this can’t be preyed on in the future.
All of those things sound good, and I agree they will make the world better and safer. However, conspiracists are not harmless victims. There are dangerous consequences to their beliefs, and they make the world less safe.
Right, no disagreement here. We are seeing the consequences of the harm they pose daily. We need to address the societal cause of these issues, or it will never improve. Half the US population didn’t just decide to stop thinking critically- there’s a reason people are coming to these crazy internet conspiracies.
Agreed. I don't think a huge swath of the country suddenly lost the ability to think critically. And there are sharp folks who at least verbally buy into the conspiracy theories. It's got to be something deeper, some kind of willingness to bypass reason for belief.
I’m all for questioning what you don’t understand. The problem comes when you settle for easy answers which are frequently bound with conspiracy theories. Children asking why can frustrate you and sometimes make you give unreliable answers rather than simply saying I don’t know. Better to say we need to investigate. That works for everyone if you ask me.
You said this perfectly: you SHOULD question what you don't understand, but you should NOT settle for the easy, unexamined answers.
What actually makes me mad isn't that ordinary people, especially people who are distressed, believe these things. It makes me mad that they didn't come up with the conspiracies. And the people starting the conspiracies today often know exactly what they're doing - making up lies to prey on the minds of people who are receptive to the lies. They do it to get power or to sow chaos. The chaos sowers (as in foreign actors) have a special place in H E double hockey sticks, but the ones doing it to gain power (as in American politicians) are even worse in my opinion. Hurting our own people to get rich (or remain rich) and powerful is sick, sick, sick!
It's so true that the people who start them usually know they are lies, and some of the biggest spreaders also know they are lies.
That is so frustrating.
I almost started crying reading this. My one-time best friend fell into a dark internet-hole of conspiracies after some tragic life events and now perceives the way I see the world as me being a sheep who believes all the bullsh*t the government puts out. It makes me better to remember that there are reasons behind this for her, and gives me hope that one day, someone might be able to get through to her. Thanks, Sharon. 💛
Hi Beth. There is hope. :) And I believe the work that Sharon and Mosh help to dispel conspiracy like thinking.
As someone who started to go down conspiracy holes in 2020- out of fear and my own mental health, I started do more research and also stopped following many conspiracy spreaders. I also found Sharon and Mosh news- and that helped tremendously.
Hopefully your friend comes out of that dark place soon.
Thank you, Amy. 💛 All the best on your journey!
This was a great post and I learned a lot from it, including a great new phrase.
I feel like social media makes it so much easier to engage in effortLESS thinking; people scan and quickly share without diving deeper. I'm an educated writer and have shared things on social that ended up being false/from another incident, etc. because I was rushing through a feed and not thinking deeply enough or bothering to read further about what I was sharing--because those feeds are designed to work quickly, not deeply. I now make an effort to not share something on a topic without looking into it further, reading the full article, etc.
Do you think people know how to do research or what constitutes a good source?
IMO, no, most people don't and they don't even realize that's a skillset they need to practice and hone. The sheer number of folks disagreeing with research scientists by citing "Pubmed" as a source suggests a lot of people believe that if the information is accessible then it is available to be understood by the layperson. "Do your own research" is not terrible advice, per se, but it is telling that advice is so often parroted by the conspiracy-minded.
Yes! And there is a difference between lay people research and actual research. When I am checking for factual news sources I'm letting those news outlets do the research and then looking for the same story from different sources. If we all tried to do a literature search on every story out there we wouldn't have time for life. Which is why quality, fact based news sources are so important!
Exactly. There is a difference between investigating to educate yourself and actual research.
Jonathon, I think people who exist in bubbles probably do not. I see misinfo from the left and right on social. I think you make a good point and that it is one facet of the problems posed by social media. Mis/disinfo designed to seem legitimate, existing in bubbles created by algorithms that prioritize outrage, people only trusting certain sources, design features built for skimming and quick sharing vs. deep thinking, people engaging less in person with people of different viewpoints, the shrinking of local newspapers as sources of reliable journalism. We've got quite a hairball to untangle here.
I also wanted to note that "researching" a social post is a bit different than pausing to read an article a post is promoting, for example or even checking to see who created the post - is is a PAC, a content mill, an influencer, or the Chicago Tribune? Just slowing down and digging a tiny bit deeper is a simple action we can all take. Not every claim on social requires research, but often headlines or social cards are designed to get clicks when the article itself is a bit different than what the headline implies, for example. This is true across media. The reason I shared my original post is that I'm a fast reader/scanner and so there has been a time or two when I've shared something outdated or inaccurate because I moved too fast. One of the gifts and curses of a fast ADHD mind.
“Shame is not a motivator of positive change.” SO GOOD.
I find it extremely difficult (read: currently impossible 😟) to get through the "conspiratorial wall of defiance". So far, I have been unable to find a safe starting point.
When every source, no matter how vetted and reliable, is at best "questionable", and most likely "completely incompetent"; the government is beyond suspect; and even Ad Fontes is "biased and skewed" - I find I have no starting point. I have asked my husband to check out Ad Fontes (for example), to read about their process and systems of rating for himself - he refuses. He says he "knows" how "those sites work". I have yet to find a way past Fox News. I even tried to watch a Fox "news" show so I could better understand where he's coming from, but I couldn't even make it a half hour due to all the name-calling, denigrating language, and behavior that as an educator and parent, I would never allow, nevertheless, foster.
I refuse to fight and argue and I am a terribledebater. I know what I believe and why, but in a hostile environment I have a really hard time articulating those things. So, the gulf widens. I just don't know how to find a safe starting place. I guess, for both of us.
Studies have shown that countering this kind of thinking with facts almost never works--people feel threatened by the idea that they are wrong and will shut down or dig in.
The only way in is to show kindness and compassion patiently over time, while also refusing to engage or reinforce the conspiratorial thinking (doing a lot of redirection or deflection). We're trying to lower the temperature, quiet the anxiety, and create or reinforce a relationship of trust. Approaching with curiosity or concern patiently over time is the only way through (i.e. "The hurricane was really upsetting and scary, wasn't it, I'm glad our family is safe here/I heard about ____ organization that is helping and donated $ to help.").
I'll be honest, I haven't done so well over the years on this with my dad, but saw a turning in him in late 2020 and early 2021. His media consumption shifted to more local and mainstream sources and he stopped trying to provoke at least.
I'm so sorry you're living with this.
I so feel your pain, truly! I have a very close relative who has bought the conspiracy stuff and I'm so sad, disappointed and discouraged. As with your husband, it seems there is nothing to be said, or shown that can change her thoughts. I try to avoid talking about any of the most common disagreed upon topics, and yet I find discussions that I think are benign are somehow brought around to the conspiracies and lies. I've also tried to share adfontes and UPI and tell her I think she'd want to find unbiased resources, but it doesn't matter. The best improvement I've tried is to end in person comments before they get to agitated, and share some ideas in a text, while frequently reassuring her that I'm sharing my ideas in kindness, not anger, acknowledging that written communication can be misinterpreted. I got a voice message with a calm response, so I feel at least that the intensity has been brought down to a kinder, less angry discussion is a major improvement. She has family members that will be hurt by her beliefs and political leanings, but doesn't see it. It is truly heart breaking, and again, I share your frustration in your struggles. I'm interested in looking into Dr Steve Hassan. cult expert listed below. I'm trying to live what Sharon has recommended: keep your enemies close as you don't know when they might have a change of heart. Hugs.
I think a lot of us have similar connections and it a simple conversation that we tried to keep neutral finds its way into conspiracy theoryland. I hope you will find Dr. Hassen's model helpful in these encounters.
This must be so challenging for you. Might check out Dr Steve Hassan, a cult expert that has been working in the cult field for over 40 years. He gives a model and tips on how to talk with people on these difficult topics. Best to you.
That's sad to hear, living in that environment sucks. In my OPINION, the only safe starting point for those conversations is finding out his own personal reasons on why he believes so strongly in what he believes. All the rhetorics everywhere is designed to trigger emotional responses to really reinforce those beliefs, so talking through what triggers those emotions for him. So yes, I realize I'm describing what a therapist does which is a loooooong process. But in my opinion that kind of conversation is the only kind that leads to understanding where each person's beliefs come from, or you just avoid the topic altogether or "agree to disagree"
It's time to build a bigger tent 🥲⛺ I love how you ended that, Sharon! All people are deserving of respect and kindness, and that's the way we move forward.
This has also really opened my eyes to why one candidate has had such a draw with people who are angry and depressed, and who tend to have conspiratorial thinking. The way he speaks stokes the flames of anger and gives them a sense of belonging.
Thank you so much for addressing this. As someone who lives with a conspiracist and has a friend who looked at me seriously telling me the hurricane was man-made, I found this comforting and reassuring.
"Shame is not a motivator of positive change." -- Can this be on a shirt?? Thank you for always encouraging calm, respectful dialogue, the best tool we have to impact the world around us. ❤️❤️
I have a friend whom I respect and whom I know, at their best, is a reasonable person. They got wrapped up in Q-Anon after some devastating life changes. I can see how these circumstances would leave someone prone to conspiracy theories.
But I also know others who are super sharp and have bought into bullsh*t. They seem to be confident and self-possessed, but they are a part of a larger community that views the world as dangerous and evil. For them, dark powers lurk around every corner and their narrative dovetails nicely into conspiratorial thinking. I have come from this same community, and I see in myself tendencies to still think in these ways.
Sharon, I appreciate your focus of treating people with respect and not shaming anyone into "right" thinking. My fear is that studies like these can be used to insult those wrapped up in conspiracy theories or to discount them as folks who can never change. I know that's not what you're saying. I feel that fear anyway. God knows I believe all kinds of things that aren't scientifically verifiable.
Interesting post. This specific conspiracy theory about the government responsible for the hurricanes reaches a new level of absurdity.
However- is there a healthy level of skepticism we should have with the government? (Not as it relates to natural disasters). People are skeptical of the government/government officials for some good reasons. Especially some of the once conspiracy theories during 2020- later to be proven true.
(Hunter Biden laptop and Covid origination as examples).
This is often a concept people say: "Well what about XYZ thing that turned out to be true?" You can and will always be able to find bad things that happen, and people prone to conspiratorial thinking will cite them as evidence to bolster their way of thinking. I think it's more helpful to think about conspiratorial thinking and bullsh*t receptivity as a LENS through which the world is viewed. It's a LACK of effortful thinking and an unwillingness to engage when presented with new and better information. It's a belief that thinking this way will protect you (it doesn't), make you happier (the opposite), and give you a sense of control over the world (again, no). Skepticism is different than cynicism. Skepticism is healthy -- skepticism says, "It will require a good amount of clear and convincing evidence to get me to believe that XYZ is true, and if I am presented with that, I will believe it." Skepticism is the opposite of bullsh*t receptivity. Don't confuse "I don't like the government" with "I am smarter than y'all and know the secret truth." That is conspiratorial thinking, which is correlated with anxiety, depression, and a host of personality disorders and mental health issues (again, this is from a LARGE meta-analysis of MANY studies, not a single study by one dude). Skepticism=good.
Thank you, Sharon, for explaining and acknowledging the difference between skepticism and conspiratorial thinking. Important distinction!
Thank you, Sharon. This is so helpful! I think I have confused what skepticism is vs conspiracy.
I think it is easy to get confused! Something else I think about is that those who don't believe in conspiracy don't believe everything they read from any news source as 100% factual. There's why healthy skepticism, alongside reputable sources are so important!
"Something else I think about is that those who don't believe in conspiracy don't believe everything they read from any news source as 100% factual"
To add to that point, because I this is someone I've noticed more and more often: folks who are conspiracy minded will very, very often take a phrase like "There are two sides to every story" to mean "There are two *truths* to every story" or "There are two possible *realities* for every situation."
The original phrase suggests that context matters: how stories are framed matters. What you choose to leave out *can* be as informative as what you choose to include. That's a healthy level of skepticism, especially when you're trying to keep a diverse information diet; you'll start to notice how often News Source A declines to note the things that News Source B often mentions, and vice versa. It's not to suggest that we can never know the truth, but that the truth is often complicated and the same truth might be perceived differently by different people (see: so many foreign conflicts). Instead of saying "News Source A is wrong!" and choosing to only listen to News Source B, we can instead recognize that both are reporting on the same issue but their framing might be incomplete and you really need to read both of them to get a glimpse of the bigger picture.
So true Emily! It is always interesting how the way the news is told varies as well. The tone if you will of certain news sources is very easy to perceive. I try to remember that when I both agree and disagree with take aways from hyper partisan sources. There is one truth but the framing matters so much in how we perceive that truth.
Well said, Emily.
Neither of the conspiracy theories you cited has been proven true at all. Most of the hysterical reporting in the beginning regarding Hunter’s laptop was mostly that it contained “bombshell proof of the foreign corrupt dealings of the Biden family crime syndicate.” Of course it contained nothing of the kind, which is why some media outlets were hesitant to run with such salacious allegations without further investigation. Because as we all know, once a conspiracy theory gets a head start, no amount of fact checking can derail it. What the laptop did contain was evidence that Hunter was using drugs when he purchased a firearm, which is against the law and which his father’s Justice Dept. used to convict him. And FYI, almost no one is ever prosecuted under that law and it is a law that most Republicans hate because they consider it an unwarranted restriction on the 2nd Amendment. As far as the origins of the coronavirus, there has been no substantiation of any of the conspiracy theories surrounding it. In fact, there is no scientific consensus to this day whether the virus originated because of natural spillover or a lab leak and there may never be because China is a closed society to a substantial extent and the evidence necessary to make such a determination was lost or not available to experts outside of China. Saying conspiracy theories have been “proven true” when they have not, only helps to perpetuate them.
When you say Hunter Biden laptop and COVID origination, what specifically about those two things are you talking about that was conspiratorial in nature and later proven to be true? And please provide sources.
I think I used incorrect language in my comment. I was really pointing out some skepticism that was present in 2020 and later proved to be different. I’m sure a quick google search can get you any sources you may need. I was also basing my comment on podcasts I’ve listened to.
The only reason I asked is that those two thing specifically are really loaded topics so when someone drops them into conversation, there is a whole bunch of assumed context and conclusion they expect everyone else to have when talking about them, hence the reason I asked. I just have no idea what you’re bringing to the table with those two topics while also associating them with the idea of “later to be proven true.”
I, too, am not sure what you're referring to. There are lots of opinions about both subjects, and some of those opinions stray from the evidence. A Google search will definitely give me results, but I don't think my results will necessarily reflect what you're referring to.
With regard to the Hunter laptop, we were repeatedly told in 2019 that it wasn’t true, was a Russian hoax, etc. and later found it did indeed exist and wasn’t Russian interference. I see examples such as this contributing to a lack of mistrust in what we are told from DC. In some, who already may have a propensity to not trust, these types of things only elevate those feelings.
I agree Robn. The legacy media isn’t trustworthy and creates so much skepticism. I have only known one true conspiracy theorist- and is as Sharon describes. I believe majority, like myself, have skepticism and questions. And don’t believe everything legacy media tells people.
Hi again! I was referring to story the press pushed in 2020 that the content in Hunter Biden’s laptop was disinformation - likely Russian. Which obviously came out as different.
And then the origin of Covid in a lab being a conspiracy. Which is still debatable.
I’m happy to share some links, but not interested in debating these topics. The point of my original comment was to understand when we should question government. And as I mentioned- I was confusing skepticism with conspiracy.
Links that I found- but I’m sure there are others.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china/index.htm
https://www.thefp.com/p/tgif-disinformation-edition
Again, I fail to see how we can ever put a dent in conspiracy theories when people throw out statements and attest to their truth and then say they’re not interested in a back and forth or debate on the subject. Also, saying you believe something “came out different” or “is still debatable” is a very far cry from saying they’re conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. I’m pretty sure if you took the top 100 right wing conspiracy theories - Obama was born in a foreign country, Pizzagate, chemtrails from aircraft dropping toxins on us, FEMA concentration camps, they’re going to confiscate all the guns, kindergarten teachers are grooming children to be gay or trans, the election (pick any one) was stolen, voter fraud is rampant, Haitians are eating pets, to cite just a few examples - 99% of them would turn out to be untrue. So it seems that one very effective way to reduce the harm done by conspiracy theories is to not vote for people who spread them. It would be a great start anyway.
Then we wouldn’t have anyone to vote for!☺️
Yeah, it’s tough on the Republican side to find any candidates that don’t engage in conspiracy theories. But you can always just do what all of those other Republicans are doing this election and vote for Kamala Harris!😄
No thanks!
I was thinking the same thing! Lol. Democrats are just as bad.
Just as bad? Kate had quite a list there and you have.... Hunters laptop, and that wasn't really a conspiracy theory. Please name 3-5 more conspiracy theories originated by democrats. I haven't heard any, so clearly I am not getting news from the same sources that you are and I would really like to know what I am missing.
Thanks for covering this in such a thoughtful and researched way.
Sharon, can you provide some links to studies you found in your search? I’d love to go through them. Yeah, definitely from personal experience it is really hard to have a conversation with someone who is already convinced of the truth, but I can also attest to the gracing giving and respect extending part actually working to making the conversation more productive. Daryl Davis is the man known for convincing the grand dragon of the KKK to give it up. He goes around talking about the five core values to help guide all difficult conversations and situations. Those things are: love, respect, fairness, truthfulness, and the desire for all to be heard. Daryl was amazingly patient and extended the curiosity of these values to someone he knew fundamentally hated him because of his skin color. But they eventually became friends. And the truth Daryl communicated eventually won the day, but it wasn’t easy to get there. Just like conspiracy thinking takes the easy way out, I also think our responses to that can just as likely take the easy way out. At a fundamental level, trust has eroded in our society and we just can’t function without that and I think it is going to take a lot of people who choose the hard road to rebuild that.
Yes they are linked in the article
It’s so easy getting caught up in conspiracy theories. And my heart bleeds for those that struggle distinguishing the fake vs reality.