Conspiracy

1. Conspiracies are Real, but Conspiracy Theories Often Aren't

Whatever elements one includes in one’s definition, it is important to distinguish conspiracies themselves from the theories about them.

Defining terms. A conspiracy involves two or more people secretly plotting to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally. A conspiracy theory, however, is a structured belief about such a plot, regardless of its reality. Historically, actual conspiracies, like the assassination of Julius Caesar or Watergate, are common, making a degree of "constructive conspiracism" a rational, evolved response to a dangerous world.

Categorizing theories. Conspiracy theories can be broadly classified by subject type, such as aliens, anti-Semitism, medicine, science, suspicious deaths, government, or secret organizations. Researchers also categorize them by their scope: "event" theories (e.g., JFK assassination), "systemic" theories (e.g., social control), or "superconspiracy" theories (e.g., a single force controlling everything). QAnon, for instance, combines elements of government, secret organizations, and superconspiracy theories.

Paranoid vs. Realistic. A crucial distinction is between paranoid conspiracy theories, which involve ultra-secret, über-powerful entities with little evidence (e.g., reptilian overlords), and realistic conspiracy theories, which pertain to normal institutions manipulating systems for unfair advantage (e.g., corporate price-fixing). While the former often lack evidence, the latter are frequently substantiated by history and current events, blurring the lines for believers.

2. Three Core Factors Drive Conspiratorial Belief

I contend that such beliefs have less to do with a specific conspiracy theory and more to do with general beliefs and truths.

Proxy conspiracism. Many specific conspiracy theories serve as proxies for deeper, more general truths—mythic, psychological, or lived-experience truths. For example, the O.J. Simpson defense team's claim of racist police planting evidence resonated as a "proxy truth" for the African American community's historical experience with police misconduct, overriding the specific facts of the case. The details of the theory become less important than the broader meaning it represents, often involving power dynamics.

Tribal conspiracism. Conspiracy theories often harbor elements of other beliefs, dogmas, or preceding theories, deeply rooted in political, religious, social, or ideological identity. Believing in one conspiracy theory often correlates with believing in many others, even contradictory ones, forming a "monological belief system." Endorsing these theories acts as a social signal of loyalty to one's group, reinforcing group identity and solidarity.

Constructive conspiracism. This factor suggests an evolutionary advantage to erring on the side of belief rather than disbelief, just in case. In a dangerous ancestral environment, assuming a rustle in the grass was a predator (a false positive) was safer than assuming it was just the wind when it was a predator (a false negative). This "better safe than sorry" heuristic, while adaptive in the past, can lead to widespread belief in unfounded modern conspiracy theories.

3. Evolutionary Psychology Hardwires Conspiracy Cognition

Conspiracy theories, for their part, flourish because people have always been vulnerable to real conspiracies.

Constructive paranoia. Our ancestors lived in a world where threats, especially from hostile coalitions or ambushes, were common. This led to the evolution of "constructive paranoia," where the cost of missing a real threat (false negative) was far higher than overreacting to a perceived one (false positive). This bias towards assuming the worst, or "constructive conspiracism," is deeply ingrained in human nature.

Negativity bias. "Bad is stronger than good" is a pervasive psychological phenomenon. Losses hurt more than gains feel good, criticism stings more than praise delights, and negative events command more attention than positive ones. This negativity bias, rooted in the second law of thermodynamics (entropy), means there are more ways for things to go wrong than right, making us naturally attuned to potential dangers and nefarious plots.

Patternicity and agenticity. Humans are "pattern-seeking animals," prone to finding meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise (patternicity). When these patterns are infused with intention and agency—the belief that hidden, intentional agents control events (agenticity)—it forms the basis of conspiratorial cognition. This leads people to attribute complex, chaotic events to the deliberate machinations of powerful, often invisible, puppet masters.

4. Cognitive Biases Reinforce False Conspiratorial Beliefs

Once beliefs are formed, the brain begins to look for and find confirming evidence in support of them, while ignoring or rationalizing away disconfirming evidence—the larger cognitive process is called motivated reasoning.

Motivated reasoning. Our brains often function like lawyers defending a client (our beliefs) rather than scientists seeking objective truth. This "belief-dependent realism" means we first form beliefs for subjective reasons, then rationalize them with intellectual arguments, making us resistant to contradictory evidence. This process is bolstered by various cognitive biases.

Key cognitive biases:

• Confirmation bias: The tendency to seek and interpret information that confirms existing beliefs, while ignoring or downplaying evidence that contradicts them.
• Hindsight bias: The inclination to reconstruct the past to fit present knowledge, making events seem more predictable after they've occurred (e.g., "they should have seen 9/11 coming").
• Proportionality problem: The cognitive dissonance created when a major event (e.g., JFK's assassination) is attributed to a seemingly disproportionately small cause (e.g., a lone gunman), leading to the invention of larger, more complex conspiracies to balance the scales.
• Locus of control: Individuals with an external locus of control, who feel circumstances are beyond their influence, are more prone to believing in conspiracies as explanations for events.

Monological belief systems. People who believe in one conspiracy theory are often more likely to believe in many others, even contradictory ones, forming a "monological belief system." This suggests a fundamental distrust of authority, where any alternative theory, regardless of its internal consistency, is preferred over official narratives.

5. A "Conspiracy Detection Kit" Helps Discern Truth from Falsehood

What metric, algorithm, or rule of thumb could we apply to determine whether such a theory is most likely true, probably false, or undecidable?

Signal detection problem. Distinguishing true from false conspiracies is a signal detection problem, where we aim to correctly identify real plots (hits) while avoiding false alarms (false positives) or missing real threats (false negatives). A "conspiracy detection kit" provides a heuristic framework for this assessment, moving beyond intuitive judgments.

Key criteria for detection:

• Patternicity: Does the "proof" rely on connecting dots between unrelated events, or does evidence genuinely support causal links?
• Agenticity: Does the conspiracy require nearly superhuman power and coordination from its agents?
• Complexity & People: The more complex a plot and the more people involved, the less likely it is to remain secret and succeed.
• Grandiosity & Scale: Conspiracies aiming for world domination or ratcheting up from small to massive events are almost certainly false.
• Significance & Accuracy: Does the theory assign sinister meanings to innocuous events, or does it blend facts with speculation without distinction?
• Paranoia & Falsifiability: Is the theory driven by indiscriminate suspicion, and can it be disproven by any evidence? If not, it's likely false.

Proportional evidence (ECREE). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This principle, rooted in Bayesian reasoning, suggests that our initial credence in a claim should be low if it's extraordinary, and only revised upwards with compelling, verifiable evidence. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, not the skeptic.

6. Many Prominent Conspiracy Theories Are Demonstrably False

The ultimate failure of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists is their inability to explain away the overwhelming evidence of the real conspiracy by Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist organizations past and present that routinely conspired (and still conspire) to attack the United States and its foreign assets.

9/11 Truthers. Despite claims of controlled demolitions, missile strikes on the Pentagon, or stand-down orders, scientific and forensic evidence overwhelmingly supports the official account of 19 al-Qaeda hijackers. Anomalies cited by Truthers are often misinterpretations of complex events, natural phenomena, or the result of hindsight bias. The "conjunction fallacy" demonstrates the logical impossibility of many Truther claims.

Obama Birthers. The theory that Barack Obama was not born on US soil, despite multiple official documents, newspaper announcements, and legal dismissals, persisted due to political tribalism and, for some, racial animus. The sheer number of individuals and institutions that would have to conspire to forge such documents makes the claim astronomically improbable.

JFK Assassination. The "mother of all conspiracy theories" continues to be widely believed, despite exhaustive investigations (Warren Commission, House Select Committee, Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History") concluding Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable, the "magic bullet" theory is debunked by forensic analysis of seating positions, and the Zapruder film's "back and to the left" motion is consistent with a shot from behind. The enduring belief is fueled by:

• Cognitive dissonance (disproportionate cause/effect)
• The mythic status of JFK's "Camelot" era
• Political narratives (e.g., JFK wanted to withdraw from Vietnam, which is false)

7. Real Conspiracies Undermine Public Trust in Institutions

Even paranoids have real enemies.

Historical assassinations. Political assassinations and regime changes have been common throughout history, from Roman emperors to European monarchs and US presidents. While some, like Lincoln's, were clear conspiracies, others, like Garfield's and McKinley's, were acts of lone, unhinged individuals. The frequency of actual plots, however, fosters a rational "constructive conspiracism" about those in power.

US government overreach. Post-WWII, US agencies engaged in secret and illegal activities that, when exposed, severely eroded public trust:

• CIA assassination plots: Attempts to kill Fidel Castro and other foreign leaders, often with bizarre methods.
• Operation Northwoods: A rejected 1962 proposal for false-flag operations to justify military intervention in Cuba.
• Program MKULTRA: CIA mind-control experiments using LSD on unsuspecting citizens, leading to deaths and cover-ups.
• Iran-Contra scandal: Reagan administration officials secretly sold arms to Iran and illegally funded Nicaraguan Contras, bypassing Congress.
• Surveillance programs: The NSA and other agencies spied on US citizens and foreign leaders, revealed by whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Corporate deception. Industries have conspired to mislead the public about harmful effects of their products:

• Tobacco: Decades of denying the link between cigarettes and lung cancer, using tactics to "plant doubt."
• Chemicals: Promoting flame retardants in furniture to deflect blame from cigarette-started fires, despite the chemicals' toxicity.
• Climate change: Funding front groups and "fake experts" to deny human-caused global warming, mimicking tobacco industry tactics.

8. The "New Conspiracism" Thrives on Assertion, Not Evidence

This is conspiracy theory without the theory.

Truth by assertion. Unlike classic conspiracy theories that at least attempt to present arguments and evidence, the "new conspiracism" (exemplified by phrases like "a lot of people are saying") simply asserts claims without factual support. This shift is amplified by social media, where repetition and virality often outweigh veracity.

Social media's role. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook enable rapid dissemination of baseless claims, often through bots and trolls, creating a false impression of widespread belief ("pluralistic ignorance" or "spiral of silence"). This environment allows ideas to take hold even if most individuals privately disagree, as people fear social repercussions for speaking out.

Erosion of norms. The new conspiracism thrives in a climate where political figures and media outlets prioritize partisan narratives over objective truth. This "credibility canyon" between public statements and reality, while not new, has reached unprecedented levels, making it harder for citizens to discern reliable information.

9. Engaging Conspiracists Requires Empathy and Strategic Communication

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend.

Emotional intelligence. Conversations about conspiracy theories are often emotionally charged. It's crucial to keep emotions out of the exchange, show respect, and assume good intentions, even when disagreeing. Attacking the person, rather than the idea, is counterproductive and shuts down dialogue.

Strategic communication tools:

• Acknowledge understanding: Express empathy for why someone might hold a particular view, signaling you're listening.
• Encourage articulation: Ask them to explain their position in detail; often, beliefs are held for tribal reasons, not empirical ones.
• "Steel-man" their argument: Restate their position in its strongest form to ensure understanding and show respect, rather than "straw-manning" it.
• Channel inner Socrates: Ask clarifying questions about sources, assumptions, evidence, and implications to probe their reasoning.
• Separate people from ideas: Focus on "that opinion" or "that statement" rather than "your opinion," and unbundle friendships from disagreements.

Openness to change. Be willing to change your own mind if facts warrant it, and convey that it's a virtue for others to do so too. This models active open-mindedness and can create a safe space for others to reconsider their positions without feeling defeated.

10. Rebuilding Trust Demands a Commitment to Rationality and Open Inquiry

The Constitution of Knowledge is the most successful social design in human history, but also the most counterintuitive.

Reinforce truth norms. Society must valorize honesty, truth-telling, and rationality as virtues. When individuals and institutions prioritize truth-seeking over "territory-defending," it encourages a culture where acknowledging uncertainty and changing one's mind are seen as strengths, not weaknesses.

Active open-mindedness. Cultivate a "scout mindset" (seeking truth) over a "soldier mindset" (defending beliefs). This involves actively seeking out and considering evidence that contradicts one's beliefs, engaging with diverse viewpoints, and being willing to revise one's understanding of reality.

The Constitution of Knowledge. This "epistemic operating system" comprises social rules for attaining reliable knowledge, involving:

• Fallibilism: Acknowledging that anyone can be wrong.
• Objectivity: Commitment to a knowable reality.
• Disconfirmation: Actively seeking to challenge and refute claims.
• Accountability: Holding individuals responsible for errors.
• Pluralism: Insisting on viewpoint diversity and freedom of critique.
• Civility: Arguing calmly and depersonalizing rhetoric.
• Professionalism: Valuing earned credentials and integrity in practice.
• No bullshitting: Rejecting statements made without regard for truth.

Scientific naturalism and Enlightenment humanism. These worldviews, emphasizing reason, science, and empirical evidence, have driven moral and societal progress. They provide a framework for understanding the world and solving problems, displacing dogma and supernaturalism with a commitment to verifiable truth and human flourishing.

11. Demographics and Psychology Influence Belief Patterns

The point of this analysis is that to understand what people believe about conspiracy theories and why they believe them, we need to search for underlying commonalities, such as how they cluster in the three domains of paranoid conspiracy theories, realistic conspiracy theories, and woke conspiracy theories, which we have demonstrated above.

Survey insights. A 2021 Skeptic Research Center survey of over 3,000 Americans revealed significant patterns in conspiracy belief, categorized into three factors: paranoid, realistic, and "wokeness" conspiracy theories. These factors correlate with demographic and psychological variables, affirming the tripartite model of conspiracism.

Paranoid conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon, reptilian aliens, chemtrails):

• Age: Older individuals were less likely to agree.
• Race: Black/Hispanic respondents were more likely to agree than whites.
• Income & Education: Higher income and education levels correlated with lower agreement.
• Political Affiliation: Republicans were slightly more likely to agree.

Realistic conspiracy theories (e.g., smart phone spying, Epstein murder, rigged elections, global warming hoax):

• Sex: Females were slightly more likely to agree.
• Race: Black/Hispanic respondents were slightly more likely to agree.
• Income & Education: Higher income and education levels correlated with lower agreement.
• Political Affiliation: Republicans were slightly more likely to agree.

"Wokeness" conspiracy theories (e.g., systemic racism/sexism):

• Age: Younger individuals were more likely to agree.
• Sex: Females were more likely to agree.
• Race: Black/Hispanic respondents were more likely to agree.
• Income & Education: Higher income and education levels correlated with lower agreement.
• Political Affiliation: Republicans were far less likely to agree.

Proxy and tribal reinforcement. The survey results underscore how specific conspiracy theories often serve as proxies for broader distrust in institutions, and how tribal loyalties (e.g., political affiliation) strongly influence which theories are embraced. Even absurd claims gain traction when they align with pre-existing anxieties or group identities.

Last updated: February 17, 2026