GEMINILOGGBOOKOBERDADAISTICUS

Hello there, community of geminauts! I know you're still sticking around.

On sheeple, dupes, and rabbit holes

Let me introduce you to an interesting rabbit hole to descend into. Its community thrives in journals devoted to media studies or political psychology.

One of the most recent findings in research about conspiracy theorists is that they are overconfident in their beliefs, and tend to grossly over-estimate the number of people who share their view. Previous studies apparently have tried to stick psychological labels on conspiracy theorists such as narcissists or attention seekers. Could it be a subtle way for these researchers to hint that they don't want to be associated with the dupes whose bizarre world views they cannot fathom?

Now, the problem with the term "conspiracy theory" is that it is pejorative. Everyone admits that conspiracies happen, that is, two or more people get together in secrecy to plot nefarious things. Then they usually cover up their misdeeds, or introduce enough of distractions to make people forget about it, or blame their enemies. So-called conspiracy theories are usually considered false, unjustified, and harmful. David Coady has another take on it, arguing that since conspiracies actually occur, it is justified and healty for society to investigate suspicions of conspiracies.

Of course there are really nutcase theories and more plausible ones. A brilliant contributor to the first category is David Icke with his shape-shifting reptilians and hollow earth hypothesis. On the other hand, suspicions that there is something amiss in the official narratives about events such as the JFK assassination or 9/11 would merit more serious consideration. But mixing them up as one and the same harmfull phenomenon diverts attention from the more plausible ones. I believe in the conspiracy theory that holds that the term "conspiracy theory" was introduced precisely for the purpose of deriding those who entertain such speculations.

Therefore, when I read conspiracy theory researchers, as always with great interest, I also worry that they have fallen into this trap, like other sheeple. Let me put that another way. When researchers mention examples of conspiracy theories, do they assume to know the truth about what happened? Princess Diana died in a car accident. Or she did not die in an accident; the latter qualifies as a conspiracy theory. I have never followed royality gossip enough to have a strong opinion, but how do they define an accident? It seems to me that most conspiracy theory researchers avoid taking a position and simply refer to "conspiracy belief, whether true or not" or something to that effect.

There are similar problems with the fact checking business and their well-meaning search for "fake news," which indeed may be fake most of the time. But sometimes they too get it wrong. It is all too easy to get hung up on straightforward facts and to forget the importance of framing and historical context.