In the days following the bombings at the Boston Marathon, speculation
online regarding the identity and motive of the unknown perpetrator or
perpetrators was rampant. And once the Tsarnaev brothers were identified
and the manhunt came to a close, the speculation didn’t cease. It took a
new form. A sampling: Maybe the brothers Tsarnaev were just patsies,
fall guys set up to take the heat for a mysterious Saudi with high-level
connections; or maybe they were innocent, but instead of the Saudis,
the actual bomber had acted on behalf of a rogue branch of our own
government; or what if the Tsarnaevs were behind the attacks, but were
secretly working for a larger organization ?
#
#
Crazy as these theories are, those propagating them are not — they’re
quite normal, in fact. But recent scientific research tells us this
much: if you think one of the theories above is plausible, you probably
feel the same way about the others, even though they contradict one
another. And it’s very likely that this isn’t the only news story that
makes you feel as if shadowy forces are behind major world events.
“The best predictor of belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in other
conspiracy theories,” says Viren Swami, a psychology professor who
studies conspiracy belief at the University of Westminster in England.
Psychologists say that’s because a conspiracy theory isn’t so much a
response to a single event as it is an expression of an overarching
worldview.
As Richard Hofstadter wrote in his seminal 1965 book, “The Paranoid
Style in American Politics,” conspiracy theories, especially those
involving meddlesome foreigners, are a favorite pastime in this nation.
Americans have always had the sneaking suspicion that somebody was out
to get us — be it Freemasons, Catholics or communists. But in recent
years, it seems as if every tragedy comes with a round of yarn-spinning,
as the Web fills with stories about “false flag” attacks and “crisis
actors” — not mere theorizing but arguments for the existence of a
completely alternate version of reality.
Since Hofstadter’s book was published, our access to information has
vastly improved, which you would think would have helped minimize such
wild speculation. But according to recent scientific research on the
matter, it most likely only serves to make theories more convincing to
the public.
What’s even more surprising is that this sort of theorizing
isn’t limited to those on the margins.
Perfectly sane minds possess an
incredible capacity for developing narratives, and even some of the
wildest conspiracy theories can be grounded in rational thinking, which
makes them that much more pernicious. Consider this: 63 percent of
registered American voters believe in at least one political conspiracy
theory, according to a recent poll conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson
University.
While psychologists can’t know exactly what goes on
inside our heads, they have, through surveys and laboratory studies,
come up with a set of traits that correlate well with conspiracy belief.
In 2010, Swami and a co-author summarized this research in The
Psychologist, a scientific journal. They found, perhaps surprisingly,
that believers are more likely to be cynical about the world in general
and politics in particular. Conspiracy theories also seem to be more
compelling to those with low self-worth, especially with regard to their
sense of agency in the world at large.
Conspiracy theories appear to be
a way of reacting to uncertainty and powerlessness.
Economic recessions, terrorist attacks and natural disasters are
massive, looming threats, but we have little power over when they occur
or how or what happens afterward. In these moments of powerlessness and
uncertainty, a part of the brain called the amygdala kicks into action.
Paul Whalen, a scientist at Dartmouth College who studies the amygdala,
says it doesn’t exactly do anything on its own. Instead, the amygdala
jump-starts the rest of the brain into analytical overdrive — prompting
repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent
and understandable narrative, to understand what just happened, what
threats still exist and what should be done now.
This may be a useful
way to understand how, writ large, the brain’s capacity for generating
new narratives after shocking events can contribute to so much paranoia
in this country.
“If you know the truth and others don’t, that’s one way you can reassert
feelings of having agency,” Swami says. It can be comforting to do your
own research even if that research is flawed.
It feels good to be the
wise old goat in a flock of sheep.
Surprisingly, Swami’s work has also turned up a correlation between
conspiracy theorizing and strong support of democratic principles. But
this isn’t quite so strange if you consider the context. Kathryn
Olmsted, a historian at the University of California, Davis, says that
conspiracy theories wouldn’t exist in a world in which real conspiracies
don’t exist. And those conspiracies — Watergate or the Iran-contra
Affair — often involve manipulating and circumventing the democratic
process. Even people who believe that the Sandy Hook shooting was
actually a drama staged by actors couch their arguments in concern for
the preservation of the Second Amendment.
Our access to high-quality information has not,
unfortunately, ushered in an age in which disagreements of this sort can
easily be solved with a quick Google search. In fact, the Internet has
made things worse. Confirmation bias — the tendency to pay more
attention to evidence that supports what you already believe — is a
well-documented and common human failing. People have been writing about
it for centuries. In recent years, though, researchers have found that
confirmation bias is not easy to overcome. You can’t just drown it in
facts.
In 2006, the political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler
identified a phenomenon called the “backfire effect.” They showed that
efforts to debunk inaccurate political information can leave people more
convinced that false information is true than they would have been
otherwise. Nyhan isn’t sure why this happens, but it appears to be more
prevalent when the bad information helps bolster a favored worldview or
ideology.
In that way, Swami says, the Internet and other media have helped
perpetuate paranoia. Not only does more exposure to these alternative
narratives help engender belief in conspiracies, he says, but the
Internet’s tendency toward tribalism helps reinforce misguided beliefs.
And that’s a problem. Because while believing George W. Bush helped plan the Sept. 11 attacks might make you feel
in control, it doesn’t actually make you so. Earlier this year, Karen
Douglas, a University of Kent psychologist, along with a student,
published research in which they exposed people to conspiracy theories
about climate change and the death of Princess Diana. Those who got
information supporting the theories but not information debunking them
were more likely to withdraw from participation in politics and were
less likely to take action to reduce their carbon footprints.
Alex Jones, a syndicated radio host, can build fame as a conspiracy
peddler; politicians can hint at conspiracies for votes and leverage;
but if conspiracy theories are a tool the average person uses to reclaim
his sense of agency and access to democracy, it’s an ineffective tool.
It can even have dangerous health implications. For example, research
has shown that African-Americans who believe AIDS is a weapon loosed on
them by the government (remembering the abuses of the Tuskegee
experiment) are less likely to practice protected sex. And if you
believe that governments or corporations are hiding evidence that
vaccines harm children, you’re less likely to have your children
vaccinated. The result: pockets of measles and whooping-cough infections
and a few deaths in places with low child-vaccination rates.
Psychologists aren’t sure whether powerlessness causes conspiracy
theories or vice versa. Either way, the current scientific thinking
suggests these beliefs are nothing more than an extreme form of
cynicism, a turning away from politics and traditional media — which
only perpetuates the problem.
#Πηγή:
Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories
By
MAGGIE KOERTH-BAKER
Maggie Koerth-Baker is science editor at BoingBoing.net and author of “Before the Lights Go Out,” on the future of energy production and consumption.
EurekaPublished: May 21, 2013 513 Comments
#
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου