HOW TO MAKE SENSE OF CONSPIRACY THEORIES

© copyright by Rob Ager Dec 2010

 

CHAPTER NINE
HOW SHOULD I USE OR RESPOND TO THE WORDS "CONSPIRACY THEORY" AND "CONSPIRACY THEORIST" IN CONVERSATION AND DEBATE?

 

In the variety of conspiracy theory debates that I’ve read, viewed online, and witnessed personally patterns of disagreement have typically turned into one party calling the other person’s opinion a “conspiracy theory” and/or calling that same person a “conspiracy theorist”.

The response from the “conspiracy theorist” tends to consist of any combination of the following:

  1. Claiming that the conspiracy is strongly supported by evidence and is therefore a “fact”, not a “theory”.
  2. Claiming that the person who disbelieves the conspiracy is in denial or has been brainwashed by the mainstream media.
  3. Claiming that conspiracies do happen; offering well known historical examples to support that assertion.

Although there can be some truth to any of these three typical responses, they do not always support the particular “conspiracy theory” in question. The second and third responses especially have become convenient clichés, just as the term “conspiracy theorist” has.

Of course any debate should be decided on the subject of evidence, but discussions of evidence tend to consist of back and forth “straw man” arguments. Each side steers the discussion in the direction of what they perceive to be the weakest links in the opponents argument, while avoiding the stronger points. In the case of a complex conspiracy theory this can lead to an endless circular argument that bores and frustrates both observers and the debaters themselves.

I’d like to offer here some suggestions that will aid those on both sides of a conspiracy theory debate.

For those listening to unconvincing claims of conspiracy:

  1. Let the person know you are aware that conspiracies do happen. Offer some historical examples. Then explain to the person that you don’t find the “conspiracy theory” they’ve presented to be convincing. Explain why and ask them if they have any other information on the subject.
  2. Don’t voice any judgements about the character of the person communicating the “conspiracy theory”. No matter what their personality is like there is always the possibility of at least some truth to their claims. If you attack their identity you will simply be guiding them into the position of perceiving you as a) a person who lacks knowledge of real historical examples of conspiracy, or b) a person who is in a comfort zone of denial. Once these positions of mutual disrespect have been adopted the argument becomes a circular waste of time.
  3. Pay attention to both the stronger and weaker points of the “conspiracy theory” argument.
  4. Discuss the topic not from the position of already knowing the “conspiracy theory” to be 100% wrong, but from the position that together you will assess the information for mutual learning. Let the person know that you are taking this respectful and open-minded position. It will encourage them to take the same approach. In achieving this position there’s a greater chance that one of you, or even both of you, will learn something useful.
  5. If the discussion becomes complex, ask the “conspiracy theorist” to write down all of the information they have on the subject, so that you can mutually sort through the information without going in circles, writing down your conclusions and points of agreement as you do so.
  6. Do not insult the “conspiracy theorist” after, and if, you manage to cast significant doubt on their initial claims. Praise them for having the courage to investigate the matter – after all they were likely acting from a position of genuine concern. Let them know that, even though they may have been mistaken in this particular instance, there are instances of genuine conspiracy and that, without members of the public taking steps to investigate, some of those conspiracies would not be exposed at all.
  7. If you cast significant doubt on the “conspiracy theory” try to offer some basic constructive feedback about how the individual can avoid falling into the same perceptual trap in relation to other “conspiracy theories”.

For those communicating claims of conspiracy:

  1. Let the person know you are aware that some “conspiracies theories” are untrue. Offer examples. Then let the person know that sometimes conspiracies do happen. Offer some historical examples. Then explain the basic premise of your “conspiracy theory”, outlining the most important evidence, while also letting them know that you are open to the possibility that you are mistaken, providing a significant argument against the theory is offered.
  2. Don’t voice any judgements about the character of the person listening to your “conspiracy theory”. No matter what their personality is like there is always the possibility of at least some truth to their disagreement. If you attack their identity you will simply be guiding them into the position of perceiving you as a person who a) has a paranoid world view and an inherent distrust of authority, or b) likes to blame other circumstances out of their control for the failings and short comings of their own life.
  3. Pay attention to both the stronger and weaker points of the “conspiracy theory” disagreement.
  4. Discuss the topic not from the position of already knowing the “conspiracy theory” to be 100% true, but from the position that together you will assess the information for mutual learning. Let the person know that you are taking this respectful and open-minded position. It will encourage them to take the same approach. In achieving this position there’s a greater chance that one of you, or even both of you, will learn something useful.
  5. If the discussion becomes complex, write down all of the information you have on the subject, so that you can mutually sort through the information without going in circles, writing down your conclusions and points of agreement as you do so.
  6. Do not insult the listener after, and if, you manage to cast significant credibility on your conspiracy claims. Praise them for having the courage to listen to a difficult subject – after all they were likely acting from a position of genuine disbelief. Let them know that, even though they may have been mistaken in this particular instance, there are instances of conspiracy that turn out to be false and that, without members of the public taking steps to point out the flaws of such arguments, some of those false conspiracies would go on to be widely believed.
  7. If you cast significant credibility on your “conspiracy theory” try to offer some basic constructive feedback about how the individual can avoid falling into the same perceptual trap in relation to other “conspiracy theories”.
  8. If at any point in the debate the listener attempts to dismiss you as a “conspiracy theorist” or labels your argument as “conspiracy theory” explain that everybody from individual citizens to entire governments believes in and disseminates “conspiracy theories”. Offer as many historical examples as you need, including ones that the listener believes in. Do this politely and ask them to reconsider their “conspiracy theorist” accusation for the duration of the discussion so that you can mutually share information and reach a constructive conclusion.

Thanks for reading.

 

GO TO PREVIOUS CHAPTER

GO TO CONTENTS PAGE

MAIN SITE PAGE