Skip to main content

Conspiracy theories are so unbelievable that you can easily make up a more believable one yourself. Here's how.

Disclosure: This is a thought experiment for the purposes of showing how easy it is to make up a conspiracy theory. I do not advocate the dissemination of conspiracy theories and other baseless speculations.

Do some of the conspiracy theories out there seem so far-fetched that you are ROTFL when you hear of them? Yet some people actually do seem to believe them. Many conspiracy theories are made up. In other words they are fiction. At best, they are theories and not fact, otherwise that particular conspiracy theory wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would be fact. At worse, they are the deliberate peddling of lies.

So I decided to demonstrate that creating a conspiracy theory is so easy that anyone can do it. There are no special skills, talents, or level of intelligence required. There is nothing special about making up a conspiracy theory. Let's have a go.

Step 1: Identify the least believable conspiracy theory you have heard of

This step is easy and should take you less than a minute. The good news for you here is that conspiracy theories set the bar is so low in terms of believability, that you should have no problem finding a not-very-believable conspiracy theory that exists. 

It doesn't matter how many or how few other people happen to believe in it; it just has to sound ridiculously unbelievable to you.

Step 2: Make up your own conspiracy theory that is more believable than the one in step 1

By this, I mean that you need not actually believe your own conspiracy theory. Likewise it does not need to hold up to journalistic scrutiny or fact-based evidence (the one in step 1 likely doesn't). Yours also does not need to sound believable to anyone else, it just has to sound more believable to you personally than the one in step 1. 

So you're trying to create something that, even though you don't believe it, sounds like it makes marginally more sense than the one in step 1. In case you can't think of anything at this moment, don't worry - there are conspiracy theory generators online you can use. Try the conspiracy theory generator at Chaotic Shiny or the conspiracy theory generator at Generator Fun.

Step 3. Done

At this point, using either your own brain or technology tools that are available online to anyone, you have managed to come up with one or more conspiracy theories that sounds more believable to you than the least believable one you have heard of. Yes, it is really that easy. 

As you can see, there are an almost infinite number of conspiracy theories you can generate, creating variations upon variations of them. They would be pure fiction, but they are easy to create.

So if it's that easy, why do people actually believe some of the existing conspiracy theories?

Now we come to an intersection of technology and a bunch of other fields, none of which I am expert in. It's not just the supply end of conspiracy theories that we need to look at, it's the demand end too.

In other words, given how easy we saw it was to just make stuff up, why does anyone ever believe an existing conspiracy theory in the absence of hard journalistic-level evidence? Why is their reaction to believe it in the absence of a journalistic level of evidence?

This, by the way, is the same question as "Why do people buy tabloid newspapers when they likely know that much of it could be libel or slander?" 

The dissemination of lies would quickly die out if there was no demand. Yet there is clearly demand.

I think that the answer is, there are people out there who value fake answers to questions more than they value the truth. 

To paint it with a finer brush, there are people who, when observing a complex situation, would prefer to believe a made-up theory than to wait for evidence. They are impatient to close the question, and would rather have it closed with a straight-out lie, as opposed to leaving the question open and waiting for evidence.

Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

How to center images horizontally using Grav

I've been playing around a bit with Grav. I was posing the question to myself: for the relatively simple use-cases I'm dealing with, could it possibly work for my purposes as an alternative to ProcessWire?  The problem I was initially dismayed to find that Grav uses Markdown as its editor, which does not offer native support for horizontal centering of anything (text or images). However, Grav offers some tweaks that help make it easier to do specific things you might commonly want to do. I tried writing a sample article, and I found that one of the hardest things to do was to center an image horizontally. And horizontal centering of images is something I would typically do in most of the articles I would write. So the lack of easy horizontal centering is a highly significant drawback IMHO (most people do want to center images in an article!) However, this issue is made up for by other things in Grav: the relative speed, ease and flexibility of custom theming and built-in suppor...
Read more

More callable variants of functions in Ruby

 This is a slightly more advanced version of my previous post on creating callable variants of functions in Ruby while avoiding scope problems . In today's instance, I was creating an error reporting system for a program I was writing.  The error reporting, of necessity, had to emit a message to indicate what was going on. While some errors would be unique messages that only occurred once during the program, other errors could be grouped. For example, one group was "incorrect number of parameters supplied". There were several error messages within my program that fell into this category, so I didn't want to type out the exact same wording each time. I wanted to create a function that could report this sort of error indicating where it happened (of course I had to supply parameters to the messages to show the context). So here is a very basic sketch of the sort of thing I was doing. I'm writing this here so that I can go back to it easily later. The item I'm re...
Read more

Good and bad uses of AI as it currently stands

The good Recently, the Photos app on my Android phone automatically curated some of my photos into a "highlights" album for me. I thought this was a fantastic idea. I love this use of AI - it does something quickly and easily that would otherwise take a lot of human time.  The only downside was that the AI included a close-up pic I'd taken of a spot on the skin behind my husband's ear so he could see it. Now, if this AI had instead been for a self-driving car, then too bad, we likely would've had a terrible wreck at this point - endangering myself, any passengers, and other drivers on the road. But since this application of AI for photo selection did not have any life-threatening consequences, I was all for it. The bad I've said before, and I'll say it again, that AI as it currently stands should not be used for self-driving purposes and I have explained clearly why. Indeed, I believe that AI should not be used for any purpose that may have life-threaten...
Read more

About Me

My photo
Vera
I'm a wife and mother. I don't have any formal computer science qualifications, or any religious qualifications. I have a PhD in biochemistry. This photo is of me, but is confusing for AI.