51 minutes ago, Hummin said:

The biggest problem is the certainty of people who cannot support their claims, and that weakness makes us easy targets for false facts, myths, pseudo-science, false prophets, and manipulative politicians.

So everything I read from you comes across with the same sureness and certainty, and that makes it hard for me to give you full credibility. Even though I have doubts in some cases and scenarios, I still value facts, solid facts, and science. And while even science can sometimes be biased, it is still what we need to lean toward instead of opinions, myths, assumptions, or confident claims without evidence.

The society we live in is built on trust, and on the hope that people, or at least most people, are moving in the same direction toward a better tomorrow. When that trust breaks down, and we allow ourselves to be divided into smaller and smaller factions, the result is chaos.

I hear you there Sir.

But!! Some of the events that we are told happened, either did not, or the official line does not hold water one little bit.

Take the London tube and bus bombings of yesteryear. The guys that were said to have done the dastardly deeds were not even in London at the time. The train, supposed to have taken them from Luton to London, was cancelled.

As you know Sir, covid is my pet research area. There is no evidence what-so-ever that points to it even existing.

The bombs that his Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, were not nuclear devices. It has been proved that they were not. Again; the official line provided no evidence. Just words. Words that don't hold water.

Nature is truth. Truth is nature.

15 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I hear you there Sir.

But!! Some of the events that we are told happened, either did not, or the official line does not hold water one little bit.

Take the London tube and bus bombings of yesteryear. The guys that were said to have done the dastardly deeds were not even in London at the time. The train, supposed to have taken them from Luton to London, was cancelled.

As you know Sir, covid is my pet research area. There is no evidence what-so-ever that points to it even existing.

The bombs that his Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, were not nuclear devices. It has been proved that they were not. Again; the official line provided no evidence. Just words. Words that don't hold water.

Nature is truth. Truth is nature.

It is also possible you and me, and everyone else lives in different realities if this whole thing called existence is just a simulation ;-) which I believe more than some of the most controversial conspiracy theories. Read believe, but the calculation shows it is in fact a real realistic theory, especially in the time we living now, and we can manipulate life, and create alternativ realties our self.

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I hear you there Sir.

But!! Some of the events that we are told happened, either did not, or the official line does not hold water one little bit.

Take the London tube and bus bombings of yesteryear. The guys that were said to have done the dastardly deeds were not even in London at the time. The train, supposed to have taken them from Luton to London, was cancelled.

As you know Sir, covid is my pet research area. There is no evidence what-so-ever that points to it even existing.

The bombs that his Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, were not nuclear devices. It has been proved that they were not. Again; the official line provided no evidence. Just words. Words that don't hold water.

Nature is truth. Truth is nature.

One of the most convincing examples from your trove of posts showing an utter lack of evidence to support your twisted opinions. Just claim after nonsensical claim.

You should go work for a company manufacturing machines that spread manure in the fields. When you apply for the job, take along a copy of your AN posts to demonstrate your extensive experience.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

your trove of posts showing an utter lack of evidence

It's not just "evidence" - it's a lack of reason and logic.

This thread asked: “Why are there so many conspiracy theorists, and what can be done about them?”

 

What it’s actually shown is something slightly different – that quite a few people either recognise the mindset or, more tellingly, inadvertently demonstrate it. Like most entrenched habits or belief systems, nothing really changes until there’s some level of self-awareness and a willingness to question it.

 

What’s also striking is how few responses have addressed the question itself. Instead, the thread has largely drifted into people defending or promoting their own preferred conspiracies, often backed by anecdotal or apocryphal examples they assume are relevant. That, in itself, is quite revealing — it highlights a tendency to substitute personal belief for structured argument and to engage with the topic emotionally rather than analytically.

 

As for why there are so many, that’s been largely overlooked. A big part of it, in my view, is decades of poor media literacy. People are simply not well equipped to evaluate information critically — especially visual and online content — and tend to approach it with a level of naïvety that makes them vulnerable to confident-sounding nonsense.

 

So the symptoms are on full display in this thread, but the causes haven’t really been explored.

And on the second part of the question — what to do about it — there’s been very little in the way of practical or realistic suggestions. Plenty of noise, not much solution.

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

It is also possible you and me, and everyone else lives in different realities if this whole thing called existence is just a simulation ;-) which I believe more than some of the most controversial conspiracy theories. Read believe, but the calculation shows it is in fact a real realistic theory, especially in the time we living now, and we can manipulate life, and create alternativ realties our self.

If you genuinely think we’re living in a simulation, then by definition you’ve just removed any basis for evidence, logic, or argument — including your own. It’s not a “theory” in the scientific sense; it’s an unfalsifiable philosophical idea. In other words, it explains everything and therefore explains nothing.

Saying “the calculations show it’s realistic” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for something that produces zero testable predictions and zero usable evidence. That’s not science — that’s speculation dressed up with maths you haven’t actually applied.

And the irony? You’re using a hypothetical, untestable scenario to justify believing other unproven claims. That’s not critical thinking — that’s stacking guesses on top of guesses and calling it insight.

If your argument works just as well in a real universe as in an imaginary one, it isn’t an argument — it’s a shrug with extra steps.

18 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Okay, so we are mentally ill. The question is, what to do with us? Especially as we are now the majority (c.f. your own claim that all Trump supporters are conspiracy theorists, that's 77 million people in the US alone).

Being in the minority of sane people, what do you suggest as an actionable remedy?

You’ve managed to dodge the actual topic again and replace it with a strawman and a bit of theatrical victimhood.

First, “we are now the majority” — based on what, exactly? Assertion isn’t evidence. And even if it were true (it isn’t), popularity has never been a measure of accuracy. By that logic, every widely held false belief in history suddenly becomes “true” because enough people bought into it.

Second, “77 million people = majority” — no, it doesn’t. That’s not even a majority in the U.S., let alone globally. More importantly, I never said all Trump supporters are conspiracy theorists. That’s your exaggeration, not my argument — a classic case of arguing with something that was never said because it’s easier than addressing what was.

Third, the “so what do we do with you?” line is pure deflection. This isn’t about rounding people up or declaring anyone “mentally ill” as a blanket label — it’s about understanding why certain patterns of thinking occur and why they persist despite evidence. You’ve taken a discussion about behaviour and turned it into a melodrama about persecution.

And finally, “what’s the actionable remedy?” — if you read the original post properly, you’d notice it was explicitly framed as a discussion: “Why so many… and what to do about them?” That’s not a test with a preloaded answer — it’s the question itself. The fact that the thread has largely avoided answering it (and instead spiralled into people defending their favourite conspiracies) rather proves the point.

If anything, this exchange is a textbook example of the issue:

• Replace the argument with a caricature

• Inflate numbers to sound authoritative

• Shift from ideas to identity (“us vs them”)

• Avoid the actual question

That’s not a majority. That’s just a very loud loop.

36 minutes ago, kwilco said:

so we are mentally ill

"WE" – at least we agree on who you are!

42 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You’ve managed to dodge the actual topic again and replace it with a strawman and a bit of theatrical victimhood.

First, “we are now the majority” — based on what, exactly? Assertion isn’t evidence. And even if it were true (it isn’t), popularity has never been a measure of accuracy. By that logic, every widely held false belief in history suddenly becomes “true” because enough people bought into it.

Second, “77 million people = majority” — no, it doesn’t. That’s not even a majority in the U.S., let alone globally. More importantly, I never said all Trump supporters are conspiracy theorists. That’s your exaggeration, not my argument — a classic case of arguing with something that was never said because it’s easier than addressing what was.

Third, the “so what do we do with you?” line is pure deflection. This isn’t about rounding people up or declaring anyone “mentally ill” as a blanket label — it’s about understanding why certain patterns of thinking occur and why they persist despite evidence. You’ve taken a discussion about behaviour and turned it into a melodrama about persecution.

And finally, “what’s the actionable remedy?” — if you read the original post properly, you’d notice it was explicitly framed as a discussion: “Why so many… and what to do about them?” That’s not a test with a preloaded answer — it’s the question itself. The fact that the thread has largely avoided answering it (and instead spiralled into people defending their favourite conspiracies) rather proves the point.

If anything, this exchange is a textbook example of the issue:

• Replace the argument with a caricature

• Inflate numbers to sound authoritative

• Shift from ideas to identity (“us vs them”)

• Avoid the actual question

That’s not a majority. That’s just a very loud loop.

Do you use Grok, ChatGPT or Gemini, by the way? In any case, they all use the same approach when prompted to produce an argument.

Take this friendly piece of advice from someone who actually can write and is very involved in the issues surrounding AI and its permeation in everyday life: the main indicator that you are dealing with someone who uses AI to write for them is the "It's not... it's / that's not… that's" formulation. I respectfully suggest proofreading your AI-generated posts before hitting "Submit Reply" and removing those. Perhaps you could even try mustering an original thought as a replacement? In incremental steps, of course, don't go cold turkey as that could have detrimental effects.

54 minutes ago, kwilco said:

More importantly, I never said all Trump supporters are conspiracy theorists. That’s your exaggeration, not my argument — a classic case of arguing with something that was never said because it’s easier than addressing what was.

Don't worry, you're still the smartest guy in this thread.

On 3/24/2026 at 7:05 PM, kwilco said:

Not all conspiracy theorists are Trump supporters but all Trump supporters are conspiracy theorists

3 hours ago

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

More importantly, I never said all Trump supporters are conspiracy theorists. That’s your exaggeration, not my argument — a classic case of arguing with something that was never said because it’s easier than addressing what was.

Don't worry, you're still the smartest guy in this thread.

On 3/25/2026 at 1:05 AM, kwilco said:

Not all conspiracy theorists are Trump supporters but all Trump supporters.

= = =

Yes, the guy that thinks he is the smartest guy of the thread (kwilco) needs AI to create his continual stream of derisive comments. Without it and when posting his own thoughts, he does not even remember what he (or the AI-engine he used) stated and then starts denying what he posted less than 2 days earlier.

16 hours ago, kwilco said:

If you genuinely think we’re living in a simulation, then by definition you’ve just removed any basis for evidence, logic, or argument — including your own. It’s not a “theory” in the scientific sense; it’s an unfalsifiable philosophical idea. In other words, it explains everything and therefore explains nothing.

Saying “the calculations show it’s realistic” is doing a lot of heavy lifting for something that produces zero testable predictions and zero usable evidence. That’s not science — that’s speculation dressed up with maths you haven’t actually applied.

And the irony? You’re using a hypothetical, untestable scenario to justify believing other unproven claims. That’s not critical thinking — that’s stacking guesses on top of guesses and calling it insight.

If your argument works just as well in a real universe as in an imaginary one, it isn’t an argument — it’s a shrug with extra steps.

Im just following the nature of the thread itself ;-) where everything seems to be allowed.

You’re responding to my comment as if I claimed a literal formal proof in a physics paper. I didn’t. In context, I was making a provocative point in an open conspiracy thread, with some irony built in. More precisely: my point was not that simulation theory is scientifically proven, but that it is more intellectually defensible than many conspiracy claims because there is at least a philosophical and probabilistic argument behind it. If future civilizations can create highly realistic simulated worlds, then the idea stops being pure fantasy and becomes a serious hypothesis people can argue about. So yes, “prove” was rhetorical overstatement. The underlying point remains: simulation theory is speculative, but not on the same level as random unsupported conspiracy claims.

One issue I have is some of the conspiracy theorists seem like good guys, nice guys, even smart guys. I wonder why they would spend their time pondering the moon landing, flat earth, and may aspects of the vaccine issues when they could admit:

a. many of the arguments are extremely tenuous at best and often incredibly weak and often focus on some minor specific detail - a photo or a study by someone often not qualified in the area;

b. the gain to them if they do find some example of a corrupt study or a falsehood, of what had been considered an established fact, will likely only apply to the specific issue and will normally have limited or no broader implications;

c. there are so many more worthy issues of corruption and deception to look at in plain view that have much more significant implications to the world around us.

One doesn't have to look far to see the amazing work of scientists over recent decades and years - that fact alone may be difficult for them to accept when broadly accepted science is so linked in their minds with corruption and dark forces.

One wonders if it is that they like the notoriety of taking a contrary position and that they feel like classifying others as sheep gives them a support to their idea of their individuality and their idea of what intelligence is and it's applicability to them.

15 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Do you use Grok, ChatGPT or Gemini, by the way? In any case, they all use the same approach when prompted to produce an argument.

Take this friendly piece of advice from someone who actually can write and is very involved in the issues surrounding AI and its permeation in everyday life: the main indicator that you are dealing with someone who uses AI to write for them is the "It's not... it's / that's not… that's" formulation. I respectfully suggest proofreading your AI-generated posts before hitting "Submit Reply" and removing those. Perhaps you could even try mustering an original thought as a replacement? In incremental steps, of course, don't go cold turkey as that could have detrimental effects.

It looks like, without an argument, you've resorted to deflection.

Just saying “AI” isn’t a counter-argument. I don’t think you even know what AI is or how to use it…… I do get a certain frisson of schadenfreude when I think of the time you spent on a pointless exercise – typical of conspiracy theorists. You really need to concentrate of the message and not the messenger – again a classic mistake of conspiracy theorists

You are not actually making an argument  - You don’t address whether the facts are wrong, don’t challenge the logic and don’t refute any evidence.

You’re just regurgitating a label.

Dismissing something because you think it’s AI-assisted is like dismissing it because it was written on a laptop. The tool used to produce words is irrelevant — what matters is whether the argument stands up.

If you disagree, explain why.
Point out the error.
Challenge the reasoning.

Calling something “AI” isn’t debate. It’s avoidance and deflection

Why Do Intelligent People Fall for Conspiracy Theories?

One of the biggest myths in this whole debate is that conspiracy theorists are simply “stupid.” They’re not. In fact, quite a few are highly intelligent and well-educated. O=in fact they are often the ones who sow the seeds in the first place.

 

And that’s precisely the problem…

Research consistently shows that intelligence doesn’t make you immune to conspiracy thinking — it just makes you better at defending it. The issue isn’t a lack of brainpower, it’s how that brainpower is used.

 

1. Intelligence ≠ Objectivity
Highly intelligent people are often very good at something called motivated reasoning — starting with a conclusion and then using their intelligence to justify it. In other words, they don’t follow the evidence… they build a case around what they already want to believe.

 

2. Pattern-Seeking Gone Wrong
Smart people are good at spotting patterns. That’s useful — until it isn’t. The same ability can lead to seeing connections that simply aren’t there. Random events become “linked,” coincidence becomes “evidence,” and suddenly you’ve got a conspiracy.

 

3. The “I Know Something You Don’t” Effect
There’s a strong psychological pull in believing you’ve uncovered hidden knowledge. It feeds a sense of superiority — “I’ve worked it out, the rest are sheep.”
For some, that’s far more appealing than accepting boring, evidence-based explanations.

 

4. Control in a Chaotic World
Conspiracy theories simplify complex, messy reality. Instead of random events, uncertainty, or systemic problems, you get a clear villain and a neat explanation. That’s comforting — even if it’s wrong.

 

5. Identity and Belonging
Beliefs aren’t always about truth — they’re about tribe. Conspiracy theories often act as social glue, creating in-groups of “truth seekers” versus everyone else. Once identity is tied to the belief, changing your mind feels like losing your place in the group.

 

 

The Bottom Line

Intelligent people don’t fall for conspiracy theories because they can’t think.
They fall for them because they can think — and then use that ability to rationalise, defend, and entrench beliefs that aren’t supported by evidence.

In short:
They don’t lack intelligence — they misuse it.

And that’s a much harder problem to fix.

 

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

One of the biggest myths in this whole debate is that conspiracy theorists are simply “stupid.” They’re not. In fact, quite a few are highly intelligent and well-educated. O=in fact they are often the ones who sow the seeds in the first place.

Intelligent people often allocate a significant amount of their mental resources to justifying their conspiracy ideas. I recently came across this concept in a book, although I can't remember the title at the moment. I know several highly educated individuals who believe in some of the most far-fetched conspiracy theories.

4 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Intelligent people often allocate a significant amount of their mental resources to justifying their conspiracy ideas. I recently came across this concept in a book, although I can't remember the title at the moment. I know several highly educated individuals who believe in some of the most far-fetched conspiracy theories.

Did your mental resources run out?

2 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Did your mental resources run out?

Your replies often lack clarity and can be mentally exhausting for everyone involved.

19 minutes ago, kwilco said:

It looks like, without an argument, you've resorted to deflection.

I don't read AI slop. Can you express your ideas independently? If so, I will engage.

Just now, rattlesnake said:

I don't read AI slop. Can you express your ideas independently? If so, I will engage.

It appears you are ready to concede defeat.

5 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

Your replies often lack clarity and can be mentally exhausting for everyone involved.

Seemed pretty clear to me.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I don't read AI slop. Can you express your ideas independently? If so, I will engage.

in case you missed it - and that seems a trait with you - Just saying “AI” isn’t a counter-argument. I don’t think you even know what AI is or how to use it…… I do find a certain frisson of schadenfreude when I think of the time you spent on a pointless exercise – typical of conspiracy theorists. You really need to concentrate of the message and not the messenger – again a classic mistake of conspiracy theorists

You are not actually making an argument  - You don’t address whether the facts are wrong, don’t challenge the logic and don’t refute any evidence.

You’re just regurgitating a label.

Dismissing something because you think it’s AI-assisted is like dismissing it because it was written on a laptop. The tool used to produce words is irrelevant — what matters is whether the argument stands up.

If you disagree, explain why.
Point out the error.
Challenge the reasoning.

Calling something “AI” isn’t debate. It’s avoidance and deflection

PS - Do you not see the irony of a conspiracy theorist calling for "independent thought" and claiming, "I don't read AI slop"??

17 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Dismissing something because you think it’s AI-assisted is like dismissing it because it was written on a laptop.

I don't think it is AI-assisted, I know it is AI-generated with 100% certainty. Your 'clever trick' doesn't work, just save face by saying nothing and move on.

25 minutes ago, Effective altruism said:

It appears you are ready to concede defeat.

I am indeed. To those who are here to 'win', I preemptively declare you the victors.

30 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Dismissing something because you think it’s AI-assisted is like dismissing it because it was written on a laptop. The tool used to produce words is irrelevant — what matters is whether the argument stands up.

Not when one of the functions of said tool is to produce arguments, which a person then copies over as if they were their own.

Example below using Gemini. I pasted in your above reply and asked it to produce a counter-argument, which it did in an instant:

I'm sure there are plenty of like-minded people who are willing to use AI as a proxy brain and participate in this 'intelligent debater'-themed pantomime with you, but I will pass.

AI has encouraged the mentally deficient to claim the high ground. It doesn't change the fact that they are stupid.

9 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

AI has encouraged the mentally deficient to claim the high ground. It doesn't change the fact that they are stupid.

For a whole segment of the population, it raises the quality of their input in the sense that it produces structured and typo-free texts, with clean grammar… but what these people need to understand is how utterly ridiculous it makes them look. It really is a cheap pantomime and nothing else.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

For a whole segment of the population, it raises the quality of their input in the sense that it produces structured and typo-free texts, with clean grammar… but what these people need to understand is how utterly ridiculous it makes them look. It really is a cheap pantomime and nothing else.

There is nothing wrong with using AI. It's a good research tool. What makes people look utterly ridiculous are conspiracy theories.

8 minutes ago, TedG said:

There is nothing wrong with using AI. It's a good research tool. What makes people look utterly ridiculous are conspiracy theories.

Copy/pasting AI-generated arguments authoritatively is about as compelling and credible as using an Instagram filter:

15 minutes ago, TedG said:

There is nothing wrong with using AI. It's a good research tool. What makes people look utterly ridiculous are conspiracy theories.

AI is not a truth engine, it is a plausibility engine. It is based on a statistically significant mass of information which may be totally outdated.

Example: AI will tell you it is better to have a full tank of petrol than one only a quarter full, due to an increased risk of condensation of water in the headspace.

That risk no longer exists, because the ethanol content of most gasoline blends will easily accommodate any water derived from condensation.

If, however, you want to change the AI mind, it will stick with what it has, which is a mass of articles about condensation against one refutation.

It is like trying to turn an ocean liner 189 degrees with a dinghy.

Humans are capable of having new insights. AI isn't.