3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Why should it be that anyone challenging the 'official' narrative is a CT?

For me, there are many 'truths' that are anything but. Is it wrong, or foolish, to think that we are not being told the truth, or that evidence is being omitted?

This is actually a classic example of the mindset the title is discussing.

Nobody says that questioning an established explanation makes you a conspiracy theorist. The problem is the premise you're starting from.

You talk about an “official narrative” as though there is some centrally controlled version of reality whose purpose is to conceal the truth. But who exactly decides what this “official narrative” is? Science certainly doesn't. There is no scientific Ministry of Truth handing down immutable answers. There are hypotheses, evidence, testing, criticism, replication and provisional conclusions—and those conclusions change when the evidence changes.

You are also confusing suspicion with scepticality and evidence. Yes, governments can lie, institutions can make mistakes and evidence can be omitted. But “we aren't being told the truth” doesn't establish that a conspiracy exists, still less reveal some hidden alternative truth.

Critical thinking asks: What is the evidence? How reliable is it? What alternative explanations exist? What would prove me wrong?

Conspiracy thinking starts with “the official explanation must be hiding something” and then goes looking for material to confirm it.

And that's the fundamental difference: you seem to be searching for a hidden, universal “truth”; science accepts that our understanding of reality is provisional and continually subject to revision.

That's not science hiding the truth. That's science acknowledging that nobody has a monopoly on it.

6 minutes ago, kwilco said:

This is actually a classic example of the mindset the title is discussing.

Nobody says that questioning an established explanation makes you a conspiracy theorist. The problem is the premise you're starting from.

You talk about an “official narrative” as though there is some centrally controlled version of reality whose purpose is to conceal the truth. But who exactly decides what this “official narrative” is? Science certainly doesn't. There is no scientific Ministry of Truth handing down immutable answers. There are hypotheses, evidence, testing, criticism, replication and provisional conclusions—and those conclusions change when the evidence changes.

You are also confusing suspicion with scepticality and evidence. Yes, governments can lie, institutions can make mistakes and evidence can be omitted. But “we aren't being told the truth” doesn't establish that a conspiracy exists, still less reveal some hidden alternative truth.

Critical thinking asks: What is the evidence? How reliable is it? What alternative explanations exist? What would prove me wrong?

Conspiracy thinking starts with “the official explanation must be hiding something” and then goes looking for material to confirm it.

And that's the fundamental difference: you seem to be searching for a hidden, universal “truth”; science accepts that our understanding of reality is provisional and continually subject to revision.

That's not science hiding the truth. That's science acknowledging that nobody has a monopoly on it.

Advertisement

Where is the evidence supporting your claims?

My apologies if I've already answered this question,

What to do about them? It might be smart to pay attention to them. Many times, today's conspiracies are tomorrow's news. So when they tell you something, consider it a preview of coming attractions.

error

Edited August 30Aug 30 by kwilco

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

maybe this diagram helps understand the minset?

https://scontent.flhr10-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.99422-6/785080706_1379067457263370_4045271715202700636_n.png?stp=dst-jpg_tt6&cstp=mx1080x1350&ctp=s1080x1350&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=G_ZijkDxaGkQ7kNvwEEHopA&_nc_oc=AdoGK8iYtWIq_W26QqO-89MZvPfHk549q_ItDlgvleRLzg3pYNNkv41qVptpTlTGhjvQuWuiTAsC1n0h1Jpb2ida&_nc_zt=14&_nc_ht=scontent.flhr10-2.fna&_nc_gid=vNQ4w3UNOV4NpqLE5gWX9g&_nc_ss=7c2a8&oh=00_AQJHxXes3or5luv8YkcvkAzxukDpGYp4StuctQQ9CQSXVQ&oe=6A9A89AF

What mindset?

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

What mindset?

This mindset...

Edited August 31Aug 31 by kwilco

23 hours ago, jas007 said:

My apologies if I've already answered this question,

What to do about them? It might be smart to pay attention to them. Many times, today's conspiracies are tomorrow's news. So when they tell you something, consider it a preview of coming attractions.

This is confusing conspiracy theories with conspiracy theorists, which is precisely the distinction the OP is making.

Of course we should pay attention to claims that challenge the accepted explanation. That's how investigation and science work. If someone produces credible evidence of an actual conspiracy, we examine it. If the evidence stands up, it ceases to be merely a “conspiracy theory” and becomes a demonstrated conspiracy.

But that's not what we're discussing. The issue here is the conspiratorial mindset: the person who repeatedly sees hidden plots, secret agendas and deliberate deception wherever they look, and then treats every coincidence, anomaly or unanswered question as confirmation.

And the fact that some conspiracies may have historically been uncovered doesn't validate the thousands of unsupported ones. That's essentially saying, “Sometimes people lie, therefore my particular suspicion might be true.” It doesn't follow.

More importantly, if one supposed conspiracy is eventually exposed, the committed conspiracy theorist doesn't suddenly abandon the mindset. They simply move on to the next one. The theory changes; the methodology doesn't.

Genuine scepticism says: “Show me the evidence and I'll follow it wherever it leads.”

Conspiratorial thinking says: “I suspect a conspiracy, and now I'll interpret everything through that suspicion.”

And one final point: if tomorrow's “preview of coming attractions” eventually becomes established fact, then it isn't a conspiracy theory any more. It's a theory or claim supported by evidence.

The important question isn't whether someone occasionally guesses a hidden event correctly. It's whether their method reliably distinguishes a genuine conspiracy from an imaginary one. That's where the conspiracy theorist usually comes unstuck.

6 minutes ago, kwilco said:

This is confusing conspiracy theories with conspiracy theorists, which is precisely the distinction the OP is making.

Of course we should pay attention to claims that challenge the accepted explanation. That's how investigation and science work. If someone produces credible evidence of an actual conspiracy, we examine it. If the evidence stands up, it ceases to be merely a “conspiracy theory” and becomes a demonstrated conspiracy.

But that's not what we're discussing. The issue here is the conspiratorial mindset: the person who repeatedly sees hidden plots, secret agendas and deliberate deception wherever they look, and then treats every coincidence, anomaly or unanswered question as confirmation.

And the fact that some conspiracies may have historically been uncovered doesn't validate the thousands of unsupported ones. That's essentially saying, “Sometimes people lie, therefore my particular suspicion might be true.” It doesn't follow.

More importantly, if one supposed conspiracy is eventually exposed, the committed conspiracy theorist doesn't suddenly abandon the mindset. They simply move on to the next one. The theory changes; the methodology doesn't.

Genuine scepticism says: “Show me the evidence and I'll follow it wherever it leads.”

Conspiratorial thinking says: “I suspect a conspiracy, and now I'll interpret everything through that suspicion.”

And one final point: if tomorrow's “preview of coming attractions” eventually becomes established fact, then it isn't a conspiracy theory any more. It's a theory or claim supported by evidence.

The important question isn't whether someone occasionally guesses a hidden event correctly. It's whether their method reliably distinguishes a genuine conspiracy from an imaginary one. That's where the conspiracy theorist usually comes unstuck.

Fair enough. I guess the conspiracy theorists have the mindset that they do because they've seen how the system operates. They've been duped one two many times.

23 minutes ago, jas007 said:

Fair enough. I guess the conspiracy theorists have the mindset that they do because they've seen how the system operates. They've been duped one two many times.

That's actually a rather good example of the “yes, but…” cognitive dissonance I've been describing.

I've spent a considerable amount of this thread trying to explain the mindset behind conspiracy thinking — the tendency to assume hidden motives, distrust contrary evidence, seek patterns and interpret uncertainty as evidence of deliberate wrongdoing.

And the response is essentially: “Yes, but they've seen how the system operates and have been duped too many times.”

But notice what has happened. There is no evidence offered for the particular conspiracies being discussed, no examination of the reasoning, and no attempt to establish whether the alleged deception actually occurred. Instead, the existence of previous wrongdoing is being used to justify suspicion of further wrongdoing.

That's not scepticism. It's an assumption.

Governments, corporations and institutions have certainly lied, deceived people and concealed information. That is a reason to check evidence carefully, not a licence to assume that every unexplained event has a hidden perpetrator.

Genuine scepticism says: “I know people can deceive me, so I'll examine the evidence.”

Conspiratorial thinking says: “I've been deceived before, therefore my suspicion is justified.”

Those are not the same thing.

And ironically, the reply demonstrates exactly the point I was making: rather than examining why people develop a conspiratorial mindset, it immediately supplies a reason why the conspiratorial mindset must be justified.

“I've been fooled before” may explain why someone is suspicious. It does absolutely nothing to establish that their current suspicion is true. - That's the bit that seems to keep getting lost in this discussion.

1 minute ago, kwilco said:

And ironically, the reply demonstrates exactly the point I was making: rather than examining why people develop a conspiratorial mindset, it immediately supplies a reason why the conspiratorial mindset must be justified.

“I've been fooled before” may explain why someone is suspicious. It does absolutely nothing to establish that their current suspicion is true. - That's the bit that seems to keep getting lost in this discussion.

I think you miss the point. Those people have been fooled once too many times, and they won't be fooled again. In other words, in their minds, the burden of proof has shifted. Whether the current suspicion is true is still an open question. Understand?

36 minutes ago, jas007 said:

I think you miss the point. Those people have been fooled once too many times, and they won't be fooled again. In other words, in their minds, the burden of proof has shifted. Whether the current suspicion is true is still an open question. Understand?

Well said Sir.

I tend to think the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Whether that is about the existence about god or viruses. The moon landings. 9/11. US Liberty,,, etc. Often, it is obvious to all of us, that it's just fabricated nonsense. Does Epstein live on? Lot's of evidence that he topped himself. Just have to see the internal jail video footage.

But!! At the end of the day, it is us, the populous, who get what we voted/paid for. And, 'cause we voted them into authoritive positions; how can we Plebs even complain.

As I've often said; our biggest enemy is our own ignorance and apathy.

Edited August 31Aug 31 by Stiddle Mump

1 hour ago, jas007 said:

I think you miss the point. Those people have been fooled once too many times, and they won't be fooled again. In other words, in their minds, the burden of proof has shifted. Whether the current suspicion is true is still an open question. Understand?

I understand perfectly — and “the burden of proof has shifted” is precisely the problem. Shifted to where, exactly? Evidence doesn't acquire a different standard because someone has previously been deceived.

If you make a claim, the burden of evidence remains with the person making the claim. Past deception may justify scepticism; it does not constitute evidence for the next suspicion.

And “whether the suspicion is true is still an open question” is meaningless unless you can say what evidence would resolve that question. That's critical thinking: define the claim, examine the evidence, test it, and remain willing to be wrong.

Otherwise, “it's still an open question” simply becomes a convenient way of keeping an unsupported suspicion permanently alive.

Suspicion is not evidence. “Open question” is not evidence. And having been fooled before doesn't lower the evidential bar for the next claim.

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Well said Sir.

I tend to think the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Whether that is about the existence about god or viruses. The moon landings. 9/11. US Liberty,,, etc. Often, it is obvious to all of us, that it's just fabricated nonsense. Does Epstein live on? Lot's of evidence that he topped himself. Just have to see the internal jail video footage.

But!! At the end of the day, it is us, the populous, who get what we voted/paid for. And, 'cause we voted them into authoritive positions; how can we Plebs even complain.

As I've often said; our biggest enemy is our own ignorance and apathy.

Oh boy! And there we have it: the self-confessed conspiracy theorist has helpfully demonstrated the problem.

He says “the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim” — absolutely correct. So why does the previous poster think the burden of proof somehow “shifts” merely because somebody has been fooled before?

Evidence doesn't change according to how suspicious you feel. And noatably conspiracy theorists are noted for not producing any solid evidence

And the rest rather illustrates the same muddled thinking: God, viruses, moon landings, 9/11, Epstein and the US Liberty are thrown into one enormous intellectual lucky dip, as though saying “there's evidence” is itself an argument.

The particularly bizarre bit is the implication that because people vote for governments, somehow “the populous” gets what it deserves. What does that have to do with whether a factual claim is true? If 99% of the population voted that the Earth was flat, it wouldn't suddenly become flat.

Reality isn't a referendum. Evidence isn't decided by popular vote. And suspicion isn't evidence.

Ironically, his final observation is probably the most accurate part: “our biggest enemy is our own ignorance and apathy.”

Indeed. And critical thinking is the antidote to both.

 

6 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Oh boy! And there we have it: the self-confessed conspiracy theorist has helpfully demonstrated the problem.

He says “the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim” — absolutely correct. So why does the previous poster think the burden of proof somehow “shifts” merely because somebody has been fooled before?

Evidence doesn't change according to how suspicious you feel. And noatably conspiracy theorists are noted for not producing any solid evidence

And the rest rather illustrates the same muddled thinking: God, viruses, moon landings, 9/11, Epstein and the US Liberty are thrown into one enormous intellectual lucky dip, as though saying “there's evidence” is itself an argument.

The particularly bizarre bit is the implication that because people vote for governments, somehow “the populous” gets what it deserves. What does that have to do with whether a factual claim is true? If 99% of the population voted that the Earth was flat, it wouldn't suddenly become flat.

Reality isn't a referendum. Evidence isn't decided by popular vote. And suspicion isn't evidence.

Ironically, his final observation is probably the most accurate part: “our biggest enemy is our own ignorance and apathy.”

Indeed. And critical thinking is the antidote to both.

 

You still don't get it. The burden of proof doesn't "shift." It always rested with the person making the claim. That's law school 101.

Whether someone has been "fooled before" is irrelevant.

27 minutes ago, jas007 said:

You still don't get it. The burden of proof doesn't "shift." It always rested with the person making the claim. That's law school 101.

Whether someone has been "fooled before" is irrelevant.

Then we are in agreement, although it has taken a rather circuitous route to get there. (You realise I was replying to Stiddle?)

The previous poster said that, in the minds of conspiracy theorists, “the burden of proof has shifted”. I pointed out that it hasn't.

You now say: “The burden of proof doesn't shift. It always rests with the person making the claim.”

Precisely.

And that principle applies equally to everyone: governments, scientists, conspiracy theorists, journalists, politicians, moon-hoax advocates, anti-vaxxers and people claiming Martians control Wi-Fi routers.

The standard is the same:

Make a claim → provide evidence → explain the reasoning → allow others to test it.

That is how critical thinking and the scientific method work.

Which brings us back to the original point: if someone says “I've been fooled before, therefore my suspicions are justified,” they are no longer talking about evidence. They are talking about psychology.

Suspicion may explain why someone believes something.

It does not establish that the belief is true.

And that, rather neatly, returns us to the original question of the thread: why do so many people adopt a conspiratorial mindset in the first place?

 

Edited August 31Aug 31 by kwilco

“why do so many people adopt a conspiratorial mindset in the first place?”

Because they’ve seen the same characters lie time and again? The so-called conspiratorial mindset arises after assessment of the credibility of the source.

For example, if certain mainstream media outlets have a history of falsely reporting the news, the listener might take future news with a grain of salt.

3 minutes ago, jas007 said:

“why do so many people adopt a conspiratorial mindset in the first place?”

Because they’ve seen the same characters lie time and again? The so-called conspiratorial mindset arises after assessment of the credibility of the source.

For example, if certain mainstream media outlets have a history of falsely reporting the news, the listener might take future news with a grain of salt.

Not if it reinforces their existing beliefs.

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not if it reinforces their existing beliefs.

Sure. That’s their dopamine, so to speak.

Anyone who has ever taken psychology 101 and Rat Lab must surely know about Skinner and his rats and operant conditioning. Anyway, people burned by previously trusted authority figures are traumatized. Traumatized people are typically comforted if they can recognize patterns that explain a chaotic world. Enter the Internet algorithms. Not every video or every news story will be meaningful, but from time to time people get their dopamine hit.. The reward schedule is unpredictable, which makes it addicting.

That’s probably a poor explanation, but without going into a lot of detail, maybe it’s understandable.

On 8/30/2026 at 11:13 AM, kwilco said:

Nobody says that questioning an established explanation makes you a conspiracy theorist.

The term 'conspiracy theorist' has consistently been used to belittle those who hold certain beliefs and defiant stances. It is a purposefully loaded term which implies that these individuals lack proper education and have lower intelligence (as evidenced by the last meme you posted, where the guy on top, the one who espouses the mainstream narrative, is well-dressed and affable, whereas the guy on the bottom, the "conspiracy theorist", is unkempt, unhealthy-looking, and looks simple-minded).

Is your endeavour really to "build a bridge" and achieve some type of respectful dialogue, as you stated in your OP?

On 4/18/2025 at 9:57 PM, kwilco said:

Most importantly: build trust. No one listens to someone they think looks down on them.

If so, I suggest being less condescending. If I told you there are a lot of smart, approachable and educated people who tick the "conspiracy theorist" boxes, would you believe it?

4 hours ago, jas007 said:

“why do so many people adopt a conspiratorial mindset in the first place?”

Because they’ve seen the same characters lie time and again? The so-called conspiratorial mindset arises after assessment of the credibility of the source.

For example, if certain mainstream media outlets have a history of falsely reporting the news, the listener might take future news with a grain of salt.

you just don't get the concept of critical thinking, do you?

On 8/31/2026 at 5:29 PM, rattlesnake said:

The term 'conspiracy theorist' has consistently been used to belittle those who hold certain beliefs and defiant stances. It is a purposefully loaded term which implies that these individuals lack proper education and have lower intelligence (as evidenced by the last meme you posted, where the guy on top, the one who espouses the mainstream narrative, is well-dressed and affable, whereas the guy on the bottom, the "conspiracy theorist", is unkempt, unhealthy-looking, and looks simple-minded).

Is your endeavour really to "build a bridge" and achieve some type of respectful dialogue, as you stated in your OP?

If so, I suggest being less condescending. If I told you there are a lot of smart, approachable and educated people who tick the "conspiracy theorist" boxes, would you believe it?

That's your definition of the term, not mine. One of the points I've made repeatedly throughout this thread is that conspiracy theorists can be highly intelligent and well educated. In fact, that's one of the more interesting aspects of the subject: intelligence and education clearly don't make someone immune to conspiratorial thinking. (But it helps if you are stupid or suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, especially when promulgating the ideas).

We're now on page 77 of a thread entitled “Why so many conspiracy theorists and what to do about them”. It's a little late to start redefining what the OP was actually about. There were attempts to define at the beginning.

For the avoidance of doubt,

A conspiracy theorist is simply someone who believes, proposes or promotes a conspiracy theory—an explanation involving a secretive group deliberately orchestrating events, particularly where the claim lacks adequate supporting evidence.

Nothing in that definition says stupid, uneducated, poor, unhealthy or badly dressed. Those are characteristics you've added yourself.

As for the cartoon, it was satire, specifically responding to something you had previously posted. It wasn't intended as a scientific classification of the physical characteristics of conspiracy theorists. Taking a satirical cartoon literally and then constructing an argument around the characters' clothing and appearance is rather spectacularly missing the point.

And here's the important distinction: if someone feels belittled by being called a conspiracy theorist, perhaps the problem isn't necessarily the label. It might be worth considering why they are so keen to identify with a category defined by the persistent promotion of poorly evidenced, unfalsifiable or conspiratorial explanations.

Calling someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument about their intelligence. It's a description of the type of reasoning they're displaying.

And being highly intelligent doesn't provide immunity from bad reasoning. Sometimes it merely provides a larger vocabulary with which to rationalise it.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Nothing in that definition says stupid, uneducated, poor, unhealthy or badly dressed. Those are characteristics you've added yourself.

Those characteristics were displayed in the meme you posted which was not in response to anything, it was a standalone post.

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

As for the cartoon, it was satire, specifically responding to something you had previously posted.

---

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Calling someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument about their intelligence.

You're missing an essential societal construct around the notion of "conspiracism": it is frequently associated with low intelligence and education in an array of portrayals.

6 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Those characteristics were displayed in the meme you posted which was not in response to anything, it was a standalone post.

---

You're missing an essential societal construct around the notion of "conspiracism": it is frequently associated with low intelligence and education in an array of portrayals.

not a societal construct, as said, that's YOUR personal, rather feeble hypothesis – maybe mental disorder, but not all stupid... I said before several times that many are "intelligent" people who subscribe to CTs - but here's someone more suited to OCD quirks...

8 minutes ago, kwilco said:

not a societal construct, as said, that's YOUR personal, rather feeble hypothesis – maybe mental disorder, but not all stupid... I said before several times that many are "intelligent" people who subscribe to CTs - but here's someone more suited to OCD quirks...

The person depicted in that meme is a complete moron.

You can always tell when one's position is strong, they post jokes and memes

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You can always tell when one's position is strong, they post jokes and memes

Yep – a picture's worth a thousand words....

This is the one that was criticised for depicting CT-ers as "scruffy...

11 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The person depicted in that meme is a complete moron.

I guess it's a case of if the tin hat fits...