# Popularity (not validity!) of conspiracy theories is a meaningful measure of honesty/openness **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2010, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437 "2010-01-18T16:45:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/41 "2010-01-19T04:10:34Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Fair enough. I was commenting more on his social-science viewpoints. The man is a very good linguist and a very, very shitty political scientist. I have to mention here that I like to always point to what the “champions” of the posters said. Sometimes they are not really saying what they think they do, it seems to me that \*\*Defero \*\*does not realize that Chomsky is not really helping his position. Chomsky concentrates on mainstream media reports, propaganda and biases rather than secretive coalitions of individuals. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/42 "2010-01-19T04:13:13Z")
True enough. I’m a good bit more curious, however, to see how the OP defends what seems to be the main thrust of his OP or if he abandons it for vague talk about the evils of Christianity. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/43 "2010-01-19T04:55:30Z")
A very good post, **Richard**. I especially liked this part: > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Since the beginning of time, people have been asserting deeper orders to explain perceived chaos. And this is just one more way in which the human mind does so. Not only does this cut to the chase on why humans feel the need to create and/or believe CTs, it also sparked an idea in my mind that had never occurred to me before. That is: religion and belief in the existence of God(s), is merely a massive and ancient Conspiracy Theory. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/44 "2010-01-19T05:07:15Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > The antidote, as always, is critical thinking and learned-intellect. Simple epistemology and honest skepticism are more than enough of a vaccine (and they don’t even cause autism [Jack, don’t hit me! 😉]). Actually, a good example of how to counter conspiratoid thinking can be found in the recent rollout of the H1N1 vaccine. The CDC, scientists and public health workers did a pretty good job countering the antivax rumors and lies, and the key was that they did it promptly and made sure that the facts circulated on a wide scale. You can’t allow such conspiracy nonsense to fester without a determined effort to debunk it. Political campaigns have also learned this lesson about smears generated by the opposition and its supporters. So while “openness” is a virtue for government and other targets of conspiracy drivel, it’s just as important to have a rapid response mechanism to fight the paranoid fear-mongers. Internet presence is a two-way street. You can’t eliminate the CT’ers, but they can be marginalized and their ability to spread poisonous nonsense limited. And yes, I’m one of those poor deluded folks who think that facts are important. When they’re ignored is when scorn and derision become useful tools. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/45 "2010-01-19T05:09:05Z")
(missed edit window) Oh crap! It looks like \*\*Defero \*\*had beaten me to the punch (post #32) on the whole “religion as CT” thing. Hmmmm… but I still haven’t read all of this thread yet… ---
**Author:** ![Defero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8797f3/32.png) [@Defero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defero)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/46 "2010-01-19T06:37:34Z")
Ok, in my humble opinion responding requires sifting through a great deal of ad homonym and psychoanalysis, but there are some points that remain which include a few that are within the scope outlined in the initial post. I’ll address them, even the ones out of scope, but I am not a CT proponent, nor an expert on their validity, so I can and will only use official, reputable sources that are non-controversial. I use WIKI as cited throughout with the full knowledge that it is far from uniformly reliable. If the sub-referenced citations within the WIKI strike anyone as controversial I’ll replace them in a heartbeat upon request. I. First: that conspiracy theories were something like as common in the 1950s as they are now. I demonstrate that this is as absolutely false in every proposed case as it is in general. 1. The Roswell Incident. That would be a valid example of a CT, and a good and quacky one at that. However, since it’s not from the 50’s (it’s origin as a CT is apparently the 70s) and since it very much supports my thesis of establishment cause and culpability, it is a dually unwise choice. “In 1947, the United States Air Force issued a press release stating that a “flying saucer” had crashed near Roswell, New Mexico. This press release was quickly withdrawn, and officials stated that a weather balloon had been misidentified. The Roswell case quickly faded even from the attention of ufologists until the 1970s”. So in addition to it being an official government report of a flying saucer it wasn’t on anyone’s nut-radar until about 25 years later. So, A. not from 50s; B. story sources back to government itself. Don’t know anything about it other than what the Wikis say, but scratch that one as a not a 50s CT and yes it is of establishment origin. So 0 for 1. (Sorry xtisme, I’m not a CT buff so I didn’t know this either). 2. McCarthy witch-hunts. They do last into the mid 50s, but regrettably another one for me, and probably one of the most classic examples of my thesis, both as an establishment created and propagated affair and as a conspiracy that was declassified under FOIA in 1995 (i.e. so it’s not a theory anymore either). From wiki: > [@](#): > > In Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, historian Ellen Schrecker calls the FBI “the single most important component of the anti-communist crusade” and writes: “Had observers known in the 1950s what they have learned since the 1970s, when the Freedom of Information Act opened the Bureau’s files, ‘McCarthyism’ would probably be called ‘Hooverism.’”[17] FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was one of the nation’s most fervent anti-communists, and one of the most powerful. > Hoover designed President Truman’s loyalty-security program, and its background investigations of employees were carried out by FBI agents. This was a major assignment that led to the number of agents in the Bureau being increased from 3,559 in 1946 to 7,029 in 1952. Hoover’s extreme sense of the Communist threat and the politically conservative standards of evidence applied by his bureau resulted in thousands of government workers losing their jobs. Due to Hoover’s insistence upon keeping the identity of his informers secret, most subjects of loyalty-security reviews were not allowed to cross-examine or know the identities of those who accused them. In many cases they were not even told what they were accused of.[18] > Hoover’s influence extended beyond federal government employees and beyond the loyalty-security programs. The records of loyalty review hearings and investigations were supposed to be confidential, but Hoover routinely gave evidence from them to congressional committees such as HUAC.[19] > From 1951 to 1955, the FBI operated a secret “Responsibilities Program” that distributed anonymous documents with evidence from FBI files of Communist affiliations on the part of teachers, lawyers, and others. Many people accused in these “blind memoranda” were fired without any further process.[20] > The FBI engaged in a number of illegal practices in its pursuit of information on Communists, including burglaries, opening mail and illegal wiretaps.[21] The members of the left-wing National Lawyers Guild were among the few attorneys who were willing to defend clients in communist-related cases, and this made the NLG a particular target of Hoover’s. The office of this organization was burgled by the FBI at least fourteen times between 1947 and 1951.[22] > Among other purposes, the FBI used its illegally obtained information to alert prosecuting attorneys about the planned legal strategies of NLG defense lawyers. > The FBI also used illegal undercover operations to harass and disrupt Communist and other dissident political groups. In 1956, Hoover was becoming increasingly frustrated by Supreme Court decisions that limited the Justice Department’s ability to prosecute Communists. At this time he formalized a covert “dirty tricks” program under the name COINTELPRO.[21] COINTELPRO actions included planting forged documents to create the suspicion that a key person was an FBI informer, spreading rumors through anonymous letters, leaking information to the press, calling for IRS audits, and the like. The COINTELPRO program remained in operation until 1971. Now, isn’t that the just the most classic EVER case of a government gone secretly mad and generating piles of hysteria and CTs? If not for FOIA you would have been able to argue the fallacy of pinning that one on a dumb public. As it was, it is very, very common knowledge that it was ONLY public outrage which stopped it. (The opposite of your people are stupid thesis). So 0 for 2. I think that one goes to Finn from right after the rules-compliant sentence “I see you’re peddling pure, weapons-grade ignorance here.” and just prior to a long discourse on 9-11 apropos of nothing I’ve said anything about or care anything about. 3,4. Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and certain opponents of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Not 50s. 0 for 4. (Marley, would it be possible to source these either to the 50’s or to the 30+ percent popularity of the mid-popularity CT’s today? I would accept even just the latter and count it as 1. I don’t really know anything about either CT.) Continued… ---
**Author:** ![Defero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8797f3/32.png) [@Defero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defero)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/47 "2010-01-19T06:38:40Z")
Finn also points out that Chomsky doesn’t believe in the 9-11 CT. Of course he doesn’t. Why would he? What’s there to believe in? He’s a completely reasonable person, and the irrelevance of CT validity is very much the central part of my thesis here and his. Finn also points out that he doesn’t believe in the JFK conspiracy. I should think not, as there is no JFK conspiracy anymore is there? From wiki “In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) found both the original FBI investigation and the Warren Commission Report to be seriously flawed. The HSCA also concluded that there were at least four shots fired and that it was probable that a conspiracy existed.” The House Select Committee on Assassinations is the most recent and thus far final word on the JFK assassination. It is the present official government viewpoint. It unequivocally rules out any possibility of a single shooter and alleges a probable conspiracy. So I don’t see how the JFK any longer can be considered a conspiracy theory. It is merely one of those cases where the government position has converged with what was previously considered a CT. Therefore it may be in your best interest to avoid the JFK “CT” like the plague in the future. I actually did not know this until now! But then I’m not a CT buff. So that covers all attempts to imply that there were conspiracy theories abounding in the 1950s. In reality, the 1950 was a very “square” and “tame” decade and nearly everyone towed the line. Combined with extensive poll data near the start of the thread, my point stands so far. Maybe someone can come up with a 50s CT that enjoyed wide currency. If so, great, you’re aiming for about 30% or better public belief. Until then, we have what appears to be manifold increase in CT popularity exactly per my statement. II. Christianity. Definitely not a CT! (And yes, I kinda figured that, lol!) Just wasn’t able to resist drawing attention to my subjective perception of the excited heresy-like reactions, and pointing out that the surest way to catapult a fringe idea into pre-eminence is via knee-jerk, suppressive and condemnatory tactics. Just as the surest way to dissipate it is to air it out peacefully and unemotionally. [Which was then perhaps unwisely offered as advice on how to stop losing the fight against CTs across the nation, and for which I apologize.] But, definitely not a CT! But, back to the actual scope of the thread: III. Almost on topic now: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > -Many people are stupid, ignorant, and lack critical thinking skills. > -This, coupled with fear and paranoia, drives many to invent neat little explanations to explain a world which is chaotic and confusing, as many people are not intellectually capable of dealing with ambiguity, uncertainty, or ignorance. > -If anything, Future Shock has accelerated and the flow of information, especially via the 'net, has allowed certain memes to fester and percolate faster and ‘self publishing’ is possible on a scale never before seen. While this does not create CT’s differently than before, it does allow them to spread much more easily. And without training in research methodology, many people can be fooled by seeing something that seems convincing and happens to be on the net. Loose Change proved that in spades. > -Along the same lines, widely held beliefs often have an air of legitimacy simply because of the number of people who believe in it. Anti-vaxers would be seen as nuts if it was just the homeless guy on the corner ranting, but when anti-vaxers have message boards and talk shows and what have you, well, nothing attracts a crowd like a crowd. And there is safety (and group identity) in numbers. > -And along those lines as well, belief in a CT elevates an otherwise ordinary person (in their own mind). They’re no longer an overworked and underpaid nebibish. No, now they’re In The Know, one of the elite, Illuminted (dare I say, an Illuminatus). So we are converging on real discussion. I would argue that other than the Net and Future Shock arguments, the rest are time-invariant, and do not explain the massive upsurge in popularity mentioned in pt I which as yet still stands unchallenged. Other factors, I think, include - that for the first time whistle-blowers have an instantly wide audience - images don’t have to be “smuggled out of” war zones as they did in earlier times - corporate/government control of the media is massively less overarching (torrents apparently figure prominently in CT dissemination, modernized readers use the internet for news almost exclusively) - people with alternative views do not feel they “must be the only one” - perception of government and corporate transparency and benevolence is at an all-time low leaving room for people to speculate wildly - government and corporate uptake of public dollars in the last several years is greater than at all previous times combined - financial decline makes people angry and causes them to ask “what has gone wrong” while recalling that virtually all mainstream news articles and talking-head economists failed to predict the crisis We’re getting there. Emotions are lowering. Dialog is flowering. I appreciate the effort and realize that this is a really tough, taboo area, even just to skirt around the edges and ramifications of as I am seeking to do. Hope I didn’t miss anything. Please remind me if I have. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/48 "2010-01-19T06:45:48Z")
> [@Defero](#): > > 3,4. Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and certain opponents of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Not 50s. 0 for 4. (Marley, would it be possible to source these either to the 50’s or to the 30+ percent popularity of the mid-popularity CT’s today? I would accept even just the latter and count it as 1. I don’t really know anything about either CT.) My entire point was that they are _older_ than the 1950s. The Protocols are more than a century old. I don’t know how widely believed they were at that time, or at any time since. Allegations about FDR and (for example) Jewish bankers date to his administration in the 1930s. And if we go further back - I think **FinnAgain** made reference to this - you can find people blaming Jews for the spread of the Black Death. I think you missed my comment about real, non-metaphorical witch hunts as well. All of these theories flourish in an environment that was decidedly non-modern, where information was much harder to come by. They took root in ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Defero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8797f3/32.png) [@Defero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defero)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/49 "2010-01-19T06:46:07Z")
Please note that the first block of points appearing after III. above are Finn’s and were intended to be in a quote box. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/50 "2010-01-19T06:50:29Z")
> [@Defero](#): > > Please note that the first block of points appearing after III. above are Finn’s and were intended to be in a quote box. Fixed that for you. ---
**Author:** ![Defero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8797f3/32.png) [@Defero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defero)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/51 "2010-01-19T06:58:13Z")
Thanks! Also, I respect your point about the historical booms/busts in CTs. I’m attempting to localize it to something we can study very numerically and that pertains to us and our present culture as much as possible. I submitted the interval of 1950s (a very low point, or CT bust) and now (the highest point in modern history?) and here in the West. The response was that my claim was absurd. I hope I demonstrated the contrary. I remain open to more examples. Hopefully some of them start to have citations. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/52 "2010-01-19T07:00:20Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] My entire point was that they are older than the 1950s. The Protocols are more than a century old. I don’t know how widely believed they were at that time, or at any time since. Allegations about FDR and (for example) Jewish bankers date to his administration in the 1930s. And if we go further back - I think FinnAgain made reference to this - you can find people blaming Jews for the spread of the Black Death. I think you missed my comment about real, non-metaphorical witch hunts as well. All of these theories flourish in an environment that was decidedly non-modern, where information was much harder to come by. They took root in ignorance. [/QUOTE] And the ultimate CT, the Illuminati was also from centuries before. Also, there were various CT’s about the Knights Templar, the Mason’s, and various other groups. In the US there were all kinds of funky CT’s involving the Mason’s and the FF’s. The key point that Defero ignored, however, is the global communications and data sharing capability of today vs any other time in human history. CT’s of the past were purely local affairs…or, perhaps, CT’s withing a city, region less commonly, an entire nation. The fact that they are seemingly more prevalent now has more to do with the fact that you can actually poll people about it on such a scale (or would even think to ask them about such a thing), and that CT’s can now go international with a well composed viral video or even a post on a message board. We all have access to levels of communication that were un-dreamed of in the 50’s…so, it’s only logical that something that’s always been with us (i.e. CT’s) are with us now, but a lot bigger and more accessible to a much wider audience. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/53 "2010-01-19T07:02:06Z")
> [@Defero](#): > > I submitted the interval of 1950s (a very low point, or CT bust) and now (the highest point in modern history?) and here in the West. But you haven’t demonstrated that belief in conspiracy theories was any lower in the 1950s, and your argument is a nonstarter until you back that up. We know belief in those kinds of theories is pretty high now. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/54 "2010-01-19T07:24:18Z")
> [@Defero](#): > > Finn also points out that Chomsky doesn’t believe in the 9-11 CT. Of course he doesn’t. Why would he? What’s there to believe in? He’s a completely reasonable person, and the irrelevance of CT validity is very much the central part of my thesis here and his. > > Finn also points out that he doesn’t believe in the JFK conspiracy. I should think not, as there is no JFK conspiracy anymore is there? First, pay attention, it was me who pointed that out. Second, you have no idea. > **[McAdams's Kennedy Assassination Home Page Index](https://www.jfk-assassination.net)** Virtually every year there is still a discussion on conspiracies related to the assassination or the persons involved. [http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/John\_F.\_Kennedy\_assassination\_conspiracy\_theory](http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_conspiracy_theory) > [@Defero](#): > > So that covers all attempts to imply that there were conspiracy theories abounding in the 1950s. Hardly. > **[UFO conspiracy theories](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_conspiracy_theory)** > > Some conspiracy theories argue that various governments and politicians globally, in particular the United States government, are suppressing evidence that unidentified flying objects (UFO) are controlled by an extraterrestrial or "non-human" intelligence, or built using alien technology. Since the 1980s, such conspiracy theories often argue that world governments are in communication or cooperation with extraterrestrials, and some claim that the governments are explicitly allowing cattle mutilat... In the 40’s we had many conspiracies related to WWII, starting with the infamous “Roosevelt knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming”, the “Philadelphia experiment” conspiracy also initiated in the 40’s The 60’s can be considered a good competitor to more recent days for having originated many conspiracies that still crop up today (moon landings were faked for example) [http://www.life.com/image/51970887/in-gallery/33572/the-31-wildest-conspiracy-theories](http://www.life.com/image/51970887/in-gallery/33572/the-31-wildest-conspiracy-theories) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/55 "2010-01-19T07:33:49Z")
It’s probably been mentioned (sorry, hard to read back using my phone), but as for the 50’s, there were the McCarthy CT’s (Communists had infiltrated to the highest levels of the government, etc), and a lot of UFO CT’s in the US, UK and, oddly, the Soviet Union (among other countries). In fact, far from the placid, boring time with everyone in lock step, it was really a golden age of CT’s (much as the 60’s was as well)…many CT’s from that time are actually still with us since many had their roots in this time period. -XT ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 11:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/56 "2010-01-19T11:55:47Z")
> [@Defero](#): > > What’s there to believe in? He’s a completely reasonable person, and the irrelevance of CT validity is very much the central part of my thesis here and his. You are contradicting yourself one sentence to the next. His being a “reasonable” person would have nothing to do with belief or disbelief in a CT if its validity had nothing to do with it. But as he pointed out himself in the clip that was already linked, its validity is exactly at issue when rejecting it. > [@Defero](#): > > So I don’t see how the JFK any longer can be considered a conspiracy theory. Then use the search function and find a few Dope threads where that tired old bullshit is eviscerated. You might also want to learn the definition of a CT. Just because the authorities promote it does not make it a non-CT, see, for instance, the Red Scare or the Lavender Scare. > [@Defero](#): > > So that covers all attempts to imply that there were conspiracy theories abounding in the 1950s. Your argument is risibly failing. You just provided your own cite for the fact that there was a massive CT perpetrated by McCarthy, with government approval and backing… as an attempt to debunk the fact that there was a massive CT perpetrated by McCarthy, with government approval and backing. You are still peddling weapons grade ignorance, only now you’ve upped the dose of irony in your argument. And no, public reaction to McCarthyism was largely due to his attacking the integrity of the US Army so soon after WW II, much of American society was still quite captivated with the idea of commie bogiemen and it wasn’t until McCarthy’s persona and tactics began to turn people off did the Commies Under the Bed! CT begin to face serious challenges to its popularity. > [@Defero](#): > > Combined with extensive poll data near the start of the thread, my point stands so far. You still haven’t come right out and stated your point, so far you’ve been Just Asking Questions. State your point, clearly and unambiguously. Of course, when pretty much everybody reading along notes that your points have been demolished or remain unsupported on all counts, you might want to consider whether your praise for your own argument is justified. > [@Defero](#): > > Maybe someone can come up with a 50s CT that enjoyed wide currency. If so, great, you’re aiming for about 30% or better public belief. Until then, we have what appears to be manifold increase in CT popularity exactly per my statement. More epistemologicaly unsound nonsense. First, you have to show that the rate has actually risen, the burden of proof is on you. Second, you need to do more than show that there exists a correlation, as others have provided much stronger explanations for a potential causal relationship than “let’s not look at the validity and just assume that they’re valid enough that we can look at their mere existence as proving something about valid distrust and reactions to it.” Even if that was a given, there’s no reason to assume that valid distrust can rationally lead to wildly irrational flights of fantasy like JFK CT’s, 9/11 CT’s, International Banker CT’s, etc, etc, etc. > [@Defero](#): > > II. Christianity. Definitely not a CT! (And yes, I kinda figured that, lol! Just wasn’t able to resist drawing attention to my subjective perception of the excited heresy-like reactions Oh, what a witty tactic, you argued for something you knew wasn’t true in order to tweak the people who were reacting to your argument. Good show. By the way, cut this shit about “emotion”. If you can’t stick to the points raised without playing Internet Psychologist, please start a Pit thread. > [@Defero](#): > > I the massive upsurge in popularity mentioned in pt I which as yet still stands unchallenged. You misspelled ‘unproven, unsupported, and unexplained by any causal relationship.’ > [@Defero](#): > > - perception of government and corporate transparency and benevolence is at an all-time low leaving room for people to speculate wildly > - government and corporate uptake of public dollars in the last several years is greater than at all previous times combined C-c-c-c-c-c-ombo breaker! I mean, cite? > [@Defero](#): > > - financial decline makes people angry and causes them to ask “what has gone wrong” while recalling that virtually all mainstream news articles and talking-head economists failed to predict the crisis Please show us the major upswing in conspiracy theories following every major recession, depression, etc… in, say, the last 100 years. > [@Defero](#): > > I appreciate the effort and realize that this is a really tough, taboo area, even just to skirt around the edges and ramifications of as I am seeking to do. 1. No, it isn’t. We’ve dealt with this same shit many, many times on this board. 2. No, it isn’t, pointing out how people are stupid is hardly taboo. 3. Stop skirting and come right out with what you’re actually trying to argue. It’s about time you flesh out and support your own OP. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/57 "2010-01-19T14:40:40Z")
I have mentioned this before (in another context), but I think it would be very helpful if schools had courses in critical thinking - what evidence is, how to analyze it, what constitutes valid research etc. This would enable young people to be smarter consumers, of both products and ideas. I see such courses as a more practical means of countering sloppy conspiratorial thinking than vague proposals to increase government “openness”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/58 "2010-01-19T15:38:53Z")
Long, long ago there was a cabal of powerful people who manipulated situations for their own ends… Of course, they were the pantheon of Greek gods. I have to admit, I hadn’t previously linked religion and conspiracy theories, but now they both look to me like drawing comfort from the idea that _someone_ is in charge and life isn’t random. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/59 "2010-01-19T16:06:55Z")
Let’s go back to the actual OP: > [@Defero](#): > > I think we can all agree that: > > When people feel that government, media and corporations that control their lives are trustworthy, most will not gravitate to conspiracy theories (and therefore away from mainstream media sources and official statements). Conversely, the massive growth of belief in conspiracy theories and the exodus away from mainstream media outlets does reflect real and growing distrust. It does not result from mere disagreement or dissatisfaction, but specifically from distrust. In other words, conspiracy theories can only flourish in a vacuum of official information that seems to be more or less true and complete. > > But: > > _ **Is there anything to this distrust? Is it justified?** _ > > By which I specifically mean: > > _ **Do there exist non-controversial examples that suggest that the distrust is legitimately deserved?** _ > > NOTE: I do NOT want to talk about the truth or falsehood of particular conspiracy theories or debate controversial facts in this thread. I do want to debate my belief that the very rise in their popularity itself has a real and non-controversial correlation to institutional secrecy and/or deceit. I think the two correspond mathematically most or all of the time. I think there is non-controversial evidence that in fact the government, corporations, and the corporate media have caused conspiracy theories to become a viral phenomenon and are solely responsible for it. > > Or could it be the result of some other effect? I would like to know what you think! Bolding in the original, underscoring mine The opening paragraph is probably OK up to the point where I have underscored. At that point, it runs into a serious problem that is partly based on begging the question and partly created by implying some things without being sufficiently explicit of what was implied, (this giving a LOT of wiggle room to play games in further discussion). I would agree that a lack of true and complete information will encourage conspiracy theories, but the way that the sentence is constructed implies that the only reason that information might not be available is if it is withheld or obscured by the government or big companies. There are dozens of reasons why information might not be true and available ranging from simple confusion at the point of origin, deliberate obfuscation by people attempting to hide things from the government, (as opposed to the government doing the hiding), poor methods of communication, events too complex for a majority of people to grasp without careful instruction, phenomena that contradict major cultural assumptions, and others. Trying to make a case that it is deliberate government or corporate subterfuge that solely, (or even primarily), feeds conspiracy theories must first successfully eliminate the many other possibilities. The second underlined statement would appear to be the point of the OP, (although the rude behavior and dancing about in the intervening posts has obscured that point). Fine. Let us see the evidence that government and corporations are the sole causes of such conspiracy theories. So far, we have the ludicrous notion that the government caused the Red Scare when any decent student of history knows that McCarthy and all his predecessors back to Wilson and the Parker raids and even before did not invent the fears of government overthrow but were, themselves, influenced by the fears that existed in society. The notion that the government invented the hoax about moon landings needs to have some shred of proof provided for it. The notion that a rampaging CT regarding the JFK assasination that was later embraced, (with no serious evidence), by members of a Congress that wanted to look like they were addressing the concerns of the citizenry, when it was already a full-blown CT long before Congress got in on it, does not make it a government consipiracy. (And, of course, the fact that the grandstanding congresscritters who signed off on that report pretty much got it all wrong, to begin with, hardly means that it is not a CT–it is.) The government had nothing to do with the CT of the 1950s that promoting the fluoridation of water was an attempt to hurt our bodily essences. All the information was correct and available from the government and news sources; fearful people simply chose to ignore it. The government had nothing to do with the nonsense in the 1950s, (promoted initially by Wertham’s Seduction of the Innocent), about comic books being deliberately written to corrupt America’s youth. Now, is trust of the government lower today than in previous decades? Quite possibly. Does a general fearfulness among the citizenry promote Conspiracy Theories and does a mistrust of government feed into that? Again, quite possibly. However, the general break in U.S. society with citizens losing trust in the government occurred at the convergence of the lies told regarding the Vietnam War and the abuse of power by the Nixon White House. There had always been a certain amount of distrust of government prior to that time, (see fluoridation and any discussion of taxes), it was simply exacerbated by those events. In addition, CTs regarding the moon landings or even the WTC/Pentagon attacks are not based on deliberate misinformation from the government or major corporations. The actual information is out there in sufficient depth and with sufficient clarity for anyone who bothers to look to see the actual situations. The perpetuation of CTs on those or similar subjects are not due to lying or manipulation by governemnt or big companies, but by a willfull desire on the parts of fearful people to choose to disbelieve actual evidence when it is available. Your thesis was that government and industry are solely responsible for Conspiracy Theories and you have provided absolutely no evidence to support your thesis. Would you like to provide some evidence? (Preferably in a polite fashion.) ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2010, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437/60 "2010-01-19T18:42:19Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Long, long ago there was a cabal of powerful people who manipulated situations for their own ends… > > Of course, they were the pantheon of Greek gods. I have to admit, I hadn’t previously linked religion and conspiracy theories, but now they both look to me like drawing comfort from the idea that _someone_ is in charge and life isn’t random. Religion and CTs may both be attractive to people for some similar reasons\*, but religions generally fail to actually qualify as CTs for the simple reason that they usually don’t imagine that there’s a conspiracy of those in power in place to hide the truth. Without that, all you have is an ordinary theory. - though obviously religion has other weapons in its popularity arsenal too, the most obvious ones being that religions tend to offer people a chance at salvation, ultimate justice, and/or techniques to supernaturally influence or control the world around them to their benefit. There are few religions that _only_ offer a controlling (malevolent!) force behind the curtain, the way CTs do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/popularity-not-validity-of-conspiracy-theories-is-a-meaningful-measure-of-honesty-openness/525437.md?page=4)