Subverting Skepticism: When Questions Become Conspiracy

Over the past few weeks I’ve heard many friends dismiss and ridicule those who question any COVID-19 reports, regulations, or research into vaccines. “It’s embarrassing,” they say.

And I’ve seen other friends ramp up their support of counter-arguments and prepare to fight back to preserve their rights.

Solidarity is the most important thing when facing a global public health crisis. But we’re breaking apart.

We’ve known for years: tempers flare when people hide behind computer screens, sides get entrenched, and gaps widen into chasms. Now we live in a time where we can only communicate online, and communication is crumbling.

We have to try to talk.

This isn’t a witch hunt. I’m not here to insult or demonize conspiracy theorists. (I acknowledge the use of that title alone could be inflammatory; I choose it in the name of clarity, not as judgement.)

Instead, I want to explore and empathize with a conspiratorial viewpoint — starting with the path to radical ideas — and I ask others to do the same. We can’t build bridges while simultaneously throwing stones.

—

Embracing a conspiracy theory has little to do with intelligence or education. It’s emotional, and very human. It’s often born of strong moral leanings, a sense of justice, or noble intent, and a set of circumstances and psychological triggers work together to gently nudge someone towards a polarized stance one step at a time.

The Path Starts with Questions.

A positive ideal, intuition, and a seed of mistrust create reasonable skepticism. It’s as simple as: “I want people to be healthy; ingesting metals & “toxic chemicals” sounds bad; and pharmaceutical companies have made mistakes and behaved unethically before — so I have some questions about this new drug.”

Great; doubt is natural and healthy! Hell, science is built on doubt! We set the burden of proof so wild claims don’t easily become fact.

(Personally: I still have all my wisdom teeth — for good or ill — because I didn’t buy my oral surgeon’s pitch. He stood to make $1,000; he’d say anything to get me in that chair.)

Those Questions Change Shape.

An initial seed of doubt grows; healthy skepticism takes on a new look, and we’re no longer interested in the burden of proof. If Company A made a mistake with Product X, it isn’t good enough to keep a closer eye on Product Y when it comes out.

We begin to make assumptions. We paint Company A (or Government Administration B) with a broad brush (ignoring the multitude of divisions and thousands of individual people involved). Their history of misdeeds prove that they are inherently malevolent. They are the enemy.

We then slingshot to an opposing idea. Now there are sides.

(Maybe dentistry in general is just a money-making scam!)

The Enemy Makes Friends.

A conspiracy theory would die if it began and ended with one bad actor. It becomes far more insidious and powerful when co-conspirators are involved. As we draw lines in the battle between “good” and “evil,” our cognitive biases kick in and any information that supports to the wrong side must be the work of the enemy. Media outlets and the scientific community can no longer be trusted.

(All those public service announcements and campaigns about oral hygiene are part of the ruse!)

This is when things get dangerous.

The Good Guys Get Entrenched.

An “us against them” mentality joins a group of isolated rebels together in a community. We find contrarian sources with apparent legitimacy to support our side. We invest a lot of time — and sometimes money — in understanding our side. Our self-esteem grows as we become experts ourselves. We find nobility in our resistance.

(A reformed dentist revealed all his tricks for pushing cosmetic procedures and defrauding health benefits plans! Validation!!)

The enemy then grows further, now including the “sheep” that refuse to fight the findings of the real bad guys. We become alienated from old friends and family who — through choice or apathy — are on the wrong side.

Now we’re lost in a war.

—

That’s the path, but why do some of those big shifts occur? Why does one person make the trip and not another?

Oppression is a catalyst.

The divide between “haves” and “have-nots” offers a lush environment for mistrust to grow. Economic disparity creates conflict. Where there are riches, there is power. Where there is lack, there is frustration, alienation, and hopelessness. Animosity is born here and pointed upwards across the wealth gap. Enemies are identified and blamed for keeping us down as we search for some way to explain why aren’t rich ourselves.

These stories are widespread and accepted broadly because there’s a troubling amount of credibility to them. Economic oppression does exist in very real ways around the world, and people have a right to be mad.

But these divides — and the enemies they create — aren’t confined to wealth. The massive gap in access to information creates an “intellectual elite.” To many of us: science and academia occur behind closed doors (sometimes locked behind paid reports) and are written in a foreign language.

As an experiment, I personally tried to validate claims about how much aluminum is in vaccines and if they’re safe for newborns. I spent two hours trying to make sense of research papers and FDA regulations before frustration won out and I gave up.

When we can’t access or make sense of raw data on our own, it feels like sacred knowledge is safeguarded by a small group of powerful people who let it drip down to us as they see fit.

It feels oppressive!

We’re then asked to simply trust the science community, but that’s hard to do if you don’t see yourself represented in their ranks (which are still dominated by white men — though that is slowly changing). It’s even harder if it feels like they’re talking down to you — which it often does because they’re working with really complicated ideas built on decades of research, and don’t know how to break it down for the general public.

And trust fails entirely when we’re told things we don’t want to hear — doubly so if they go against intuitive logic. Because:

Humans Need a Clear Story

We can’t stand ambiguity; it terrifies us. We’re made uneasy when we hear: “it’s complicated.” We become anxious when we can’t follow the logic. We lose it if an expert says, “we’re not 100% sure yet.”

We’re so ready to escape these feelings that we will jump at the first story that does makes sense — whether it’s factual or not. We’re far more willing to follow intuition down a simple line of reasoning than we are to accept data that doesn’t answer all our questions. (It’s why Galileo had a hard time arguing the Earth rotated around the Sun; “but we can see the sun moving!” said his doubters.)

It’s also extremely comforting to know who the enemy is. The idea of super-villainous conspirators pacifying the population through manufactured disease and mind-altering cures is scary — but we still prefer that to the chaos of a planet-made virus that may spring up and mutate at random. “Better the devil you know.”

Charlatans Exploit Our Search for Simplicity

It’s ironic: those most adamant about resisting the manipulations of groups of conspirators are often manipulated by the independent conspirator.

People have recognized the market for simple stories following intuitive logic, and they’ve made tremendous businesses taking advantage of it:

Alex Jones makes millions selling merchandise and supplements designed to fight government oppression and manipulation. (“Take this testosterone pill and find the strength to take back your rights as an American!”)

Ty Bollinger makes incredible sums selling books and documentaries on: “The Truth about Cancer,” and “The Truth About Vaccines” — charging up to $200 for access to the latter

The Bakersfield Doctors downplayed the risks of COVID-19 to encourage foot traffic at their private clinics and bring their revenues back up

Men and women like them are experts in manipulation. They tap into fear and anxiety over confusing issues; and frustration and powerlessness in the face of oppression. They tell us what we want to hear and find crafty ways to spin science or dress up experts lend legitimacy and staying-power to the story we already believe—and they profit off it.

—

So what can we do?

Little can be gained debating facts with a conspiracy theorist. Facts aren’t the issue. When someone is entrenched in their idea, they believe, “you have facts from your sources, I have facts from my sources.”

The only thing to discuss is: whose sources can be trusted?

We won’t sway many people on the benevolence of large corporations or government agencies — there have been too many true conspiracies over the past century to overcome skepticism here.

What we can do is remove “the scientific consensus” from the list of enemies.

As long as people feel alienated by and disconnected from the scientific community, they won’t accept a scientific consensus. So whenever possible: complex topics need to be made accessible — without compromising the integrity of the information, insulting the intelligence of the audience, or foregoing the context needed to understand the implications. That is a massive ask for research scientists who receive little training in translating their findings for the general publics!

But that’s where Science Communications Experts come in. Think of Carl Sagan or Bill Nye (before he started getting impatient with skeptics & deniers). They made science-y things interesting and understandable, and there are now thousands of men and women picking up the mantle of connecting us average folk with incredible new findings in the world.

The Royal Canadian Institute of Science does an amazing job here in Canada. Drunk Science takes a comedic approach to live events in New York. Soapbox Science puts female scientists out on the street to interact directly with the community.

And people like Samantha Yammine (@Science.Sam on Instagram) Ed Yong (@edyong209 on Twitter) do incredible independent work fact-checking claims, sorting disparate research, and presenting compelling new info — while still being very human.

But there needs to be more of these folks! And their reach needs to be broader! All of us who aren’t in the industry ourselves need to get a little more invested and spread good, relatable information when we see it! (If we’re half as engaged as those spreading misinformation, we’ll be just fine.)

Understanding that not all things will be communicable (the world of science is insane nowadays), we need to ensure that when we say, “trust the experts,” we know who we’re referring to. When we say, “scientific consensus,” it needs to be clear that we’re not talking about a small cabal of easily-bought men and women; we’re referring to hundreds — often thousands of experts from all over the world, working in the private sector, at universities, and in government-funded labs.

The only way to do that is through personal connection. If you’re working in science, you have a unique opportunity to reach those close to you. They may not trust a fifty-year old man in a lab coat in Sweden, but they likely trust you — they just may not realize that you and that man belong to the same community.

We must also erode the platforms given to the those who spin facts and lie outright as they create a counter-narrative for their own profit.

I question if censorship is the best approach. Research has shown that “no-platforming” (banning from all major social media outlets) a spokesman for misinformation (like Alex Jones) does lower their reach in the long run. The issue: those that do still follow him get far more entrenched in his rhetoric.

Whenever something is labelled “dangerous misinformation” and removed from a platform, it has what’s known as a “Boomerang Effect.” Cousin to reverse-psychology, the Boomerang Effect spins an attempt at strengthening one argument to instead strengthen the exact opposite argument. Instead of believing, for example, that the Bakersfield Docs were spreading lies, many saw their ban as evidence that YouTube was in on the conspiracy — paid by “big vaccine” to censor real information. Now any good information endorsed by the platform will be immediately discredited, and the Docs are martyrs.

Rather than pretend these con artists don’t exist, we can make it a point to strip them of their hero status by revealing their motives; and shine a light on all the holes and fallacies in their claims to weaken the story they’re peddling and get people to start asking the right questions. With their contribution to a theory removed and its foundation weakened, perhaps the conspiracy as a whole may collapse in on itself.

Lastly, we all need more empathy. We need to better understand the emotional reasoning someone has for investing in a conspiracy theory. Dismissing them or insulting their intelligence will further alienate them and entrench them in their position.

And we need to meet them partway, asking after and understanding the beliefs that started them down the path to paranoia. Does an anti-vaccine stance begin with a general lack of investment in preventative healthcare? Hell, we can talk about that! Anytime you start with what you agree on, you’ll be better positioned to productively unpack what you don’t.

—

Will this article win over any conspiracy theorists? Or will I get a bunch of messages about how I got Alex Jones and Ty Barrington wrong? The latter, without a doubt. But, if in writing this I’m able to help others interact more productively with conspiracy theorists in their lives, I’ll call it a win.