Conspiracy Theories as a Coping Mechanism?

[Corplos]

A thought wormed into my head a while back. I'm thinking that people who so feverently believe in elaborate Conspiracies might be doing so as a sort of defense mechanism to trauma. This may only apply to Conspiracies involving massive, horrific events, such as 9/11 or the Holocaust. But think of it, millions of people herded like cattle into death camps, murdered with such terrifying efficency. Or the fact that over three thousand lives were obliterated in mere moments. Can you imagine one million of anything, let alone six? Do you even know three hundred people, much less three thousand?

My thoughts are that the CTers are just reacting with some hyperacute form of Grief, and just get stuck in the Denial stage. "No one could kill that many people, evil like that can't be real. They made it up, the Jews made it up so we'd feel sorry for them, the bastards!" or "How could the government fail to stop something this big! How? The government must've let it happen, they orchestrated it!"

So, instead of moving on with the stages and into acceptance, they dwell on it, moving back & forth between anger and denial. The CTers are confused and afraid, and don't really understand why everyone else isn't as scared as they are, so they respond by thinking that they have The Truth and everyone else is just too scared to see it. It's a big, scary world out there & evil things seem to happen without reason. Everyone reacts to grief in different ways, some tell jokes to hide it, others cry & show it to the world.

If anyone with backgrounds in Sociology of Psychology sees an error or misunderstanding that I've made, by all means correct me, any input would be greatly appreciated.

[Bronze Dog]

I'm not normally one to psychologically analyze trolls, but I think you've got CTers covered pretty well.

Happy B-day and welcome to the forum.

I've got some line from a JFK conspiracy-debunking show trying to shape itself in my brain. Essentially, people couldn't accept that a lone gunman killed one of the most powerful men on the planet.

[BlackCat]

An interesting thought that I think might apply to some conspiracy theorists. I have a different idea, though. I think that the reason some people believe in CTs is because it gives them some kind of "insider information." They feel special for having it all figured out, while others still believe "the delusion." Although, I think your idea of being stuck in denial influences this greatly. How can they believe the truth if they refuse to look at it?

I guess it's just another way of making sense of the world. Not a very factual way, though.

BlackCat

[Shrinker]

If anyone with backgrounds in Sociology of Psychology sees an error or misunderstanding that I've made, by all means correct me, any input would be greatly appreciated.

I've got a Pschology 101 which didn't touch on any of these issues but I'm still happy to claim you nailed it.

It follows in almost every CT. The actual conspiracy is less threatening to the theorist than the 'official story'. WIth 911 it stands out a mile. All the different forms of death on that day were too horrible to contemplate, and so many refuse to do it. Notice how the disappearing plane theories have the passengers cheerily spirited away and the quietly snuffed out. Notice how the evil do-ers are now greedy white men, who are so much easier to understand than these strange fanatical foreigners.

Also what I find very telling is that 911 presented an enemy that few really know how to defeat. It may take decades, and it may sadly involve more war. But the CTers don't need to worry about that - turns out the real enemy simply fears a litte exposure. Since all the CTers are prepared to offer is forum chatter and dodgy websites, I find that staggeringly convenient.

[BryanLower]

Between Corplos and BlackCat, I think you have most CTers figured out.

A few that I've debated are contrarians. They don't want to immediately accept the orthodox explanation for anything, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But they get to the point where they assume anything that is believed by most people must be wrong. They are REALLY annoying.

[Belz...]

A thought wormed into my head a while back. I'm thinking that people who so feverently believe in elaborate Conspiracies might be doing so as a sort of defense mechanism to trauma. This may only apply to Conspiracies involving massive, horrific events, such as 9/11 or the Holocaust. But think of it, millions of people herded like cattle into death camps, murdered with such terrifying efficency. Or the fact that over three thousand lives were obliterated in mere moments. Can you imagine one million of anything, let alone six? Do you even know three hundred people, much less three thousand?

My thoughts are that the CTers are just reacting with some hyperacute form of Grief, and just get stuck in the Denial stage. "No one could kill that many people, evil like that can't be real. They made it up, the Jews made it up so we'd feel sorry for them, the bastards!" or "How could the government fail to stop something this big! How? The government must've let it happen, they orchestrated it!"

So, instead of moving on with the stages and into acceptance, they dwell on it, moving back & forth between anger and denial. The CTers are confused and afraid, and don't really understand why everyone else isn't as scared as they are, so they respond by thinking that they have The Truth and everyone else is just too scared to see it. It's a big, scary world out there & evil things seem to happen without reason. Everyone reacts to grief in different ways, some tell jokes to hide it, others cry & show it to the world.

If anyone with backgrounds in Sociology of Psychology sees an error or misunderstanding that I've made, by all means correct me, any input would be greatly appreciated.

Good post, man. Welcome.

[shuize]

It may be a coping mechanism for some. For others, when I listen to the way in which they argue and refuse to give any ground, it strikes me more as a kind of substitute religion. (Close, but not exactly the same) Not to mention the ease at which both religion and conspiracy theory can expand to cover all possibilities.

For example:

Skeptic: "Carbon dating indicates the world is much more than 10,000 years old."

True Believer: "God only created it to look that way."
_______

Skeptic: "Flight recorder data, cell phone calls, and eyewitness testimony all corroborate a plane crashing into the Pentagon."

True Believer: "That's what the Government wants you to believe. All those things were faked.

Skeptic: "Well, if what you say is true, wouldn't someone eventually come forward and reveal the story to the media?"

True Believer: "They're in on it, too!"

[geni]

The coping mechanism hypothosis runs into problems which you consider the people who belive the moon landing was a hoax. Various conspirocies theories probably have diffenerent attractions. The moon hoax one plays stongly to the "I'm special" attraction.

[Zep]

For some of them, it's fairly simple. Their credo is: All the world is mad save me and thee. And even thee hath me concern'd.

[orphia nay]

Corplos and BlackCat, you make very good points.

I have an additional theory that:

a) they are fundamentally opposed to war, and the war on Iraq in particular. They think that they are nice people doing the right thing, but they have no sense of proportion;

b) they feel they are the battlers, the pawns in the game, disenfranchised and without say in the governing of their country, empowered only by the vagaries of free speech. I've come across the occasional jaded ex-serviceman, but mostly they have never worked in any sort of government position or position of responsibility. They are anti-government in principle.

To test my theory of a), I've started a poll at the Loose Change forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2164). (I thought about the wording for quite a while, but it may only prove what liars they are. :rolleyes: I'd appreciate comments here, but not there, nor votes, as I want them to answer the question.)

[hurdygurdy]

It may be a coping mechanism for some. For others, when I listen to the way in which they argue and refuse to give any ground, it strikes me more as a kind of substitute religion. (Close, but not exactly the same) Not to mention the ease at which both religion and conspiracy theory can expand to cover all possibilities.

I also think that it's a substitute for religion. 911 was not only traumatic but astounding too. When I watched the attack of the WTC live on TV I had lots of emotions: the horror, the amazement, the surprise, the feeling that I was presencing a cornerstone in the history of mankind. It was like, you know, unbelievable, like a scheme of Fu Manchu gone real. Hundred millions of people presenced that spectacle, I can't imagine the turmoil of traumas and fears it created.

The massacre of 3-11 in Madrid was also quite traumatic in Spain, but as far as I know we don't have any home made CT about this attack. Maybe our long history of terrorism and external aggressions mitigated the paranoia; apesimist is a well informed optimist, they say.

edit for syntax and grammar. Sure there're some more flaws left yet :boxedin:

[hurdygurdy]

Edit: duplicate post.

[brodski]

The massacre of 3-11 in Madrid was also quite traumatic in Spain, but as far as I know we don't have any homemade CT about this attack. Maybe our long history of terrorism and external aggressions mitigated the paranoia; apesimist is a well informed optimist, they say.
although the loosers claim that the Madrid and London bombings where "false flag" operations as well. I think you make a good point about Spans history with terrorism, I have often thought that the reasons that the 7/7 and 21/7 bombings in London didn't attract many (any?) home grown CTs is that they where effectively just one more in a line of terrorist attacks in London, whereas the USA prior to 9/11 could not contemplate a serious external threat to its civilians, having never really had to deal with that in its past.
I also think that 9/1 CTs play on the mythology of the USA to a certain extent, most Brits are too self deprecating to regard their government as anything other than ranging between mildly to totally incompetent, whereas your average CTer has a faith in the power and efficiency of the the Us government which would embarrass even the most fervent American patriot.

[shuize]

I also think that 9/1 CTs play on the mythology of the USA to a certain extent, most Brits are too self deprecating to regard their government as anything other than ranging between mildly to totally incompetent, whereas your average CTer has a faith in the power and efficiency of the the Us government which would embarrass even the most fervent American patriot.
That's very true. But it's a strange sort of faith. They believe the government is almost god-like in it's ability to conduct an operation on the scale of air strikes/bombings against the Pentagon and World Trade Centers without any of the conspirators disclosing that information. And yet, at the very same time, they believe that their group has somehow managed to defeat this nearly invincible leviathan by discovering the "truth" -- without any apparent ill effects.

[Questioninggeller]

Penn and Teller made the conspiracy-coping link on the episode of "Bullsh!t" that concerns conspiracy theories. The analogy was made with a ballon bursting with the prick of a needle.

[Ryan O'Dine]

I’m no expert, but I’ve known a CTer or two IRL, and they inevitably strike me as having some kind of personality disorder. I think the same or a similar disorder makes one vulnerable to joining a cult.

Part of my reasoning is that these folks seem to have problems outside of merely coping with traumatic historical events. They have problems interacting with people in general, and making sense of their lives.

Their problems aren’t huge -- they’re “high functioning” -- but the coping mechanism theory may only be part of the story.

[Bronze Dog]

Nice avatar, Ryan. Remember one old joke I never got to use, since Randi stopped using the rock thing so often in his commentaries, or talking about how crowded it was: "I've telekinetically accelerated the rock to the speed of light, so it has infinite size and mass... It's so tempting to crush them all."

[Ryan O'Dine]

Nice avatar, Ryan. Remember one old joke I never got to use, since Randi stopped using the rock thing so often in his commentaries, or talking about how crowded it was: "I've telekinetically accelerated the rock to the speed of light, so it has infinite size and mass... It's so tempting to crush them all."


:D

[more derail] I just wish I could fit more names. I'm thinking Gary Schwartz needs to be up there, among many, many others. [/more derail]

[ImaginalDisc]

Corplos and BlackCat, you make very good points.

I have an additional theory that:

a) they are fundamentally opposed to war, and the war on Iraq in particular. They think that they are nice people doing the right thing, but they have no sense of proportion;

To test my theory of a), I've started a poll at the Loose Change forum (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2164). (I thought about the wording for quite a while, but it may only prove what liars they are. :rolleyes: I'd appreciate comments here, but not there, nor votes, as I want them to answer the question.)

Whoa now. Plenty of people are fundamentally opposed to the TWAT and the Iraq War without being conspiracy nuts.

[senorpogo]

Whoa now. Plenty of people are fundamentally opposed to the TWAT and the Iraq War without being conspiracy nuts.

If it is asserted that all conspiracy nuts are people who oppose the Iraq War, it would not follow that all people who oppose the Iraq War are conspiracy nuts.

But I understand where you're coming from.

[ImaginalDisc]

If it is asserted that all conspiracy nuts are people who oppose the Iraq War, it would not follow that all people who oppose the Iraq War are conspiracy nuts.

But I understand where you're coming from.

I can appreciate the distinction, I just want to distance myself from the CT's as much as most Christians want to distance themselves from Fred Phelps.

[senorpogo]

I can appreciate the distinction, I just want to distance myself from the CT's as much as most Christians want to distance themselves from Fred Phelps.

Understood and appreciated.

It is hard to imagine a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who isn't against the Iraq War though. What about that whole Stormfront crowd? I'm not too familiar with them. They buy into the 9/11 conspiracy, but are they generally against the war in Iraq?

[blutoski]

A thought wormed into my head a while back. I'm thinking that people who so feverently believe in elaborate Conspiracies might be doing so as a sort of defense mechanism to trauma. This may only apply to Conspiracies involving massive, horrific events, such as 9/11 or the Holocaust. But think of it, millions of people herded like cattle into death camps, murdered with such terrifying efficency. Or the fact that over three thousand lives were obliterated in mere moments. Can you imagine one million of anything, let alone six? Do you even know three hundred people, much less three thousand?

My thoughts are that the CTers are just reacting with some hyperacute form of Grief, and just get stuck in the Denial stage. "No one could kill that many people, evil like that can't be real. They made it up, the Jews made it up so we'd feel sorry for them, the bastards!" or "How could the government fail to stop something this big! How? The government must've let it happen, they orchestrated it!"

So, instead of moving on with the stages and into acceptance, they dwell on it, moving back & forth between anger and denial. The CTers are confused and afraid, and don't really understand why everyone else isn't as scared as they are, so they respond by thinking that they have The Truth and everyone else is just too scared to see it. It's a big, scary world out there & evil things seem to happen without reason. Everyone reacts to grief in different ways, some tell jokes to hide it, others cry & show it to the world.

If anyone with backgrounds in Sociology of Psychology sees an error or misunderstanding that I've made, by all means correct me, any input would be greatly appreciated.


I think the only critique I have with your theory is that you're assuming there can be only one motivation for believing in a ct. My opinion is that people display a mix of reasons, not the least of which is skeptical rationality, in certain situations.

One major reason I think people latch onto cts for major disasters such as the assassination of JFK or the massmurder of 9/11 is the same mechanism that makes people believe in God: the belief that somebody must be in control. This mitigates the anxiety produced by accepting we live in a world where mere individuals can have massive impacts on our lives. It creates a sense of stability, structure, the comfort that somebody's in control, and the world isn't skating on ice. I call this the 'security blanket' motive.


A related motivation is the 'excuse' motive. "the Illuminati keep unemployment at 5% to provide them with a cheap labour pool. It's not my fault I'm unemployed - it's a conspiracy!"


The third motivation is the 'scapegoat' motive. It is an opportunity to hold political enemies accountable for an event they probably had nothing to do with. eg: blaming Bush for 9/11 only appeals to people who don't like him.


The fourth motivation is the 'give no quarter' motive. When political enemies get traction from an event, just claim it didn't happen! eg: lunar landing. This appeals to people who think the government is incompetent, or foreigners who think Americans don't deserve respect for Apollo. Another example is antivaxers who claim that vaccines are no great success, and there's a conspiracy to cover up the damage they do. I think holocaust denial fits here. Also, Roswell's influence on microelectronics (the bureaucratic government labs couldn't invent transistors without the benefit of alien technology)


A fifth is the 'cornered without evidence' motive. OK: so you had a half-baked theory and it didn't pan out, because the evidence you had is no good, and the evidence you need is absent. No problem: assert that the evidence was destroyed or hidden by a conspiracy to suppress your claim. A lot of UFOlogy lives here. Because of this, a conspiracy theory can be layered onto any goofy claim.



Rewinding a bit to revisit a claim I said earlier about some cts being rational, consider that there *are* real conspiracies in the world, and part of what skeptics do is expose them. For example, racketeering among healthfraud advocates to fabricate studies, religious organizations hiding criminal behavior of their priests, hot reading with research done by associates. Watergate.

[orphia nay]

Good post, blutoski. Your 'security blanket' and 'excuse' motives clarify what I was trying to say about CTers being 'pawns in the game'. I agree with you about 'give no quarter', too.

Just add 'grief & denial', 'insider information elitism' and 'anti-war' and I think we're onto something.

'Cornered without evidence' might be a subset of 'give no quarter'. It's also a common trait amongst CTs (especially UFOs) but IMHO I don't think it's a motivation to believe.

I'd like to hear you clarify your 'scapegoat motive'. I'm not sure if it's just me not understanding your words, or whether that's a subset of 'security blanket'.


If it is asserted that all conspiracy nuts are people who oppose the Iraq War, it would not follow that all people who oppose the Iraq War are conspiracy nuts.


Thanks, senorpogo.

I don't know much at all about Stormfront, and did a quick google. I'm very hesitant about going to their forum, but from what I could see at google, there are assertations that they are both for and against the war, so we may not be able to generalise about that, nor can we say that they all agree with the 9/11 CT.

[gfunkusarelius]

to add one more reason i didnt see here, I think CTs catch on because they are so entertaining! while i know it can be argued that the generally accepted truth of the events (9/11, holocost, etc) are fascinating in their complexity, i think the convoluted rube goldberg "evidence" of conspiracy is a genre that people really love, so anytime there is a monumental event, people who are into the conspiracy genre will get to work on finding the possible conspiracies. any event that has a single CT typically has many angles. CTists almost never totally agree, they break into groups who have their favorite scenarios. anyway, i just think that the entertainment value shouldnt be overlooked. hell, i admit i like to read about them, tho, for me, its more about laughing/crying/pulling my hair out at their logic.

[blutoski]

Good post, blutoski. Your 'security blanket' and 'excuse' motives clarify what I was trying to say about CTers being 'pawns in the game'. I agree with you about 'give no quarter', too.

Just add 'grief & denial', 'insider information elitism' and 'anti-war' and I think we're onto something.

I agree with denial and elitism. I've added them to my official list.

I disagree about 'antiwar', because it's just a special case of partisanship that leads to 'give no quarter' and 'scapegoat'. Hawks are just as likely to subscribe to conspiracies as doves. Recent examples are: anti-German terrorism in Poland that rationlized invasion in 1939, the Protocols of Zion and Dreyfus Affaire that rationalized pogroms against Jews for over a century. Invented stories of Japanese American children radioing the comings-and-goings of their classmates to Tokyo, justifying internment camps. WMDs in Iraq comes to mind, and of course, war propaganda in general. It's just one political view of many, all of which lend themselves to the possibility of adopting improbable scenarios in order to maintain allegiance.

The key to this is avoiding cognitive dissonance: some people are unable to accept that their political favourites are just human and susceptible to error or compromise. In order to reconcile this ideal view of their political heroes with evidence of failure or underperformance, they have to knit complex work-arounds. The ideal work around not only exonerates your hero (denial, or give no quarter), but also blames the failure on your enemy (scapegoat). Swift Boat Veterans for Truth deflect evidence of Bush's abysmal military record in comparison to Kerry's medals with tales of 40-year-long back-room plots to shoot Kerry in the ass and propel him to the presidency. Alternatively, we hear from sore-loser Democrats about Diebold manipulating votes via complex software, or early-closing polls in black districts, part of a conspiracy to give Bush an advantage. There are a million of these, and no political view is immune.





'Cornered without evidence' might be a subset of 'give no quarter'. It's also a common trait amongst CTs (especially UFOs) but IMHO I don't think it's a motivation to believe.

My 'motives' address reasons to make the claim, not necessarily reasons to believe. I think those people who are shilling water-powered cars and claim that Big Oil conspires with GM to prevent widespread use know perfectly well that it's a lie.

I distinguish 'cornered' from 'give no quarter', in that 'cornered' is saving face, but 'give no quarter' is part of a practice of keeping your enemy discredited.



I'd like to hear you clarify your 'scapegoat motive'. I'm not sure if it's just me not understanding your words, or whether that's a subset of 'security blanket'.

'security blanket' is about knowing somebody's in charge, even if they're not acting in your best interest. There is something comforting in believing that the US Government has a UFO stashed away somewhere with enormous potential for military applications.

'scapegoat' is about taking advantage of a disaster to validate hatred. There are many conspiracy theories about 9/11, and the one you choose reveals a bit about who you hate: bush, Jews... my dad thinks it was the Communists. In religion, a comparison would be that if there was an avalanche that kills a village of women and children, 'security blanket' is to say: "God has a plan, and they're all in heaven now." 'scapegoat' is to say: "Satan was at work here, and he's just making things worse for himself when The End comes."

[tomgv15]

CTs, believers in aliens and the supernatural, in their mind,havepower in "knowing" something that is not controlled by the authority of government and science.

[Shaun from Scotland]

The coping mechanism hypothosis runs into problems which you consider the people who belive the moon landing was a hoax. Various conspirocies theories probably have diffenerent attractions. The moon hoax one plays stongly to the "I'm special" attraction.

This is my take on it too, Geni. I have always been struck by how CT's seem to revel in their "Im special I know something you dont" kind of thinking

[blutoski]

My thoughts are that the CTers are just reacting with some hyperacute form of Grief, and just get stuck in the Denial stage.


A recent story in the Observer:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1749799,00.html

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

'security blanket' is about knowing somebody's in charge, even if they're not acting in your best interest. There is something comforting in believing that the US Government has a UFO stashed away somewhere with enormous potential for military applications.

I was about to post a very similar thought but you beat me to it. It has always struck me that belief in a Conspiracy Theory is a way of adding stability to an inherently chaotic world. The notion that the U.S. government is behind all these horrible things at least means that someone is behind the wheel. They may be bad people right now, but someone is in control. This also leaves the door open to the idea that maybe "the good guys" can kick the "bad guys" out of power and take control themselves and make everything right.

This also enables CTers to hang on to the feeling of "invulnerability" that a lot of Americans had prior to 9-11. They can continue to believe that a few determined nutbags really can't damage the mighty USA, and that really, we can only be hurt if we choose to do it to ourselves.

I've always thought the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory had a similar nuance to it. The Japanese didn't really get the jump on us and sink almost our entire Pacific Fleet. We knew about it all along, and we let them do it as part of our well-thought-out plan to get into the war and defeat them. We really were in control, and the Japanese were mere pawns in our plan.

Of course, I base my theory on absolutely no psychological training whatsoever :D