What I Learned Writing About Conspiracies

I'm currently working on a spec script called "Rabbit Hole", based on my short story of the same name. The both stories focus on a husband and father falling for conspiracy theories and how it negatively affects his life and those around him, including his family.

While the short story is framed as a single narrator, the script takes a step back, focusing more on the efforts of both family and friends trying to pull the man back, as well as those who stand to benefit from his continual descent; fellow conspiracy peddlers.

I wanted to include some real world elements, especially since a guide-like character in the script is a psychology professor. In doing so, I tried finding as much research, study results, and accepted theory as possible.

And while I, like yourself, I presume, thought Conspiracy Theories were an open and shut case of just ignorance and mistaken facts, it was humbling to be proven wrong.

---

Debunking Is The WORST Thing You Can Do!

If you're trying to swim, DON'T! Just float. It's funny how often we should be doing the opposite of whatever we're doing. Entire philosophies like Taoism practice a form of submissive action, where you should let go, don't tense, nor become domineering. We're taught to be aggressive so much that we're losing social skills, communal connections, and even opportunities, all so we don't feel weak or taken advantage of.

So what do you think happens when two people are saying the other are wrong, even if one of them is?

Lewandowsky & Cook in "The Conspiracy Theory Handbook" put it well;

"While debunking conspiracy theories can be effective with the general public, it is much more challenging with people who believe the conspiracy theories. Rather than basing their beliefs on external evidence, conspiracy theorists' belief system speaks mainly to itself, and each belief serves as evidence for every other belief."

Conspiracy Theories aren't just misinformation. They are beliefs. You wouldn't say "I believe the sky is blue". It is accepted to be blue both because the general consensus is we call it blue, and there is a reason it appears blue. We also understand, that while the sky isn't a physical thing that can be blue, we have designated the sky to be blue in a cultural sense. We can argue for "The Sky Is Blue" on the grounds of optics, physics, and semantics. But if someone believes the sky is red, despite how much we can prove them wrong, and may even prove they can see it's not red, they may still hold on to that belief because it's a belief; we can't make someone not believe. Again, Lewandowsky & Cook discuss this idea;

"Conspiracy theories are inherently self-sealing - evidence that counters a theory is re-interpreted as originating from the conspiracy. This reflects the belief that the stronger the evidence against a conspiracy (e.g., the FBI exonerating a politician from allegations of misusing a personal email server), the more the conspirators must want people to believe their version of events (e.g., the FBI was part of the conspiracy to protect that politician)."

So not only is arguing against a conspiracy theory purely from an evidential standpoint unfruitful, it can be damaging, only further cementing the internal narrative that there is a conspiracy being covered up. This is a prime of why Climate Denial is still so prevalent, despite a near unanimous acceptance of it in the scientific community; there must be something going on if so many people agree on something, right?

Right?

It Doesn't Happen Overnight.

I think we can be prone to imagine our beliefs, indeed all beliefs, are these sudden epiphanies, these eureka moments that just suddenly dawn upon us with shimmering clarity. The same assumption is extended to conspiratorial beliefs, that it just took one stupid post to lead down the wrong path. This assumption is comforting; if it's easy in, it must be easy out, just give the right info.

Unfortunately, both ways are the complete opposite; slow, arduous, unassuming. You can imagine it asa scar. You aren't marked by a graze or a scratch, nor from something that can heal from a few hours under a band-aid. It's deep, slow, painful, and not easily removed, if at all.

In "Rabbit Hole Syndrome: Inadvertent, accelerating, and entrenched commitment to conspiracy beliefs", by Robbie M. Sutton & Karen M. Douglas propose…

"…a hypothetical Rabbit Hole Syndrome in which some individuals' subscription to conspiracy beliefs is initially inadvertent, accelerates recursively, then becomes difficult to escape."

…

"You can be drawn into it incidentally and find it difficult to get out of. It then draws you ever deeper, in a non-linear descent, and you find yourself losing a sense of time, reality, and reason."

…

"People do not enter the process intending or even expecting to develop a deep commitment to conspiracy theories. Their attention… may be captured by something interesting or appealing. Studies indicate that people may first be drawn in by the sheer entertainment value of conspiracy theories, online connections with a member of an online conspiracy community, or interest in a conspiracy theory about a particular issue (e.g., about COVID-19), which then serves as a "gateway" to other conspiracy beliefs (e.g., the 2020 US Presidential election) and a more generalized conspiracy worldview. Importantly, people appear unable to detect how exposure to conspiracy theories changes their beliefs and so may not notice what is happening to them in these early stages of Rabbit Hole Syndrome."

Much like the rabbit hole from Alice In Wonderland (where the term originates), the descent is gradual, innocuous, and then sudden plunging and deep. Conspiracies about trans children in school leads to racist fears about migrants, which then leads to misinformation about Jews controlling purse strings of the US.

You can see now why bringing someone back isn't just about refuting their beliefs. You have to completely detangle the web of lies that splinter off from one another.

Joseph Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami and co-author of American Conspiracy Theories (Oxford University Press, 2014), speaking to Scientific American, was able to give some reassuring words;

"If it's hard to change entrenched conspiracy beliefs, the silver lining is that it's also hard to make people believe in conspiracies, contrary to popular conception, Uscinski says. In 2022 he and his colleagues published research in PLOS ONE that found no evidence that conspiracy beliefs are growing, despite their visibility on social media. Changing entrenched beliefs of any kind is challenging, Uscinski says, especially if those beliefs are closely tied to someone's worldview. "Sometimes people pick the beliefs that they want, and they do what they want because of who they are."

Narcissists Love Conspiracies!

Let's be honest; this is the least surprising finding so far. It's not your imagination; Conspiracy peddlers are scientifically proven to be assholes. In the same way showbiz, corporatism, and politics attract the most self-absorbed people, so to do conspiracy theories.

You can see the appeal. The attention, the bombastic declarations, the almost self-congratulatory idea that you've uncovered a global plot to control the world. You've heard of Main Character Syndrome. This is practically the next level; Main Player Syndrome: a feeling of being the sole player in an open world where you're on an epic quest against a foe conveniently ludo-narratively inconsistent. Strong enough to be an antagonist, weak enough to not be intimidating.

In "Why do narcissists find conspiracy theories so appealing?", Aleksandra Cichocka, Marta Marchlewska, Mikey Biddlestone explored the appeal of conspiracy theories to narcissists, finding;

"While the Big Five traits show weak associations with conspiracy beliefs, researchers find relatively consistent effects for the way people perceive themselves. In three studies, all conducted with US samples, Cichocka and colleagues demonstrated that endorsement of conspiracy theories was related to narcissism - a belief in one's superiority and a sense of entitlement to special treatment, characterised by sensitivity to threats."

When we look at the traits of narcissism (grandiosity, antagonism, pomposity, authoritarianism, insecurity), they can easily mesh with conspiracy peddlers, especially in the digital age, where online and media attention are part of the game. Likes, engagement, and subscriber counts are as much a driving factor in both narcissism and conspiracy theories as the beliefs themselves.

Prevention Is Key.

By now I'm sure you'd agree the Barbie movie (2023) has been analyzed to death through every possible lens (Feminist, Queer, Textual, Marxist, Conservative, etc). There is an interesting plot point that I think is very reflective of the world of conspiracy theories.

The world of Barbie is taken over by the Ken dolls, who previously were subservient. In the context of the movie, they are "accessories" to their respective Barbie (President Barbie, Cowgirl Barbie, Doctor Barbie, etc). The Kens achieve this by acting upon the presumption that they are actually superior to the Barbies. The Barbies, having known nothing else than a flat existence as dolls, don't have the critical thinking experience to argue against this cartoony (though not unheard of) form of patriarchy.

In short, the lack of exposure to an "other", no matter how wrong, risks being overwhelmed by it to the point of having no resistance to it.

We're not dolls, but there is something prophetic here. Really, how many of us, after going through standardized education, maybe some college in a specialized field, have really questioned, deconstructed, and defended basic tenants of life? Rights, democracy, equality, freedom. Yes, we're thought ABOUT these things, but we're never fully educated on why fundamental aspects are needed, or even how to counter arguments against them.

The same goes for facts like the moon landing, or how vaccines work. We're told about them, but we're just told to accept them. This is partially because many schools on focused more on the regurgitation than integration of knowledge. We know to say "the moon landing happen on July 20th, 1969" in a test, but we don't know how they landed, or how complicated it was, or what exactly had to go right to make the idea of men on the moon a possibility even worth considering years beforehand. It's like magic; we're just told it did. So when someone counters us with "it was faked", we don't have anything to rebuff that claim with. Because both ideas are equally as distant to our understanding, from an experiential standpoint, they are both valid to us. Unfortunately, it's easier for us to understand something being faked than history being made.

Lewandosky & Cook in "The Conspiracy Theory Handbook" recommend inoculation (ironic, I know), or "Prebunking", where there is an exposure to falsehoods with the forewarning that they are fails, followed by refuting, or "Debunking", the argument. This is useful because it can be framed as an exercise in critical thinking; let the person know something is wrong, but then engage them in pointing it out, like a game of spot-the-difference. This is backed in "The efficacy of interventions in reducing belief in conspiracy theories: A systematic review"

"Prevention is the best cure: Interventions that provided counterarguments for conspiracy theories were most effective when the counterargument came before the participants were exposed to the particular conspiracy theories that the study focused on. The findings suggest it is more difficult to challenge conspiracy beliefs once participants have started to believe in them. If participants have been taught why certain conspiracy theories are implausible before they have been exposed to conspiratorial media they are much more resistant to conspiracy beliefs."

Ironically, Conspiracy Theories Make Sense

"Pareidolia" (pah-ray-doh-lee-a) is the phenomenon of recognizing patterns to construct a meaning where there is none. For example…

:)

That's not a face. I know you know it's not a face, but we recognize it as a face. If you want to get silly you can have…

;-P

Just to reaffirm, also not a face. While this may seem like a psychological quirk, something akin to a coding bug that does little to no harm in our head, it is probably one of the most important traits we have. It, along with tools, communities, and thumbs, is the reason we are still alive together. Imagine how useful it was to see two glints of light in the distance at night, surrounded by darkness, and almost instinctively know, with no real evidence, that a wild animal was hiding in the brush and was about to attack your tribe, or how useful it was to spot a spy in your platoon with nothing more than the gait of their step or how they hold up three fingers (e.g. the tavern scene in "Inglourious Basterds", 2009).

Conspiracy Theorists can be thought to have a hyper-inflated trust in pareidolia, where every gut feeling is acted upon but then double-downed upon. The difference between a healthy and unhealthy sense of pareidolia seems to be an overriding anxiety that takes over.

Viren Swami, a social psychologist at Anglia Ruskin University in England, according to "Scientific American"…

"reported in 2016 that individuals who feel stressed are more likely than others to believe in conspiracy theories, and a 2017 study found that promoting anxiety in people also makes them more conspiracy-minded."

History is full of these examples, unsurprisingly around times of turmoil. The Great Depression, wars, the Spanish Flu, the Black Death, civil wars, the Recession, 9/11, the 2016 US Election, Brexit, the January 6th Insurrection, and, of course, The 2020 Pandemic all came with conspiracy theories, both as causes for and results of their respective events.

As pointed out earlier, conspiracy theories are self-sealing, which is comforting. Their existence is taken as validity. Any failure to rebuff them satisfactorily is taken as validity. Any attempt to refute them is taken as validity. Whether we like it or not, conspiracy theories are coping mechanism, as explained by Lewandosky & Cook:

"Conspiracy theories allow people to cope with threatening events by focusing blame on a set of conspirators.8 People find it difficult to accept that "big" events (e.g., the death of Princess Diana) can have an ordinary cause (driving while intoxicated). A conspiracy theory satisfies the need for a "big" event to have a big cause, such as a conspiracy involving MI5 to assassinate Princess Diana."

…

"For the same reason, people tend to propose conspiratorial explanations for events that are highly unlikely. Conspiracy theories act as a coping mechanism to help people handle uncertainty."

Even now, as I speak, the two flavours-of-the-month for CTs are Princess Catherine and the Baltimore Bridge collapse. It's too scary to think cancer can't be stopped by wealth or prestige, or that accidents can still happen in our modern world. But, as tasteless as it sounds, the idea of shadowy forces pulling the strings from the darkness is very comforting and reassuring, because at least someone is in control.

---

I believe we are living in a time of mass hysteria. I don't say that to be alarmist or sensational. There has never been another time where a story in one part of the world can be supported and inflamed by believers in another part. US conspiracy theories are being propped up by Malaysian grifters like Ian Miles Cheong, despite never having visited the US. Elon Musk, a South African mining heir, is speaking in support of anti-immigrant rouser who set alight to houses. A self-proclaimed Queen of Canada (yes, seriously) is being supported by Sovereign Citizens, Freemen Of The Land, Reich Citizens from around the world. Disinformation is being spread by people who will never directly be affected by it. That's the power of these beliefs. That the destruction lies can cause.

I wrote the Rabbit Hole short story about two years ago. I take little pride in adapting it as a script, with the reassurance there is still a "market" for it. But this does seem like an issue that is slowly being taken more and more seriously, with many of these studies cited taking place only in the last five or so years. Jesus, in "The Trees Swallow People", I wrote about racists arsonists in my village. Cut to eight months later, and there actually WAS a racist arson attack in my village! This is just getting predictable now!

I can only hope, when I'm done, that producers and productions can see the same worrying trend I can see. That may sound like fear-mongering, maybe even a little self-congratulatory. I don't mean it to be. But I feel that we are running out of time to reverse the course we're on; I don't think we have time to be in denial anymore.

---

Please consider supporting https://ko-fi.com/conormatthews

---

Sources:

• Conspiracy Theories and How to Help Family and Friends Who Believe Them - https://www.adl.org/conspiracy-theories
• People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/
• Conspiracy Theories Can Be Undermined with These Strategies, New Analysis Shows - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-can-you-fight-conspiracy-theories/
• The efficacy of interventions in reducing belief in conspiracy theories: A systematic review- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10075392/
• "The Conspiracy Theory Handbook" by Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook (2020)- sks.to/conspiracy
• Why do narcissists find conspiracy theories so appealing? - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001051
• Rabbit Hole Syndrome: Inadvertent, accelerating, and entrenched commitment to conspiracy beliefs- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X2200183X