What makes an event spawn a conspiracy theory?

[Safe-Keeper]

If a thread like this has been posted already, I'm sorry. I just had no idea as to what to search for in my search for it.
​

This is something I've been thinking a lot about lately - what makes an event spawn conspiracy theories? Now, granted, I suppoose all events do at some point spawn theories, but not nearly all of them get a following. Why is there are conspiracy theory crowd on 9/11, but not nearly as much on the flooding of New Orleans? Why are there conspiracy theories on the deaths of some celebrities, but not others? In short - what's so special about events that spawn conspiracy theories? What do they have in common?

Conspiracy theorists themselves, of course, will frown at the question and say that they believe their theories because they're, in their eyes, true. They believe Dubya was behind 9/11 not for sociological reasons or because of some quality inherent in the event, but because they can 'prove' without a doubt that he was. I'm after a better answer than that, however.

First of all, 'there was something fishy about it' does not cut it. It'd be a good explanation if some events had some sort of mixture of eerie coincidences, foul play, neglect, 'revealing' numerology and so on attached to it. This is, however, not the case. Every time something big happens, there are spooky coincidences, a chance for political gain, a level of neglect or incompetence, and so on. This became abundantly clear to me when I created a Wikipedia article on a disaster that was certainly human-caused, and found that if I was to create a Loose Change-like movie, I'd actually have some ammunition, or pseudo-ammunition, as there were things 'that didn't make sense', as well as 'eerie' coincidences. So 'things not being right' is obviously not a qualifier for conspiracy theory spawning - there's always something that's 'not quite right'.

So what's the prerequisites? I checked Wikipedia's article on Conspiracy Theories, and summarized the ideas provided:

1. Some events are too complex to be easily understood - a simpler conspiracy theory is simply more convenient to adhere to.
2. It could be hard to understand how the event could have come about. A conspiracy theory would 'fill the gaps' and give a pseudo-explanation for those in need of answers, much like religions did before the advent of science and modern technology.
3. In the article's words, a theorist may expect 'a significant event to have a significant cause'. For example, he may reason that something as devastating as 9/11 could not have been carried out by terrorist cells, or that the death of Princess Diana could not have been caused by something as simple as a car accident.
4. Political motivation: Theorists may be more likely to blame events on institutions they distrust, especially if there was political and/or monetary benefits to be
5. A misunderstanding in the workings of politics could spawn conspiracy theories in that they overestimate or underestimate governments and other institutions. For example, incredulous conspiracy theorists like to state that the US, as a superpower, could not possible have failed to intercept less than half a dozen unarmed, slow-moving passenger jets in their own territory.
6. Finally, the media may give a false impression of the event by hurrying to satisfy angry viewers' needs for scapegoats.

If we are to go with these criteria, I feel it becomes clearer why 9/11 received a conspiracy following while the New Orleans flooding did not. The former fulfills all six requirements, while the latter, in my eyes, only corresponds to #5 and #6.

Other conspiracy theories are a bit harder to explain as they don't fit the criteria. The Roswell Incident is one example. It's hardly complex, nor does it fit the second, third, or fifth criteria. Perhaps it fulfills the fourth and sixth requirement well enough to make up for its 'shortcoming'? Or maybe the mystery surrounding UFOs and Area 51 provided enough additional fuel?

What do you all think? If a person dies, a city is devastated, or a building is destroyed, what does it take for the event to be preyed upon by masses of conspiracy theorists?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

7. Some people are just insane and believe that everything is a conspiracy.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Fear.

 

[GlennB]

The strong desire to believe in something weird going on, somewhere.

 

[robinson]

...
What do you all think? If a person dies, a city is devastated, or a building is destroyed, what does it take for the event to be preyed upon by masses of conspiracy theorists?

Damn fine question. One could look at historical events that did spawn CTs, and do a scientific analysis to determine the common factors.

Or one could just make stuff up, never knowing what really drives the mass hysteria.

Which is harder?

 

[CHF]

I would also add,

8) people like to feel special and in-the-know.

A conspiracy theory can add tons of drama to an otherwise boring life.

Just look at the truthers - a good chunk of them are teenage kids who get a rush out of battling the NWO from the comfort of their keyboards while getting to feel so much smarter than everyone else.

It's sad to watch cuz you just know they're in for one hell of a crash.

 

[dudalb]

A combination of factors,but one biggie is that in the end, simple answers always have an appeal,and thinking some Big Bad Evil Organization is behind everything bad that happens is simpler to understand than the complex mixture of causes that is really behind every major historical event.
Which is not to say that the other reasons why people belive this crap is not also valid.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

CHF: Yes, but that, again, goes for all events. I'd say 'being in the know' about how New Orleans was really flooded (OMG, xplosivez+levees=Flood!!!11 ) would be just as cool as being 'in the know' about how 9/11 really happened, wouldn't you?

 

[twinstead]

I'm afraid that every major event nowadays will be fodder for conspiracy theories.

I blame the YouTube Generation^TM

 

[dudalb]

I'm afraid that every major event nowadays will be fodder for conspiracy theories.

I blame the YouTube Generation^TM

Agreed,although some will have greater traction then others. The Katrina Theories are not getting nearly as much interest as the 9/11 theories.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Yes, I should've specified that more clearly. Just about every event sparks theories, but only few of them actually gain a following. Just compare the number of 9/11 threads on this forum with the number of Katrina threads.

 

[Alareth]

Virginia Tech and the 35W Bridge had conspiracies applied to them within hours.

The idea that they are looking for simple answers to account for complex things doesn't really hold true IMHO because their "Simple" answers often are impossbliy more complex that the real event.

 

[Anti-sophist]

This is an incredibly hard question to answer and I'm hoping one of you has some insightful reason that sticks.

I'd suggest broadening the thought process to include all forms of nonsense and pseudoscience. For example, Intelligent Design is very much about substituting emotionally-necessary gibberish in place of facts and logic, just like a conspiracy theory. I argue that these are really the same psychological phenomena.

All of these pathological thought processes have these in common, in my view:

1. A god. A higher power. Something that is controlling things from above (aliens, NWO, the Jews, God, the gubmint). Some of the gods are good and some are bad.

2. Narcissism. The believer is always feeling entitled and somehow fulfilled from his belief. IDers believe they are special in the eyes of god. NWOers have that Galileo complex where the establishment is persecuting them. They all believe they are somehow favored or of unique historical importance.

3. Backwards reasoning. Conclusions first, invocation of a conspiracy to remove non-convenient evidence. Insane adherence to logical fallacy often to the point of being unable to distinguish fallacy from sound argument. They view fallacious arguments with a kind conclusion as "obviously true".

4. Agenda. They always bring some preconceived notion to the table. They have a doctrinal belief in this opening notion. They are drawn to a particular set of beliefs because it is in accordance with their doctrinal belief. This belief is beyond question.

Common doctrinal beliefs are things like existence of ESP, God, anti-semitism, anti-government (in general or specific), etc.

The harder question is why some events spawn theories and others don't. Obviously, and critically, an event needs to be "big". Furthermore, it needs to be set up so that there's enough material to base fallacious reasoning on.

In my opinion, #4 is the reason why Katrina isn't as attractive as 9/11. Katrina doesn't fit with the 'qui bono' fallacy with any of the more widely held doctrinal notions. There's no good person to blame for Katrina because it was, at it's heart, a natural event. People are ok with natural disasters. It fits in their world-view. It's hard to figure out how the Jews benefited from Katrina (as opposed to say, faking the holocaust). It's hard to figure out why Bush would have demo'd the levies. These people who have these doctrinal beliefs have better places to advance their doctrine.

The harder question, for me, is why some doctrinal notions are more attractive then others. Why do people pick the Jews? I've never been able to figure it out, to be honest.

 

[Brainache]

It's an interesting question. I'd also be interested in why some events don't generate CTs.

Has there ever been a CT about the death of JFK jnr? Or John Denver? Sonny Bono? All high profile celebrities with some kind of political affiliations (maybe not JD, but this is the CT forum so I'll just pretend)....?

 

[Sabrina]

I believe the reason why Katrina didn't generate CT's (unless I'm missing something here) is due to the fact that it was a naturally occurring event. Not even twoofers can accuse the government of being able to control the weather. Conversely, JFK, 9/11, moonwalking (not the dance!), Virginia Tech, the bridge collapse; all of these are events caused, albeit indirectly in some cases, by man and his abilities. It's difficult to place blame for what essentially amounts to an "act of God" at the feet of mere mortals.

That being said, I do wonder why no one ever thought the levees might have been blown up, now that you've brought it to my attention as a possibility. However, I am grateful that at least one event has been spared the CT disease pretty much, so I won't worry myself over it.

 

[Horatius]

I'm afraid that every major event nowadays will be fodder for conspiracy theories.

I blame the YouTube Generation^TM

Agreed,although some will have greater traction then others. The Katrina Theories are not getting nearly as much interest as the 9/11 theories.

The YouTube effect may have different levels of effect for different events because of the amount of video available of the initiating causes of the CTs. 9/11 was probably the most videoed event in history, while with Katrina, the videos were mostly of the aftereffects, not the causes. Are there any videos of the levees as they actually failed?

Without a large source of video to mine for anomalies, the YouTubers don't have much to work with. This would be the same with any brief, one-off event like the recent bridge collapse, or school shootings. If I'm right, the next big "video" event will likely spawn more CTs.

 

[Horatius]

I believe the reason why Katrina didn't generate CT's (unless I'm missing something here) is due to the fact that it was a naturally occurring event. Not even twoofers can accuse the government of being able to control the weather.

You'd be surprised. Unpleasantly, I might add. But yes, this definitely falls into the fringe-of-the-fringe category, which limits its appeal.

 

[jhunter1163]

It's an interesting question. I'd also be interested in why some events don't generate CTs.

Has there ever been a CT about the death of JFK jnr? Or John Denver? Sonny Bono? All high profile celebrities with some kind of political affiliations (maybe not JD, but this is the CT forum so I'll just pretend)....?

Tipper Gore had Denver whacked because he opposed decency standards for rap music and so on. Mr. White Bread himself had the guts to stand up in front of Congress and call "decency standards" censorship (which to my mind they are). Let that be a lesson to you. Don't mess with the NWO.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I believe the reason why Katrina didn't generate CT's (unless I'm missing something here) is due to the fact that it was a naturally occurring event.

But still, there's nothing to stop a theory saying they exploited the naturally occurring event by, for example, blowing up the levees with explosives.

Not even twoofers can accuse the government of being able to control the weather.

Anthropogenic global warming .

 

[Triterope]

The idea that they are looking for simple answers to account for complex things doesn't really hold true IMHO because their "Simple" answers often are impossbliy more complex that the real event.

CTs do not seek simple explanations to the events themselves. They seek simple explanations to the reasons behind the events.

Life is random and cruel. One lone nut can murder a lot of people, or one very important person, for no reason other than satisfying whatever urges are pulsating in their diseased minds.

Conspiracy theorists can't deal with that. They cannot handle living in a world that, statistically speaking, is full of Oswalds and Chos and Attas who could harm them at any random moment. So they invent these overarching, overly complex world domination schemes that place the random nastiness of life into a larger context.

When every world event is part of a master plan, you don't have to worry about dying in a random incident, because there are no random incidents. I know I keep saying the R-word, but I really think it's key to understanding CT thought process.

Here's what I mean: what if that bridge in Minneapolis had failed two seconds earlier, or two seconds later? A whole different set of people would have died. The people whose names we've read in the obituaries would have lived. They would have gone on to influence the lives of other people. Who knows, the death toll of the bridge failure may have deprived someone of a mentor they needed to set them on the right path in life. Some of the people who died in the bridge failure would have later procreated, bringing into the world new people, and future generations of people, who now will never exist. Or the timing of the bridge failure may have, by the tiniest of margins, spared people who will go on to do these things.

The exact timing of that bridge failure literally altered the course of human history. Which would be compelling, if not for the millions of other microevents that happen every day, in which some people live, some people die, some people meet the person who will change their life for the better, some people meet the person who will change their life for the worse, and some people will miss meeting a life-changing cohort, all by less than half a second. And it probably took you five seconds to read this sentence.

I think randomness is the most powerful force in the universe. Really, I do. How many of the biggest moments in your life happened at the whim of randomness? Have you ever witnessed a fatal accident and said "damn, two seconds earlier and they'd be my corpse they'd be zipping up"? Have you ever fallen in love with someone, or met a person who changed your life forever, and realized "damn, if I hadn't wanted a bag of Munchos at that exact moment I never would have met this person"? Have you ever been a second choice for something and said "damn, if the first person hadn't blown it off I never would have gotten this opportunity"?

If there's anything I've learned in this life, it's that so much of our own existence is simply beyond our control. It is beyond anyone's control. It is at the whim of the forces of randomness. And that is what conspiracy theorists cannot accept. They demand that everything be under the control of someone. They're so afraid of living in a random world that they invent a fantasy world, ruled by incredibly evil people, for themselves to live in. And that's just sad.

Alex Jones and people like him would rather live as slaves to a malevolent evil that doesn't exist, than face these simple facts of life. Then they have the nerve to tell us that we're living in a prison, and need to open our eyes. That they're the ones who took the reality pill. That they're the ones in tune with what's really going on in the world. At some point you just have to shake your head at the sheer pathetic-ness of it all, and walk past.