Not sure where this will go, but I have been thinking about this for a few days and it would seem sensible to try and map out some preliminary ideas. Also it is rather a long time since I was active on this blog.
We have, particularly over the last few months, but more generally over a longer time, been subjected to a rise in the “popularity” of conspiracy theories. These are, of course, nothing new – they have been around for a long time (I’m sure that if I were to quickly google it there are examples from long, long ago) but the specifics of the events ‘over the pond’ leading up to and following the election have not only brought them into sharp focus – but seemingly have brought them into mainstream “politics”.
My intention here is not to delve into specific examples – other than to perhaps illustrate some points – but rather to explore the phenomenon and articulate a few thoughts.
I have, I think, always had a reasonable grasp on what is “real” and what is “imaginary”. However, experience has taught me that there is often a blurring – for one reason or another – of the distinction here. The most obvious is that we – as a species – are progressing. You may argue that some of the progress is in a negative direction 😀 but that does not change the fact that the lines continue to be redrawn.
At any given moment though I would like to think that my own personal lines are – if not perfect – at least rational. Although that term in itself is not necessarily a helpful one.
I have spoken/written before about the fact that Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen use the label “Liars to Children” to describe teachers. Not in a derogatory (or any other negative sense) way but as an actualisation of what is the necessary process of learning. Of course, not everyone learns at the same rate, but – regardless of that – if you give someone data/information/knowledge that they are not ‘prepared’ for then that is not going to result in a satisfactory learning experience – for teacher or pupil.
Thus we were all taught “the basics” first – and, whilst the basics were, perhaps not actually lies, they still hid a lot of the truth. The definition (according to what is written in The Science of Discworld) is :
Now – it is important to realise that this is not confined to young children – we, throughout life, continue to relay on these things to make sense of the world. We each have a different level of understanding – and that level itself varies from subject to subject – I will willingly plead ignorance about some things and much more knowledge about others. This is because:
So – in this respect we all inhabit “imaginary worlds” that are – hopefully – simplified versions of the ‘real’ world. These worlds are created by our minds based on our upbringing, our knowledge sources, our ability to grasp the more complex ideas and much, much more. For this reason it is extremely unlikely (in my view – and I hope you appreciate the irony of that) that any two people will have exactly the same worldview.
We interpret “facts” based on how they interact with this worldview. There are many things inbuilt in each of us that regulate the way in which that interpretation is done – some in a positive way and others in a negative. This particular post is not going to delve into any in detail. One of the most helpful/damaging of them is the fact that we tend to put too much faith in anything that reinforces what we already know.
So much so that we will often go out of our way to confirm what we know at the expense of testing where our knowledge is deficient. This confirmation bias is often a big factor in the rise of conspiracy theories. Those who espouse them reject anything that contradicts the theory whilst pointing gleefully to anything that remotely supports it.
Here we get to the core of what I want to write about. Any conspiracy theory requires that those who believe it inhabit an imaginary world – however, that in itself does not make them any different to everyone else as I have pointed out that – to some extent – we all do. There is a famous aphorism “all models are wrong, but some are useful”. This is as true of our worldview as it is of an excel spreadsheet. I would suggest that it is the way that they are wrong – and the willingness of the person to accept “learning” that are the most important factors.
It is easy to point to some particular factors of the recent events in America. The biggest difficulty is that there is not just one conspiracy theory to deal with, but several that are interacting – which, of course, is how everything works anyway, but that means that the conspiracy theory in some ways gains more of a hold because it is more difficult to break down.
One of the key things people point to is “what are the facts”. Problem is – what is a fact to one person is a myth to another – and it is often difficult to change that view because the frame of reference is so totally different. Crucially it is difficult to provide evidence that something did not happen if sufficient people say that it did. Election fraud was everywhere – but there is no evidence for it – but equally it is difficult to prove that it didn’t happen – because every time you produce a reason why it didn’t that can be easily refuted by those who think it did simply by suggesting that you are “hiding the evidence”. How do you prove that you are not hiding evidence?
For most people, most of the time, the line between real and imaginary is reasonably defined. We read books – get drawn into the story – but we don’t “believe” it is real – always assuming its a fiction book, I guess for non-fiction the working assumption is that it IS real 😀 equally we watch TV programmes – what happens there isn’t ‘real’ although some “reality shows” might want you to think it is. Here is a thought – are there any TC shows that are 100% ‘real’?
The fact that many (if not all) reality shows manipulate the action shown – even if just by being selective in what is broadcast and what is not – sort of does a first pass blurring of the real/imaginary boundary.
This leads to the question – is “reality” simply what most people agree on? Surely there is more to it than that – and yet…. There are plenty of ways in which we can be – and are – manipulated. This is not something that is new with so called “social media” – but that has necessarily amplified it to an extent not seen before – but then – so did the invention of radio – and TV – and even newspapers. It is (I would argue) impossible for ANY media outlet to be entirely unbiased on all subjects. So – we will be, to some extent, manipulated by our media of choice – whether that is the BBC, the Time, or facebook.
I am no expert, but from what I have seen and heard the choices of many in the USA are very polarised – and suffer from extreme “confirmation bias” – only listening to outlets that support their views. There have been plenty of folks who can (very easily) point to the deficiencies within the crowds of MAGA supporters. I am sure that there are equally ‘strange’ opinions and views within any other group that is choosing to separate itself from the “center” – where I am counting the center as being “reality”!!
Thing is – to someone from (for example) an Asian country I suspect that many parts of my worldview would sound equally ludicrous to them as the MAGA view sounds to me. So the “center” is not necessarily something that we can point to anyway. That, however, is not the point. The point is that there must be some consensus view on what is a “reasonable” worldview to have. Who gets to decide what that is? Is there anything that counts as “undisputed” fact?
As we have grown and learned, we have discovered that things that we once thought “unreal” turn out to be very real. If – when I was in school – someone had told me that I’d be able to take out a “phone” from my pocket and have a “facetime” call with someone on the other side of the world – what do you think my reaction would have been. (and it wouldn’t cost me to do so 😮)
So – is it possible that some things that are thought of as conspiracy theories (or perhaps better termed imaginary worlds) might just turn out to be true?
There are – of course – some of these imaginary worlds that can be disputed with “realities” – but even there we must be careful as our realities might just be “lies to children”.
Probably more to write on this subject later……
Afterword – having written this I happened to look to see when I last wrote such a long post – coincidentally it was about four years ago – and on a very salient (and similar) topic.