Conspiratorial Explanations
New Research Update
We often think of conspiracy narratives as being less objective, more emotional, vaguer, and more unfalsifiable than non-conspiracy narratives.
Two newer studies were conducted looking at the differences between conspiracy and non-conspiracy articles online. Researchers attempted to separate articles based on certain criteria of characteristics such as whether the article contained factual information, the type of arguments made, and the nature of the explanation.
One of the studies had this separation done by “coders”, individuals who were compensated and trained to rank articles based on a set scale that would classify them as more or less conspiratorial. However, there could be some coders who probably believe the very conspiracies they were trying to evaluate which meant this had to be adjusted for.
In both studies, conspiratorial articles were rated to contain less factual but more emotional and threat-related information than non-conspiratorial articles, even after controlling for article length and coders’ conspiracy mentality.
This confirms what we know about conspiracy narratives in general.
We know from other research that conspiracy narratives generally are more emotional, less factual, have more negative argumentation, and are less falsifiable.
For instance, a flat earther might believe that god holds up the earth because he loves and protects us (more emotional less factual). Anyone who disagrees with the flat earther’s narrative is just bought off by NASA and big space (negative argumentation). The only reason we believe the earth to be round is because of the Illuminati and the devil (less falsifiable).
We obviously want the opposite of this argumentation style and framework for deciding what narratives to believe especially on the internet.
We should seek narratives that are based in fact, falsifiable, and rooted in specific explanations.
You need to build up your critical thinking skills.
Narratives you see online should be based on concrete facts, be able to be shown false, and specifically explain to you the nuances of the argument.
This is where an understanding of the cognitive sciences, data literacy, and an understanding of philosophical knowledge is crucial.
I’ll leave you with a few tips for upping your critical thinking skills.
Tip #1: Understand the cognitive sciences.
The cognitive sciences refer to psychology, neuroscience, computer science, and other related fields.
But you don’t need a Ph.D. in psychology to understand heuristics, cognitive biases, illusions, and cognitive distortions.
Learn those aforementioned topics and you’ll better understand the faults in your thinking.
Tip #2: Learn logic.
When I talk about logic I am referring to philosophical logic which deals with arguments and reasoning about them.
An easy place to start is to learn propositional logic in order to learn about formal and informal fallacies along with other essential concepts.
Tip #3: Build up that data literacy.
This is more than just understanding statistics, this is understanding how data is used and abused by other people.
Everyone outside of scientists nowadays wants to throw around studies or statistics, knowing what data means in context is essential now more than ever.
These tips will help you from falling for conspiracy narratives and build up your critical thinking skills.
If you want to build up your critical thinking skills pick up my book.