Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational

by Michael Shermer

"A well-written and essential tool for those navigating today's complicated geopolitical landscape."—Library Journal Best-selling author Michael Shermer presents an overarching theory of conspiracy theories—who believes them and why, which ones are real, and what we should do about them.

Nothing happens by accident, everything is connected, and there are no that is the essence of conspiratorial thinking. Long a fringe part of the American political landscape, conspiracy theories are now 147 members of Congress voted in favor of objections to the 2020 presidential election based on an unproven theory about a rigged electoral process promoted by the mysterious group QAnon. But this is only the latest example in a long history of ideas that include the satanic panics of the 1980s, the New World Order and Vatican conspiracy theories, fears about fluoridated water, speculations about President John F. Kennedy's assassination, and the notions that the Sandy Hook massacre was a false-flag operation and 9/11 was an inside job.

In Conspiracy, Michael Shermer presents an overarching review of conspiracy theories—who believes them and why, which ones are real, and what we should do about them. Trust in conspiracy theories, he writes, cuts across gender, age, race, income, education level, occupational status—and even political affiliation. One reason that people believe these conspiracies, Shermer argues, is that enough of them are real that we should be constructively elections have been rigged (LBJ's 1948 Senate race); medical professionals have intentionally harmed patients in their care (Tuskegee); your government does lie to you (Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Afghanistan); and, tragically, some adults do conspire to sexually abuse children. But Shermer reveals that other factors are also in anxiety and a sense of loss of control play a role in conspiratorial cognition patterns, as do certain personality traits.

This engaging book will be an important read for anyone concerned about the future direction of American politics, as well as anyone who's watched friends or family fall into patterns of conspiratorial thinking.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Politics, Sociology, Audiobook, History

374 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 25, 2022

About the author

Michael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954 in Glendale, California) is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating and debunking pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The Skeptics Society currently has over 55,000 members.

Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series Exploring the Unknown. Since April 2004, he has been a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. Once a fundamentalist Christian, Shermer now describes himself as an agnostic nontheist and an advocate for humanist philosophy.


more info:
http://us.macmillan.com/author/michae...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_...

Reviews

[Anne · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Audible Original for The Great Courses is a somewhat abbreviated version of this book and well worth it if you're looking for something a bit more bite-sized. <--but still delicious!



The conspiracies covered are interesting. And I loved the way he peeled apart the difference between the "evidence" we've heard via pop culture that has propagated some of these theories into large-scale societal beliefs vs the facts that we should be looking at. Sometimes we subconsciously assume things to be true or probably true without even realizing why or how we came to that conclusion. The conspiracies are just out there in the ether with believableish sounding talking points.
The first line of defense against gullibility is to take a rational look around and try to shake our ingrained reaction toward confirmation bias.
For example, the CIA has done shady and illegal things in the past does not equal JFK was killed by the CIA, but an overwhelming number of people still believe this to be at least somewhat true.



The biggest difference I noticed between this and The Great Courses version, was that at the end of this book, it discusses how to talk to people who hold both fringe and mainstream conspiracy theories without it turning into a heated argument. Or losing relationships over the disagreements.
I really like the way Shermer is open to criticizing both sides of the political fence over their pet conspiracies. Also, that we should all be not only talking to but actively listening to people with ideas we disagree with. That's really the only way we can find the underlying causes to help us untangle the reasons behind what seems like vast gulfs of belief between family, friends, and neighbors.



Some of the more prevalent and disproven conspiracy theories tell us a lot about not only ourselves but our cultural and societal worries.
We are creatures who are hardwired to need answers. Conspiracies happen, so it's not at all crazy to stop and take a look at them. But it is important to take a look at the actual evidence and make an informed, rational, neutral decision on which ones to believe.
And it is also VERY important to look in the mirror and realize that what you would like to believe is going to make you biased. I try hard to untangle myself from my emotions when I listen to new information but I usually fail and end up with some kind of biased gut-reaction takeover of my mouth.



So that's my (belated) New Year's resolution. Shut up and listen. Take a step back. Then take a deep breath and attempt some unbiased research. Go into conversations with an open mind, and the idea that what I believe may be wrong.
I'm not, of course. Pffft. <--damn, that's a hard habit to break.
At the very least, my hope is that I'll end up with a broader understanding of the people around me, and I think this book will go a long way to helping me reach that goal.

Recommended.

[Mya Matteo · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first third of this was great! I really enjoyed the insights into WHY people believe in conspiracies. The later thirds, which focus on debunking conspiracies and how to talk to people who believe in them, were less captivating. The general centrist take in the final third was a bit annoying, but I expected that, lol. One can be a skeptic and still have principles!

[Liquidlasagna · Rating 1 out of 5]

Amazone

I am very surprised to learn of Shermer's belief that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, despite the Select Committee on Assassinations ruling that there was most probably a conspiracy and highly likely that more than one gunman was involved.

This is to say nothing of newer information presented in Oliver Stone's documentary Through the Looking Glass, although, in Shermer's defence, this documentary came out around the time Shermer was finishing this book.

He repeatedly refers to Vincent Bugliosi as some sort of paragon of truth, and with regards to this I would simply invite people to read Tom O'Neill's book, Chaos about the Manson murders, in which O'Neill demonstrates very effectively that Bugliosi repeatedly lied under oath, intimidated witnesses, tampered with evidence etc during the Manson murders trial.

He also refers to David Ray Griffin, who wrote 'The New Pearl Harbor' as a 'conspiracy theorist' however, having read that book, Griffin merely presents an account of what did and didn't happen on the day of 9/11 and invites the reader to come to their own conclusion.

Overall, an average book which I'm glad to have got out of the way.

Andrew Teece

---

Not Too Sure

Where the author lost me was when he talked about the mechanics of media "conspiracies" and how it is impractical to create a literal conspiracy by them.

He made a case for that happening because they watch each other and repeat the mantra; not a true conspiracy, even though they end up saying the same thing. That's kind of where he lost me. I failed to appreciate the difference.

So if you want to learn about the technical difference between collusion and a conspiracy, this may be the book for you. It goes to the book fair for me.

John

..............

Actually the real difference is that conspiracy is technically a crime

however look at the contradictions

---

NPR

The term collusion might not be in the lawbooks but other crimes like conspiracy are.

and look at the 180 twist-a-roo

Grammatist

Conspiracy describes two or more people secretly plotting an action, usually but not limited to a harmful or illegal action. Conspiracy may refer to the plot itself or the act of planning of the plot. Conspiracy comes from the Old French word conspiracie, which means plot or conspiracy. The plural form is conspiracies, the verb form is conspire.

Collusion describes two or more people secretly plotting an illegal or fraudulent action. Collusion may refer to the plot itself or the act of planning the plot. Collusion comes from the Old French word, collusion. The verb form is collude. Remember, conspiracy describes a secret plot that may or may not be illegal, collusion is always an illegal or fraudulent plot.

............

Again

NPR
Collusion Or Conspiracy; What's Really The Difference?

RUDY GIULIANI: I've been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime.

UNIDENTIFIED BROADCASTER: It's not.

GIULIANI: Collusion is not a crime. Everything that's been released so far shows the president to be absolutely innocent. He didn't do anything wrong.

The term collusion might not be in the lawbooks but other crimes like conspiracy are. NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with Georgetown law professor Paul Butler to break down what law says about collusion.

CORNISH: So both Giuliani and Trump - we see they're making the argument that collusion isn't illegal, that it's not in the criminal code. Tell us what you know. What's the fact here?

BUTLER: If you look at the very long federal criminal code, which contains over 4,000 crimes, you won't find a crime called collusion. But you will find crimes that punish people for hacking into email or computers or election fraud or violating campaign financing laws. And then other laws punish people for conspiracy, which means working with other people to commit crimes. So at the end of the day, it's really just kind of a rhetorical device to say that collusion isn't a crime because special counsel Mueller certainly understands that. And so what he's charged most frequently is conspiracy to defraud the United States.

...........

wikipedia

Collusion is illegal in the United States, Canada, Australia and most of the EU due to antitrust laws, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place.

Covert collusion is known as tacit collusion and is considered legal.

Collusion often occurs within an oligopoly market structure, which is a type of market failure. Therefore, natural market forces alone may be insufficient to prevent or deter collusion, and government intervention is often necessary.

.........

So i'm not surprised people are muddled on the issue

and well, Shermer is not that great of a writer or a thinker, so buyer beware.

.............

The moral of the story is that Shermer basically says

a. trust your mainstream media
b. trust your government

anything else stinks of conspiracy theory

.........

PS

The moral of the story is that Shermer REALLY says

a. trust your mainstream media
b. trust your government

anything else stinks of conspiracy theory
unless it contradicts the Mike Shermer school of Libertarianist Opinionista!!

......

PPS

Urban Dictionary
Opinionista

A person committed to the belief that opinions matter as much as facts and that her own ignorance is of equal value to others' expertise.

[Tina Panik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finally: an explanation of the past few years that confirms we’re not (all) actually going crazy!

This was an ARC.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unfortunately, the author has become exactly what he warns against, and therefore, I must unfortunately withdraw my review and recommendation of this book.

This book is a masterpiece and was what I had hoped Shermers' previous book, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time would have been.

In Why People Believe Weird Things, Shermers' thesis states that "smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons" (Why People Believe, p. 297); while I believe that the thesis was fascinating, I felt that his defense of that thesis was not as strong, instead focusing on things such as the history of the Holocaust denial movement.

On the contrary, I felt that Conspiracy is a much more approachable and focused exploration on the topic of conspiracy theories and his previous thesis.

The first part of this book is an exploration of the psychology of conspiracy theories, notably the types of conspiracy theories and their foundations: proxy and tribal conspiracism, motivated reasoning, and the various forms of cognitive biases (confirmation, hindsight, myside, etc.) and the motivations of conspiratorial thinking (p. 69).

Additionally, Shermer also defines a framework for categorizing conspiracy theories in contrast with their rational equivalent: ordinary/extraordinary, mundane/mystical, knowledge/intuition, science/pseudoscience, natural/magical, explained/mysterious, visible/hidden and history/conspiracy (p. 62).

The second part of this book is devoted to evaluating the claims of conspiracy theories and how to determine if a conspiracy theory is true or false — to do this, Shermer defines a “Conspiracy Theory Detection Kit” which consists of questions one must ask (p. 130-133) to determine the veracity of the source, and characteristics of a conspiracy one must consider (p. 137-139).

For example, some of the questions include: “Does the claimant make similar claims?”, “Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?”, “Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing one?” and “Do the claimants’ personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?”

Some of the characteristics include: agenticity (agents would need to be superhuman to pull it off), complexity (large number of things coming together perfectly), paranoia (indiscriminately suspicious of governmental or corporate agency) and falsifiability (rejection of alternative explanation or if it can’t be falsifiable, its unlikely to be true)

Shermer then uses this kit to evaluate claims involving the Kennedy Assassination and Birtherism.

Shermer also explores actual conspiracy theories, such as Operation Northwoods (p. 196), Gulf of Tonkin Incident (p. 201), Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (p. 232), Project MKULTRA (p. 223) and NSA spying (p. 200). An entire chapter is also devoted to the deadliest conspiracy theory of all time: the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg by “The Black Hand” which was the powder-keg for the start of World War I.

The final part of this book concludes by explaining how you can talk to conspiracy theorists and ensuring you can maintain a respectful and receptive dialog when it comes to rebutting claims using facts, logic and reason.

Finally, I’d like to conclude with some general observations that are not specifically contained to only one part of the book as well as my ideas for improving this book in a future updated version:

Throughout the book, Shermer is very clear that conspiratorial thinking is NOT a one-party issue and there isn’t a single persona that makes up a conspiracy theorist. He is also very clear that lack of educational achievement is a correlated with belief in conspiracy theories, high educational achievement does not preclude the belief in conspiracy theories.

As an example, when it comes to political belief, while QAnon, climate change denial, Sandy Hook false-flag and COVID-19 related conspiracies tend to be espoused by those on the political right, Shermer correctly notes that the political left is tends to be more likely to espouse conspiracy theories related to 9/11, GMOs, AIDS was invented, or Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

One thing that I did feel was missing from this book is the typically journey that conspiracy theorists fall into, the “rabbit hole” as Mick West described it in Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect.

A chapter exploring the life of a “recovered” conspiracy theorist would have been well worth including and would make a good supplemental chapter for the inevitable paperback version.

In conclusion, Conspiracy is well worth the read if you are looking for an approachable understanding of conspiratorial thinking without being dragged through the weeds with an overly academic presentation.

[Jordan M. · Rating 1 out of 5]

As far as books that belittle their potential audiences go, you can't find one that does a better job. This book should really be called Conspiracy: Why I'm Smarter than Everyone. It's 360 pages of author grandstanding, and hardly anything of educational value, unless you happen to be someone who just happens to have the same opinion and desire to brag about your own ego.

I don't understand all the rave reviews. This is a person who needs to study audience and that this isn't a scholarly journal. This is supposed to be a book that breaks down why people believe what they believe in regards to conspiracy theory, but then he speaks to his audience like they're stupid. The book itself, suggests that it's taking an educational approach to understand how minds work, but then uses language that speaks down to the very people he should be educating.

Here's an example of that from his first chapter:

"The 'Qincidences' (spelled with a Q) include the recurrence of certain numbers"

That's right! He actually spelled a word with a Q, put it in quotes and told his audience that he just spelled the word with a Q, because we're too stupid to see that he just used a Q instead of a Roman numeral C or something. That's how dumb he thinks his audience is. He thinks it can't tell what a Q is that he has to tell it he just used a Q to spell a word that only an illiterate person would not know was spelled with a Q.

If that kind of speaking down isn't enough, he loads the pages, introduction and explanations with so much drivel that he never actually gets a point without unnecessarily using large vocabulary like so many freshman writers do when they think it will impress a writing professor.

All of this adds up to a person who cares little for his audience and is all about puffing up how smart he is. This is a great topic, but he's the worst I've ever seen at reading it. His whole approach of, "When I saw people marching on the capitol, I suddenly got interested at a group of people I don't like and wanted to show how stupid they were."

It's very clear from the get-go that this isn't a discussion on conspiracy, but further smear into creating political divides with people he doesn't like. Opinionated more than factual, it's more like an inside joke with people he regards to be as smart as he is rather than helping to connect with an audience that could have learned something from him about why their conspiracy beliefs are unfounded.

It's very difficult for people to hear helpful ideas when the author is all "Ego! Ego! Big words (when smaller words would do) to show I deserve my ego because I never had a college teacher tell me, 'do you really need to use that word or will another, smaller one do the job so you can reach more audience.

And there are 360-some pages of this belittling drivel.

I love conspiracy theory discussion and am fascinated with why people subscribe to so much of it, but this was the most insulting read of anything I've seen out there. In fact, I'm quite confident in saying the majority of people who have given this book good reviews or even enjoyed this were people of the same mind of thinking people they don't like are dumb.

That's not a formula for a good book, that's a formula for cementing a mindset with people who agree with you.

If you can get through the opening Apologia of this book and feel like you didn't have to force yourself to stay involved only to find the entire section didn't go anywhere, then maybe this book is for you. But if you think it might be more enjoyable to have your teeth drilled by an unqualified dentist with a rusty drill than read that Apologia again, you'll probably find more joy in reading something by, well, anyone, even someone self-published and undisciplined in their writing on this matter.

No way around it. This is badly presented drivel to support his own ego and does nothing to open minds but to reinforce other minds that take joy in their own egos over others as well.

Horrible, horrible presentation. Could have been told in 100 pages (at most). Didn't need 260 more of his ego-grandstanding.

[Ian Holden · Rating 2 out of 5]

Most of the book is B/B- writing about what conspiracy theories are, how they fit into our culture, and how to communicate with people who hold irrational beliefs. The writing is fine, even if it has the cadence of a 15 year old who just discovered atheism. I was surprised to see that this wasn’t Shermer’s first book on conspiracies because it barely reaches past the knowledge that a well-rounded person with no experience on the subject would have. I feel like he saw the rise of Qanon and said “Let me put this so plainly that those morons will understand”, which just comes across as condescending.

I wish this had covered more about the social position of these conspiracies and how they seem to be used as social clubs for lonely people, but Shermer is convinced that it’s enough to write about how to dispute the factual claims of conspiracists, and they will act rationally.

The last section of the book should have been edited out. Shermer rants about free speech and implies that colleges are against it because one professor was uncomfortable saying a word that sounded too close to the n word. I had to reread several times because it made no sense to me (and it still doesn’t)

[Ryan Boissonneault · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I were to ask you if you believed that a group of shape-shifting, interstellar lizards posing as humans controlled the US Government, I’m assuming you’d probably say no. I don’t imagine you’d have much trouble explaining why, either. But I bet you'd have a much harder time explaining how it’s possible that around 12 million Americans—according to one Public Policy Polling survey—actually do believe this.

And not only that. In addition to concerns about alien lizard overlords, approximately 15 percent (!) of Americans believe that the Democratic Party, along with various Hollywood elites, is involved in a global satanic sex cult and pedophile ring operating out of pizzerias—as endorsed by QAnon conspiracists. Clearly, we don’t think much of our elected politicians. We don’t even believe they are human.

On one hand, it’s tempting to dismiss these beliefs outright and to simply mock conspiracy theorists for their embarrassingly low standards of evidence. But this would be the easy way out. Clearly, more than a few people believe this stuff—people who are otherwise intelligent and successful in other areas of life—so we need to know how and why so many people can fall for, frankly, patently idiotic ideas. Explaining this “conspiracy effect,” or “why smart people believe blatantly wrong things for apparently rational reasons,” is the goal of Michael Shermer’s latest book, Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational.

First, it’s important to get the terminology down. As Shermer defines it, a conspiracy is “two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.” A conspiracy theory is then “a structured belief about a conspiracy” irrespective of whether the conspiracy is true, and a conspiracy theorist, or conspiracist, is someone who holds such a theory.

Now, based on this definition, it’s obvious that conspiracies can and do occur, and have in fact occurred throughout history. No one would deny this. The prospect that groups of people—particularly those in positions of power—conspire in secret to illegally or immorally gain an advantage over others is not only plausible but likely. That’s why Shermer is correct to point out the key difference between realistic conspiracy theories and paranoid conspiracy theories.

For example, the idea that big pharmaceutical companies sometimes (though not always) prioritize profits over the health of their consumers is a realistic conspiracy theory, considering, for example, that it is widely acknowledged that Big Pharma was largely responsible for the ensuing opioid epidemic. Likewise, the idea that businesspeople and politicians conspire to rig the economy in favor of the wealthy is also realistic, considering current levels of income inequality. The idea, however, that the Democrats are cannibalistic pedophiles who harvest the blood of children for its psychedelic and life-extending benefits is an example of the paranoid variety.

Shermer, in the process of debunking various popular paranoid conspiracy theories—and exploring the real ones—provides a much-needed toolkit to help distinguish between the two. You’ll learn that most conspiracy theories simply involve too many people, and that it’s unrealistic to suppose that so many people could act so competently over time. Moral compulsions, slip-ups, mistakes, leaks, defections, and more all work against any conspiracy’s attempts to keep nefarious details a secret. The sheer improbability of it all is enough to debunk most of the more eccentric theories. The bottom line is that things never go exactly as planned, yet paranoid conspiracy theories depend on the fact that they always do.

Another way to think about it is this: If you’re a QAnon conspiracy theorist, are there any conspiracy theories you wouldn’t believe in? Are there any theories that would make you say, “wow, now that’s crazy”? When you lower your standards of evidence that much, there is no longer any reasonable method to determine between which conspiracy theories might be plausible and which are not. You are basically, at that point, surrendering your critical faculties. This book can help you recover them.

The real question remains, however, how so many people can nevertheless fall for these more outlandish theories. Shermer devotes a large part of the book to answering this question, and, having spent 30 years investigating the psychology of strange beliefs, is in the perfect position to do so. The result is a fascinating (and often unnerving) tour through the mind of the conspiracist.

To oversimplify things—and you should read the book because the details are fascinating—people believe in conspiracy theories, such the QAnon conspiracy theory above, because they (1) are evolutionarily primed to do so (recognizing patterns and agency where there is only randomness and chance), (2) believe in specific conspiracies as proxies for more fundamental or tribal beliefs, and (3) use conspiracy theories as a means of virtue signaling to their chosen group. So, for example, while people may not give much thought to the idea that Democrats harvest the blood of children, they may still profess to believe in it because (1) they distrust the government, liberals, or “elites” in general, (2) other conservatives or people they know believe in it, and (3) they find solidarity and comfort in a simple story that tells them their own group is fighting the good fight against an opposing out-group that is pure evil. This has high entertainment value as well, evidenced by the fact that many conspiracists become noticeably animated when discussing conspiracies.

The reality, of course, is that the world is complex, chaotic, and messy; conspiracy theories tell you the opposite: that the world is simple, predictable, and its evils are entirely solvable—granted you’re in on the “secret” knowledge that a group of bad guys control everything and need to be defeated at all costs. People seem to like the simplicity of this message and the moral superiority they feel from holding it.

But this doesn’t mean that the message is not complete bullshit, and it’s possible that Shermer is giving conspiracists too much credit by going out of his way to defend their beliefs as “apparently rational.” In fact, there’s a possible contradiction in Shermer’s approach that’s worth taking a minute to point out.

In a 2016 study, it was discovered that a large percentage of Americans believe that the government is concealing information about various events such as the 9/11 attacks (54.3%), alien encounters (42.6%), global warming (42.1%), the JFK assassination (49.6%), and the moon landing (24.2%), among others. But what’s interesting is that 33 percent of respondents also believe the government is withholding information concerning the “the North Dakota crash,” an entirely made-up event!

On one hand, this surely lends support to Shermer’s theory of proxy conspiracism, whereby the details of any specific conspiracy theory are deemed less important than the theory’s general correspondence to more deeply held beliefs and dogmas. If someone can believe that the government is covering up an event that never happened, then we know that a fundamental distrust of the government is dictating that individual’s specific beliefs.

But doesn’t proxy conspiracism then contradict Shermer’s “conspiracy effect,” or the idea that “smart people believe blatantly wrong things for apparently rational reasons.” What could possibly be “apparently rational” about believing in something with no information or evidence—or, in the North Dakota crash example—no possibility of evidence? If this isn’t irrational, then what possibly could be irrational? Unlike Shermer, I don’t feel any special need to justify delusional beliefs as being anything other than what they are.

Shermer might counter that the reasons for conspiratorial thinking are rooted in evolution, and that they are therefore rational. But just as we wouldn’t call the behavior of overeating ourselves to death “apparently rational” simply because we evolved in an environment of nutritional scarcity, I wouldn’t call believing in far-fetched conspiracy theories “apparently rational” simply because we evolved in an environment when it made sense to be suspicious of everyone and everything.

Rationality is best defined as the use of reason to override delusional or harmful beliefs. In the same way we would credit someone as being rational for developing healthy eating habits in the presence of an overabundance of food, we should likewise credit someone as being rational for resisting outlandish conspiracy theories in the presence of an overabundance of misinformation. Otherwise, almost anything can be called rational—when justified in evolutionary terms—and the term loses any significant meaning. So why the hesitation to call belief in QAnon conspiracy theories exactly what it is: manifestly idiotic.

Nevertheless, Shermer has, I believe, correctly identified the reasons why people believe in paranoid conspiracy theories, and I would highly recommend reading the book for the full story and psychology behind the phenomenon. It will help you to make sense of the plethora of delusional beliefs you find all around you.

[Tobias · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bra bok om varför vi människor dras till konspirationer. Är man långt till vänster eller långt till höger är man troligare en konspirationsteoretiker, men i någon mån är vi alla det. Alla försöker förenkla världen omkring sig. Vi vill förstå världen och om vi inbillar oss att vi förstår världen ger det någon slags trygghet. I själva verket är världen förstås alldeles för komplex. Världen är objektivt sett ett kaos och ingen kan på allvar förstå vad som händer helt och fullt.

Vad som kännetecknar konspirationsteoretiker är att de är misstänksamma i allmänhet och i ett intressant exempel ansåg ca en femtedel av tillfrågade att något var en konspiration men att exemplet hittades på för tillfället. Att de är mer misstänksamma än andra har med olika hjärnors design att göra men det är inte irrationellt att vara misstänksam, speciellt inte med tanke på att politiker och maktfaktorer ofta ertappats med att försöka förleda människor.

Författaren ägnar en del utrymme åt att debunka olika konspirationsteorier bla mordet på JFK. Jag är inte inläst på det aktuella exemplet, men jag har svårt att lita på perspektivet som återges i boken vilket alltså gör mig till något av en konspirationsteoretiker. I Freakonomics avsnitt om nobelpristagaren Richard Feynman fick jag tex veta att han fick i uppdrag att utreda vad som ledde till explosionen av Challenger 1986 och att Reagan personligen bett om ett resultat som skulle få Nasa att framstå i god dager. (Det struntade Feynman naturligtvis i). Kort sagt, vissa konspirationsteorier är bananas och vissa borde man vara mer ödmjuk inför.

[Liezel Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 rounded up.

[Myles Wolfe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. However, I disagree with the authors final musings on free speech. The argument that only free speech can counter hate speech seems like a very privileged argument. I doubt the author has an understanding of what being the target of hate speech feels like. I certainly don't. But if you were a member of a targeted group, wouldn't you want protection from discrimination (racism, misogeny, homophobia)? To say that we have to accept everything or nothing just feels like a lazy argument that a person would make because they don't truly want to wade into the weeds of the urgent problem with rising hate speech and right wing politics.

[Jacob · Rating 3 out of 5]

First 70% is good , all about conspiracies and stuff. But man I am not going to “socratic method” with someone whos brain is broken enough to believe in blood drinking cabals and hates like immigrants. Maybe its just me but theyre grown ass people its not my fault they let youtube shorts ruin their neurons. And sure, maybe I would benefit from rational conversations, but at this point the “I would never stop being friends because of political opinions “ when some are so egregiously incorrect , bigoted, and vile, is just an excuse for allowing your buddies to be like that and displays a clear amount of unchecked privilege from whoever says it. call ur bigoted friends stupid assholes instead maybe even throw hands 👁️🐽👁️

[Michaela · Rating 5 out of 5]

I REALLY enjoyed this book, even though it was a challenging one. I’ve always been fascinated by why people believe these “wild” conspiracy theories, especially in the age of COVID and Trump, and I got some answers from this book.

Not only does Shermer explain why people believe them, how they aren’t actually that new, how some big theories have been debunked, he also explains why this issue is important and how we can discuss/challenge our opinions when talking to someone who doesn’t agree.

I got this from my local library, but I am very tempted to buy myself a copy to keep!!

[Rachel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This an excellent if somewhat pedantic book that explains why people believe in conspiracies. Mr. Shermer takes a very scientific approach and backs his theories with science. It was very enlightening in many ways. The author made the book quite accessible to the lay reader. He also provides some interesting tips on speaking with people who believe in conspiracies.Toward the end of the book some of the information was a bit too in the weeds for my taste. I definitely learned a lot by reading this book.

[Natasha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating content. We are evolutionarily designed to believe a rustle in the grass is a threat - to believe in the conspiracy is to survive, to not believe (might be) to die. I was unfamiliar with the major conspiracy theories he disproves in the book (9/11, Kennedy assassination, Obama birth story).

[Gwendolyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting listen. Most of the ideas were familiar to me, with the exceptions of the ins and outs of the particular conspiracies discussed and debunked. It did remind me that I need to be compassionate.

[Cadence]

Dnf’d at 44%….

Couldn’t do it. Every single time there was a quote, the narrator (author) would say quote blah blah blah UNQUOTE. It was so incredibly irritating. Also the book wasn’t really my cup of nonfiction tea. Not enough narrative.

[London Storm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conspiracy theorists big mad about this one

[Paul Barth · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting and useful things in this, but the author was very obnoxious and heavily biased and left-wing, continually raising his own personal annoyances. Could’ve been a lot better without all that.

[Therese G. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is engaging non fiction that delves into the essence of conspiratorial thinking!
Highly recommend if the hows and whys of this topic interests you.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE FAMED SKEPTIC LOOKS ANALYTICALLY AT VARIOUS ‘CONSPIRACIES’

Author Michael Shermer wrote in the Apologia to this 2022 book, “My primary approach in this book is integrative in nature---that is, amalgamating research from multiple lines of inquiry into a readable, coherent narrative for both professional researchers and general readers, with the aim of solving a single problem---namely, why people believe conspiracy theories, which ones are real, and what to do about them… allow me to briefly sketch my theoretical model of three overarching factors at work. They demonstrate … what I am calling the conspiracy effect: why smart people believe blatantly wrong things for apparently rational reasons: 1. ‘Proxy conspiracism’: Many conspiracy theories are proxies for a different type of truth---a deeper mythic, psychological, or lived-experience truth… 2. ‘Tribal conspiracism’: Many conspiracy theories harbor elements of other beliefs … long believed and held as core elements of political, religious, social, or tribal identity… 3. ‘Constructive conspiracism’: … historically speaking, enough of these theories represent actual conspiracies. Therefore, it pays to err on the side of belief … just in case.” (Pg. ix-xi)

He continues in the Prologue, “conspiracism has been part of the fabric of society for centuries and… is built into our nature as an evolved adaptation to detect external threats that take on the form of dangerous coalitions.” (Pg. 3) He asserts, “The problem of today’s conspiracism is… arguably more pressing than at any time in our history. We need a model to explain who believes in conspiracy theories, and why; what evolutionary, psychological, social, cultural, political, and economic conditions fuel them… and means to determine which conspiracy theories might be true… but also to undo false conspiracy theories, in order to remediate their deleterious effects on the fabric of trust that binds us together a pluralistic democracy.” (Pg. 17-18) Later, he adds, “A central theme of this book is that conspiracy theories often enough are true, so it is not unreasonable for us to be constructively conspiratorial about people and organizations with power, especially when trust in them is low.” (Pg. 221)

He also acknowledges, “I have to admit that in the course of reading thousands of books, essays, and documents purporting to reveal a true conspiracy---especially when watching films, both documentary and, allegedly, dramas like Oliver Stone’s ‘JFK’---I find myself emotionally absorbed, unlike any other field I have engaged in over a long career spanning a wide diversity of fringe and extraordinary claims.” (Pg. 55-56)

He recounts that for a court case, “I was tasked by the defense to put together a primer on belief, consisting of ten components that explain precisely how and why someone can come to believe a conspiracy theory… 1. The brain is a belief machine… to help us survive… 2. Beliefs are reinforced by authorities… 3. Beliefs are reinforced by peers (social proof)… 4. Beliefs are reinforced by liking and by the similarity of other beliefs… 5. Beliefs are reinforced by payoffs, success, and happiness… 6. Beliefs are reinforced by confirmation bias… 7. Beliefs are reinforced by optimism and over-optimism biases… 8. Beliefs are reinforced by self-justification bias… 9. Beliefs are reinforced by sunk-cost bias… 10. Beliefs are reinforced by an endowment effect.” (Pg. 111-118)

He proposes, “most scientists intuitively sense whether a claim is scientific or pseudoscientific… we need to translate such intuitions into a more formalized set of questions to ask when encountering a claim… that I call the ‘baloney detection kit’… 1. How reliable is the source of the claim”… 2. Does the claimant often make similar claims?... 3. Have the claims been verified by another source? … 4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?... 5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirming evidence been sought?... 6. Does the preponderance of evidence converge on the claimant’s conclusion, or on a different one?... 7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?... 8. Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing one?... 9. If the claimant has proffered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old one does?... 10. Do the claimant’s personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?” (Pg. 130-132)

He explains, “So why don’t scientists accept the residue of unexplained anomalies as evidence of justified true belief? The answer is … the principle of ‘proportionate evidence, where we allocate our beliefs according to the evidence in support of them. The common expression for this principle is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence… The assessment of a claim as being ordinary versus extraordinary is necessarily subjective, but it can be quantified along the lines of what the baloney detection kit… proposes.” (Pg. 134-135)

He looks in more detail at 9/11 conspiracy theories, and their rebuttals by ‘Protec Documentation Services, a company that documents the work of building demolition contractors’: “Claim #1: The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions. ANSWER: No, they did not… Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above… Claim #3: Explosive charges are seen shooting our of windows … just prior to the collapse. ANSWER: Air and debris can be seen being violently ejected .. because of … rapid structural collapse of upper floors onto the lower floors, thereby pushing out smoke from the burning fires… Claim #6: Ground Zero debris … were quickly shipped overseas to prevent scrutiny… ANSWER: … The time frame … before the steel was shipped to China was normal. Claim #7: … WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to ‘pull it.' ANSWER: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personal at a disaster scene. Demolition experts have never heard ‘pull it’ used to refer to an explosive demolition… Claim #8: Steel-framed buildings do not collapse due to fire. ANSWER: Many steel-framed buildings have done so.” (Pg. 146-149)

Shermer recounts how he asked a ‘documentary antagonist’ about Flight 77, “Do you mean to tell me… that not ONE of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?... Not one of these 9/11 insiders, witnesses to what would arguably be the greatest conspiracy and cover-up in the history of the United States, wants to go on CNN or 60 Minutes to reveal their secret? Not one of them wants to cash in on what would surely be one of the bestselling books of the year?” (Pg. 151-152)

In Chapter 6 [‘Real Conspiracies’] he admits, “there really are conspiracies, and sometimes they really ARE out to get you. As American writer and poet Delmore Schwartz noted, ‘Even paranoids have real enemies.’” (Pg. 189-190)

He also explains, “Over the decades, the [CIA] weas involved [in] many schemes to overthrow foreign leaders of countries not friendly toward the United States and American interests, including Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, Indonesia’s President Sukarno, Chile’s President Salvador Allende, and General Rene Schneider of Chile. Many of these conspiracies came to light in 1976 in the Senate Select Committee’s report on foreign and military intelligence… the United States has continued to be involved in regime change by overthrowing dictators, such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 1986, Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in 1999, and Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in 2003.” (Pg. 197)

The remainder of the book is devoted to ‘How to Talk to Conspiracy Theorists,’ ‘How to rebuild Trust in Truth,’ and the results of the Skeptic Research Center’s survey of ‘What People Believe About Conspiracy Theories and Why.’

I would have preferred that the book devote more space to critiquing specific conspiracy theories (e.g., 2020 ‘Election fraud’ claims) and much less space to presenting his own multipoint theories about ‘WHY.’ But, as with all of Shermer’s other books, this one will be ‘must reading’ for anyone skeptically studying such theories.

[Orion Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overall I found this book incredibly interesting and sometimes even helpful, but right at the end he completely buys into the current conservative moral panic about college campus censorship. This is especially ironic given that this is a book about following facts and not holding reactionary beliefs with little to support them. He even references a specific case of a professor supposedly being suspended, but when you look it up one of the first results clearly states that he actually was not suspended, he stepped down because he genuinely felt sorry for having hurt these students by accident and another professor was appointed to teach his class. Obviously students exercising their right to free speech by saying something hurt them is in no way a free speech violation and neither is the class being taught by another professor. Again this is all insanely ironic given the subject matter of the book. Many people have written on why this is not a real problem and has been entirely exaggerated by right wing media sources. Some actual research into this would have been nice. It doesn't discount all of the good and interesting information in this book but it does make me question the author's commitment to finding truth rather than parroting others beliefs with little reflection.

[Jason · Rating 4 out of 5]

Did you know that the September 11 hijackers were given visas upon arrival by high level CIA agents? And nobody knows where Robert F. Kennedy was on the day John F. Kennedy got shot. Hilary Clinton uses email to send coded messages about trafficking children through a pizzeria in Washington D.C. The moon landing was a hoax. Global warming is a hoax. The Jews are using space lasers to cause global warming to turn the public against the oil companies. Osama bin Laden was not a real person; he was an actor who lives in Miami. The airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11 were a hologram. Bigfoot is a man who escaped from the CIA’s MKUltra mind control program and the authorities are suppressing the truth by telling us he is only a legend. Princess Di was assassinated. Elvis Presley is still alive; people have seen him hitchhiking and if you rearrange the letters of his name it spells “lives”.

Sooner or later we all hear ideas like these and most of us roll our eyes and think ”How could anybody be stupid enough to believe this nonsense? They must be mentally ill.” Suppose somebody tells you that people who believe in conspiracy theories are neighter stupid nor insane and suppose that person is also a scientist and journalist with a background in psychology. The conspiracy theorists would invariably say that he is one of THEM and is trying to conceal the actual truth that the secret cabal that runs the world doesn’t want you to know. The rationalists, however, would would want to hear how he explains the psychology of conspiracy theorists and that is what we get in Michael Shermer’s Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational.

There is a difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories. Conspiracies involve two or more people plotting to use deceit or dishonesty for a specific purpose which mostly involves making money or forcing some kind of political change. Shermer rightly points out that conspiracies are happening all the time and all around us. Two men making plans to rob a bank are conspiracists. It was a conspiracy when Donald Trump’s supporters spread disinformation to convince people that the 2020 election was stolen. A conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is a story told to explain inconsistencies or in real events. People make connections between things that aren’t connected or they fill in information gaps with fantasies. Sometimes contradictory accounts of events cause speculation that the official story as told by the media is a deception meant to suppress what is really going on. To be honest, there really are times when the media does that, sometimes it’s deliberate and sometimes it isn’t.

Michael Shermer doesn’t save the best for last. The most important and interesting part of the book where he examines the reasons why people believe in conspiracy theories is at the front. He draws on social and evolutionary psychology as well as the scientific method to make his case. Conspiracy theories are a form of backwards rationalization. The scientific method demands that we gather evidence and use it to draw a conclusion that explains the evidence. That conclusion is then subject to tests of veracity by other scientists. It isn’t a perfect system but it is the best we’ve got at this time. Conspiracy theorists start with a claim and then seek out or fabricated evidence to prove it. If the evidence doesn’t support the claim or legitimate counter-evidence is provided, the conspiracy theorists don’t abandon the claim or adjust it to fit their evidence as they should. Instead they defend the claim and seek out more evidence to support it. No matter how many times they get disproven they will never abandon the faulty claim.

Shermer points out that the human mind did not evolve to perceive reality and instead evolved for survival in a potentially hostile environment. This means our ability to rationalize is intact, but it is inaccurate and distorted. It is like saying a car with a damaged engine is still a car and it is a car that drives but it doesn’t drive as well as it should. Conspiracy theories are a form of rationality, but they are rational in a way that maximizes our fight or flight response rather than giving us a clear perception of reality. We don’t live in the jungle anymore and we don’t need those survival instincts like we once did. Learning to think scientifically, however, does not guarantee that we won’t draw false conclusions or believe in things that aren’t true, but it does increase our chances of reaching realistic conclusions.

Shermer outlines three main reasons people believe in conspiracy theories in the most interesting section of this book. One has to do with tribalism and group identity. When people think of belonging to a group as more important than individualism or truth, they tend to say they believe in things they don’t really believe. A lot of MAGA supporters don’t actually believe that the election in 2020 was stolen, but they say they do because they fear being ostracized by their group. Likewise, a lot of Nazis in Weimar, Germany did not believe the Jews were part of a plot to conquer the world, but they agreed to it because they valued membership in the Nazi party more than they valued truth. There is an overwhelming amount of sociological data that supports this thesis epecially regarding religious or political affiliation.

Another further problem is proxy conspiracy theories. A person who doesn’t trust the government is more likely to believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA, Are 51 is secretly hiding UFOs, or that the Bush administrated orchestrated the September 11 terrorist attacks. The conspiracy theory acts as a localized substitute for the broad belief that the government is deceitful and can’t be trusted. Confirmation bias plays a large role in this error of rationality, especially since a person who believes one conspiracy theory is more likely to believe other conspiracy theories, specifically the ones that pertain to their particular preoccupations. Of course, most people would agree that our government is deceitful and corrupt but most of these same people are not conspiracy theorists. But what this proves is that most people have the potential to fall into the rabbit hole of irrational thinking. In fact even the most rational and logical among us probably already have at some point in their lives. No one is immune from believing in conspiracy theories.

Yet another explanation for conspiracy theories comes from evolutionary psychology in the form of constructive paranoia. During early periods of evolution, the human mind adapted to be overly cautious about encountering danger. It was better to be paranoid by mistakenly thinking a boulder was a grizzly bear than to not be paranoid and think a grizzly bear is a boulder. Running away from a boulder is harmless while running away from a bear can save your life so it better to err on the side of caution. In the modern world, people believe chemtrails are being used to brainwash us, black helicopters are spying on us, vaccines are being used to inject tracking devices into our bodies, and communists are poisoning our drinking water with fluoride. All of these theories are demonstrably false. Besides, why use black helicopters to spy on people when we have the internet that does a more efficient job at a much lower cost? Data mining isn’t even kept secret; tech companies openly admit to surveilling us. But the issue here is that conspiracy theories can acts as a defense against perceived dangers whether those dangers are real or fantasy. We live in a world full of dangers and your average person can’t always tell which ones are true existential threats. That is why people become paranoid over things like immigrants, unfamiliar religions, or new technologies.

Other topics covered in this book are the personality types of conspiracy theorists (usually people who feel alienated from the power structure), the history of conspiracy theories, the history of real conspiracies, and how to tell the difference between conspiracies and conspiracy theories. One thing to remember here is that the more people who are involved in a conspiracy, the less likely it is to be successful and likewise the more elaborate a conspiracy theory is the less likely it is to be true. Occam’s Razor is one of the greatest tools we have for the evaluation of reality. Furthermore, humans are story tellers and we use narratives to make sense of the world. Science and rationality are complex, abstract, and boring for most people so they fall back on the default mentality of story telling to make sense of things. If an explanation sounds like a mythology, a fairy tale, or a Hollywood movie, it is probably a conspiracy theory and not true. I would go as far as to say that conspiracy theories are urban legends, a modern form of mythology or folklore. People once used the invisible world of supernatural creatures to explain the workings of a world they didn’t understand; now people invent stories about the people in power, working secretly behind the scenes, for the same purpose. Religious people may be more susceptible to conspiracy theories than the rest of us. Anomalies get explained, confusions get cleared up, and that is done in a way that obscures reality and truth or ignores it completely.

As stated earlier, the initial chapters are the most interesting and useful. The case studies and histories are also worth reading. My only problem with the early chapters is that if you are familiar with Michael Shermer through his podcasts, columns in Scientific American, his Ted Talks and TV appearances, or his work as editor in chief of Skeptic magazine, there isn’t anything new to be found here. Otherwise the chapter on how to talk to conspiracy theorists is weak. It reads like the kind of advice you find in pop psychology self-help books like How to Win Friends and Influence People and doesn’t actually offer any helpful advice. I tend to avoid talking to conspiracy theorists anyways because it always ends up being a waste of mental energy. And while I can accept Shermer’s claim that conspiracy theorists are sane and rational people, the idea does have its limitations. When I hear from people that believe the world’s events are controlled by the Illuminati, the Zionist Occupied Government, the New World Order, or the Bilderberg Group who are actually shape shifting lizards from outer space or that the deceased John F. Kennedy Jr. will appear on stage at a Rolling Stones concert and announce that Donald Trump has been secretly reinstated as president according to a secret clause in the 25th amendment to the Constitution, I have to wonder if the limits of sanity and rationality have been crossed. Who would be stupid enough to believe these things? But as a book, it is well laid out and organized. It is clear in its claims and supporting evidence and works as a solid, comprehensive guide to the subject matter. As such, it’s probably better for someone who is new to this field of study since it is so accessible to the general readier.

Conspiracy is a good book and it definitely needs to be more widely read, especially in this day and age when the internet is being used to spread disinformation at an alarming rate. And for those who think that conspiracy theories are harmless, think again. A tradition of anti-Semitism has led to mass murders all throughout Western history. The Great Replacement Theory resulted in the riot in Charlottesville and a mass shooting at a synagogue in New Zealand. Pizza Gate led to a man shooting up a pizzeria in Washington D.C. because he thought there were children imprisoned in the basement. Donald Trump’s Great Lie resulted in an attempted coup in the Capitol to overturn a legitimate election. So many conspiracy theories have resulted in violence and in some cases extreme acts of mass murder such as the Holocaust during World War II. Hannah Arendt has said that conspiracy theories are a necessary condition for totalitarian governments to thrive. You might think it’s harmless to believe that Elvis is till alive or that UFOs are real, but if you get polio because you refused a vaccine on the grounds that vaccines are being used to brainwash and control the population, you might stop and wonder where you went wrong.

[David Burns · Rating 5 out of 5]

Michael Shermer has, for a number of years, been my "go to guy" for intelligent, science based knowledge. Why no conspiracy theories? I really don't know, I was born into it but somehow knew better. I did not do a dramatic removal from my childhood Bible Thumpin' experience. No, it took much of my 81 years to arrive at a place where I am comfortable without the fairy tale book of multiple and utterly indescribable discrepancies, (The Bible) while I moved toward science. One knows it is right, the other knows that it could be wrong, but those who engage in science never stop looking for the next step, be it reinforcement of their views or complete disagreement with those same views.
One fair warning to any potential reader. Mr. Shermer could have, for many of us, written a more "Readers Digest" version of this same material. He is so full of it, "IT" in this case means, a fullness of science and clear thinking that I sometimes wondered if I could have done with fewer fancy words and phrases, none were wrong, just mildly annoying after three to five chapters. Sometimes a genius becomes tedious. In this case, the problem is the reader, me, but the author could tone it down a bit should he choose to. This author needs no advice from me. I will read him more on his Skeptic Web Site ... an amazing difference of opinions come up therein ... but I will remain my somewhat uneducated self and keep trying to learn.

[Rowan Heneghan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I find conspiracy theories fascinating, and the portion of this book that discusses individual theories and their supporters, as well as the logical flaws they make, I found well written and enjoyable. However, the portion of this book that discusses the definition of conspiracy, why conspiracy theories arise, etc. Is repetitive to the point that it feels as though the author doesn't trust the reader to remember what was said a few pages ago.

In addition, the end of the book takes a strong stance on free speech fundamentalism. While anyone can acknowledge the values of free speech, to say that it must always encompass harmful speech like racial slurs shows a distinct lack of care for those the slurs would be directed at. One can believe in free speech and acknowledge that some speech- like yelling fire in a crowded theater- is harmful and destructive to the point that it should not be allowed.

However, aside from a few snide jabs at politically correct college campuses, and the implication that both political parties are equally prone to irrational conspiracy theories (the only example given for democrats is 9/11 trutherism, which recent polls have shown to be now a mostly Republican belief), the book largely takes an unbiased and accurate approach, and could be a good resource for understanding the mind of a conspiracist.

[Josiah Lybbert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably my favorite book on conspiracy belief that I’ve read yet. The author addresses the subject in three parts. In part 1 he talks about the psychology of conspiracy belief. He offers his own model, which I found quite insightful, and also does a good job of summing up a lot of the existing research on conspiracy belief. In part 2 he discusses some of the more famous conspiracy theories and offers some great skeptical perspectives on those. In part 3 he talks a little bit about how to talk with people who believe in conspiracy theories.

[David Rashid · Rating 3 out of 5]

3+, pretty decent book. It was not as captivating and informative as I hoped, but if you're interested in conspiracies or skeptical thinking in general you probably came across most of the points Shermer makes somewhere.

[Paul Sand · Rating 3 out of 5]

[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]

Michael Shermer seems like a totally nice guy. And yet there's something about his writing—it's not you, Michael, it's me—that seems to set my teeth on edge, and my brain to go into nit-picking mode.

This book, about conspiracies and the ardent believers of same, isn't bad at all; it's full of interesting facts, fun stories, good advice, and fact-based debunkings of wacky conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK). It falls significantly off in offering Shermer's effort at a Grand Unified Theory of conspiracy theorizing. But:

Nit One: Shermer's definition of "conspiracy" on page 23:

A conspiracy is two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.

A decent editor would have pointed out the redundancy in "two or more people, or a group". And the conspiracy is not the "group"; it's their plan. And does immorality or illegality really need to be involved? Conceivably, the conspirators could be hatching a scheme that they perceive to be in others' best interests! (Example: JournoList, the private forum where left-leaning journalists collaborated on the best talking points to advance their preferred political narratives. Nothing illegal or (even) immoral about that, and they probably all felt, in their heart of hearts, they were on the side of the angels.)

When I have serious issues with the very definition of a book's main topic…

Nit Two: On page 38, where Shermer is running through the history of conspiracy theories, one example provided is: "… and Senator Joseph McCarthy blacklisted writers perceived to be Communists in the 1950s."

Now, I could be wrong about this, but I've read a bit about McCarthy and that era, and I don't recall McCarthy himself blacklisting anyone, let alone "writers". The famous "Hollywood Ten" blacklist happened in 1947 (a bit shy of "the 1950s") imposed by film studio execs, based on the Ten's refusal to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Which of course McCarthy wasn't on.

McCarthy did a lot of bad stuff, including probably bogus claims that he had a list of known Commies in government.

(And (sure enough) there were.)

Nit Three: Shermer's "case study in conspiracism" (Chapter 5) is the Sovereign Citizen Movement. No doubt there's some Venn-diagram overlap between the sovereign citizens and actual conspiracy theorists. But sovereign citizenism as such is more accurately described as simply a wacky legal theory; conspiracism isn't necessarily involved.

Nit Four: Page 109: The Magnificent Seven is described as a movie where "a 'posse' of gunslinging citizens are [sic] recruited to hunt down a Mexican outlaw." Well, not exactly. The Seven were hired to defend a Mexican village against a marauding gang of bandits. Defense, not offense. How hard is this to get right?

Well, enough nits. Good stuff, besides what's previously mentioned: Shermer has a number of tips on how best to talk to conspiracists; he's had a lot of practice there. He reports on a Qualtrics poll he did measuring the level of belief in many theories of varying nuttiness. Amusingly, the poll included a couple theories that were entirely made up. Still, a significant number of respondents said they found those theories credible.

I think this either shows (a) how gullible some people are; or (b) how hard it is to conduct a poll when a lot of your respondents will either respond randomly or capriciously. (Like me: sometimes when faced with a long list of items to rate on a 0-10 scale, I just use consecutive π digits: 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6, 5, …)

And one of the highest levels of belief was in the "theory": "Covid-19 was developed in a Chinese lab, and Chinese officials have covered it up."

Dude, I rate that one "more likely than not".

To Shermer's credit, he admits the relative non-wackiness of that theory later on. I'm not sure of the timing of the poll versus the timing of revelations about sloppiness at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, gain-of-function research, and the actions of those "Chinese officials" (and ours) earnestly stonewalling investigations.

[Clint Colclasure · Rating 3 out of 5]

[Sarcasm warning]

This book is an outrage! I picked up this book expecting to learn the truth about a wide variety of conspiracies, and I did. The book provides that, but then Michael Shermer has the audacity to suggest that almost none of it is true!

Shermer wants us to believe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman, that 9/11 was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, that Barak Obama was born in Hawaii, and more!

Conspiracy tries to subdue all your fears. Shermer presents evidence and truth as if they’re facts and expects us to give up our quest for the answers our hearts want, but I see through it.
I’ve done some research, and Michael Shermer co-founded The Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, he’s been on The Joe Rogan Experience multiple times, he hosts a podcast named after himself. He should be on our side, skeptic of the official narrative, prepared to see the truth. He seems like one of us. But Michael Shermer is not what he seems.

Michael Shermer and his friends, maybe even Joe Rogan himself, are executing a plot to discredit and “disprove” everything. Michael Shermer has been spreading misinformation disguised, through nefarious means like peer review, the scientific method, objective facts and other such nonsense, as reality for decades.

He’s collaborated with woke entertainers like Joe Rogan, Penn & Teller and Stephen Hawking, line towing scientific novelists like Jared Diamond, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, and fast talking philosophers like Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, and Stephen Hawking. Don’t look it up, feel it in your heart. All people trying to hide the truth about the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the British royal family, reptilians, UFOs, ESP, Q, and symbols of American patriotism like the confederate flag. They want you to think the latter is a symbol of hatred, a symbol for people who were actively trying to tear this country apart, but we know it’s actually… something else?

Shermer and his like try to beguile us with fancy words like cognitive dissonance and beguile. Lure us into thinking we’re wrong about what we know by showing us logic and irrefutable proof. Well I’m here to refute! Michael Shermer is not an ally to conspiracists, as wild assumptions about his resume and no further research would suggest. He is our enemy!

SO!

Should you read Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational by Michael Shermer? It details several popular conspiracy theories and their rebuttals: the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 truthers, Obama birthers, and others. Shermer provides methods for spotting false conspiracies and for speaking to those who believe them, including friends and family. A handy skill. It’s a well written book for a time when conspiracy theories seem to be mainstream. I couldn’t recommend it more if it were written by a lizard person, and it was.

[Aaron Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

A conspiracy is two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.
A conspiracy theory is a structured belief about a
conspiracy, whether or not it is real.
A conspiracy theorist, or conspiracist, is someone who holds a conspiracy theory about a possible conspiracy, whether or not it is real.



If you are not familiar with the conspiracy theory of the North Dakota crash, that's because Bader and his colleagues made it up, just to see if people would say they believe in this nonexistent event. A third of the respondents did so, indicating that there is something else going on here—namely, a deeper and more foundational distrust in authorities, in this case the US government. Ticking the box for believing in a nonexistent conspiracy that no one could possibly have heard of shows that such beliefs are proxies for something larger underlying the specific cases. A distrust of authorities is one such overarching reason.

ALMOST ALL CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE GOVERNMENTS CONSPIRING AGAINST THEIR CITIZENS.



…"when individuals are unable to gain a sense of control objectively, they will try to gain it perceptually." … "Feelings of control are essential for our well-being. We think clearer and make better decisions when we feel we are in control. Lacking control is highly aversive, so we instinctively seek out patterns to regain control—even if those patterns are illusory." … "Consider 9/11. There we saw an unstable environment caused by the terrorists attacks that led directly and almost instantly to the generation of hidden conspiracy theories." … "there was a terrible uncertainty about the future, a sense of loss of control, leading to the search for hidden patterns, which the 9/11 Truthers think they found."
(This doesn’t really work out logically because whether it was al-Qaeda or an inside job, control is lacking.)



…people prefer physical and social environments that are simple rather than complex, clear and discernable rather than hidden or obscure, and consistent and stable rather than erratic and disordered. Conspiracy theories are a compensating strategy, inasmuch as they are simple, clear, discernable, and stable when compared with the messiness, complexity, and (often) obscurity of the real world… “Conspiracy theories boil down the welter of information about the social world to the systematic machinations of a few malevolent agents.”