Regarding people who believe in conspiracy theories, it is sometimes explained as "because they have little knowledge" or "because they are not intelligent." However, I don't think that explanation is sufficient.
Even people with a lot of knowledge and the ability to think logically can sometimes construct very elaborate conspiracy theories. Conversely, there are also people who do not easily fall for conspiratorial explanations, even if they don't have extensive specialized knowledge.
This difference may be related to how we perceive society, using what model.
The central hypothesis that we will consider in this paper is as follows:
Conspiracy theories become easier to form when a society, which consists of numerous entities with different intentions, is understood as a single entity with one intention.
This is not an explanation of the reasons why conspiracy theories are born with just one factor. There are many other factors, such as anxiety, anger, a desire for belonging, distrust of politics and media, the information environment, and entertainment value. Nevertheless, here we will focus on "the cognitive tendency to view the world as a monolithic entity."
Even if actions align, it does not necessarily mean that intentions align.
In a company, if the president decides on one policy, and then executives, department heads, and employees follow that policy, it will appear from the outside that the entire company is moving with a single intention.
However, the thoughts of the people on the inside may not be the same.
- People who truly believe it is correct.
- People who disagree but are complying due to their position.
- People who agree for the sake of promotion or evaluation.
- People who are only trying to protect their own department.
- People who think it doesn't matter.
- People who outwardly comply, but only implement a portion of it in practice.
It is not uncommon for different motivations and interests to exist simultaneously within the same action.
Therefore, first, we need to distinguish between the following two things:
Actions and unified intentions are different things.
It is impossible to conclude that "everyone shares the same purpose" simply from the fact that multiple people or organizations are moving in the same direction.
Do not apply your own thoughts directly to others.
We cannot directly see other people's thoughts. Therefore, we use "If I were in that position, how would I think?" to infer what others are thinking. This is a necessary function for daily life.
However, if that speculation is treated as a fact, it will lead to an unwarranted leap in logic.
If I were a business owner, I would try to increase profits. As a business owner, everyone should think the same way. In reality, they must be proceeding with that plan.
Actual business owners also include people who prioritize short-term profits, those who want to ensure the company's long-term survival, those who want to avoid legal risks, those who want to protect their reputation, and those who prioritize technology or ideals.
"What I would do" and "what others actually think" are different things.
It is necessary to avoid superimposing the image of a powerful person that you have created in your mind onto real-life figures who hold power.
Even if a command exists, it does not necessarily lead to the expected result immediately.
Even if, hypothetically, an organization's top leader has a specific plan, it is unlikely that the results will always be exactly as planned.
In real organizations, commands change shape along the way.
Commands ↓ Interpretation by the middle class ↓ Modification into executable form ↓ Selective implementation, cutting corners, resistance ↓ Response in the field ↓ Results
Organizations are not machines. The will of those in higher positions does not automatically become the will of those in lower positions, and it is not directly converted into results.
From the perspective of those above, it may appear that "I give instructions, and everyone around me says 'yes,' and the organization moves." However, from below, there might be situations where people outwardly comply while inwardly disagreeing, modify commands for on-site implementation, or simply manipulate numbers.
From here, it is possible to consider the hypothesis that "experience with power may lead to a misinterpretation of superficial obedience as internal consent." However, this is a unique hypothesis proposed in this paper and should not be presented as a conclusion confirmed by research.
Deconstructing the giant singular pronoun "they."
In conspiracy theories, terms such as "government," "mass media," "doctors," "pharmaceutical companies," "the wealthy," "the West," and "elites" are sometimes described as if they were entities with a single personality.
"The moment they say, 'They know,' 'They are hiding it,' or 'They want this to happen,' the reality composed of numerous individuals and organizations is compressed into a single entity called 'They.'"
However, within what is called the "government," there exist politicians, bureaucrats, various ministries and agencies, local governments, ruling parties, opposition parties, etc. The information they possess, their interests, and their authority are not all the same. This is also true for corporations, healthcare, media outlets, and expert groups.
When you hear "the government is hiding something," it can be broken down as follows:
- Which government agency and which individuals know about it?
- Who planned it, and who approved it?
- Who executed it, and who opposed it?
- Do even the on-site staff know about it?
- Where are the records kept?
- Can the secret be maintained even after a change in administration?
- Why haven't opposition parties, competing organizations, or other governments exposed it?
- What confirmation would lead to revising that hypothesis?
When "they" are broken down into specific individuals, a story about a massive will transforms into a verifiable problem regarding cooperation between humans and the verification of evidence.
If you break it down, not all conspiracy theories disappear. Sometimes, specific actors and evidence may be found. Deconstruction is not a way to deny a conspiracy; it is a method for verifying.
Society is closer to a network than a hierarchy.
The world of conspiracy theories is often depicted with the following hierarchy:
Top Dominators ↓ Government ↓ Corporations ↓ Media ↓ Experts ↓ General Public
In this model, the intentions of those at a higher level are directly transmitted to those at lower levels. However, in reality, society is more like a network with numerous entities that are partially connected, rather than a simple command system.
The government and corporations sometimes cooperate, but they also sometimes conflict. Companies compete with each other. The interests of politicians and bureaucrats, experts, the media, and even nations do not always align.
Each entity simultaneously engages in cooperation, competition, negotiation, resistance, misunderstanding, information concealment, and the pursuit of its own interests.
If you view the world as a single hierarchy, many events appear to have originated from a single command. If you view the world as a network, it becomes easier to see that the same results can arise from different reasons.
Results and having a designer are different things.
Sometimes, as a result of many people moving for different reasons, it may appear that they are collectively moving in one direction.
Even if there is no one who wants to create a traffic jam, traffic jams will occur simply because everyone uses cars for transportation. Similarly, phenomena such as the bubble economy, soaring housing prices, rigid bureaucracy, and trends on social media can also happen even without a single designer or planner behind them.
If systems, gains and losses, evaluations, peer pressure, lack of information, and coincidences overlap, similar behaviors can occur on a large scale, even if no one designs the overall process.
The existence of order and the existence of a designer are separate things.
It is different that the same result occurred, and that everyone had the same purpose.
Similarly, "who benefited" can be a starting point for an investigation, but it is not the endpoint of determining causation. Even if A benefits from a certain event, that alone does not mean that A planned and executed the event.
The one who benefits and the one who caused it are different.
Conspiracies actually exist in reality.
You should not claim that "conspiracies do not exist in the world" based on what has been discussed so far.
Corruption, collusion, cartel formation, information concealment, espionage activities, political maneuvering, and corporate fraud are all examples of actions in which multiple people secretly cooperate.
Therefore, what we should consider is not whether it's a "conspiracy" or "not a conspiracy," but rather the conditions under which such a plan could be realized.
- How many people are involved?
- Does it span multiple organizations or countries?
- To what extent do the interests align?
- For how long does it need to continue?
- How much information sharing is necessary?
- Can it be maintained even if there are defectors or whistleblowers?
- Can it overcome changes in government, job transfers, and interference from competitors?
- How many levels of commands and executions are needed to achieve the intended results?
A small number of people, a short period of time, and aligned interests can make a conspiracy possible. On the other hand, the more countries involved, the more people involved, the longer the duration, and the more different the organizations' interests are, the higher the coordination costs that must be explained in order to achieve the intended result without any major leaks.
Instead of denying a conspiracy from the beginning, consider its feasibility based on scale, duration, interests involved, evidence, and coordination costs.
People can choose their actions, but they cannot choose the results themselves.
People have intentions, and can choose actions based on those intentions. Actions can also influence outcomes.
However, actions and results are not always one-to-one. In society, various factors intersect that a person cannot completely control, such as other people, systems, nature, the body, time, and chance events.
This is also true for conspiracies.
Intending a conspiracy ↓ Plan and execute. ≠ Obtain the intended result directly.
Conspiracy can influence results. However, simply because a plan was executed does not mean that the planner determined all of the resulting outcomes.
There is a viewpoint that connects to verse 2.47 of the Bhagavad Gita, which states: "One can choose actions, but not results; results are given." This is a summary tailored to the context of this article, and it is not a literal translation of the verse.
The expression "God gives the results" can also be understood as a metaphor or a theological concept. However, in this context, "God" is not an individual who moves the world according to the desires of each and every person, acting as a personal wish-fulfillment provider.
The results involve not only one's own actions, but also the actions of others, different interests, systems, nature, the body, time, and chance. When expressing it as "given by God," it is better to limit the meaning to receiving results from the entire world that one cannot completely control.
A model that assesses society, rather than just IQ.
Even if you are good at mathematics and logic problems, if you only use those abilities to support your own arguments, you can create very sophisticated conspiracy theories.
Conversely, some people, even without special expertise, understand from their life experiences that there are facades and true feelings in human interactions, conflicts exist within organizations, and orders often change along the way.
This paper addresses the issue of superiority and inferiority among people.
The resolution of the model for viewing society.
The ability to maintain multiple individuals, each with separate information, interests, and intentions.
This power is not a fixed ability either. Anyone, due to anxiety, anger, lack of time, the group they belong to, and the information environment, can simplify complex societies.
Why do conspiracy theory YouTube videos seem interesting?
It is impossible to explain the appeal of conspiracy theory videos simply by saying, "They are all lies because viewers are being deceived."
In some of the videos, materials that are correct individually are used.
- Actually, that person made the statement.
- Actually, the company made donations or investments.
- Actually, the law or policy was implemented.
- Actually, the people met each other.
- Actually, a specific company gained profits.
- Actually, the government concealed information in the past.
When individual facts are presented, and they turn out to be true, viewers feel that "this person is investigating thoroughly."
The problem lies not in the facts themselves, but in the space between the facts.
Company A made political donations to politicians. Policy B was implemented. After that, Company A obtained profits.
Even if all three points are true, "Company A influenced politicians to implement B" cannot be proven simply by that information.
In that blank space, phrases like "perhaps," "is this a coincidence?" "I cannot definitively say," and "when you think about it this way, everything connects" can be inserted as speculations.
The facts are correct. The connection is suspicious. And the conclusion is interesting.
The credibility of the facts presented in the first half shifts to bold speculations in the second half. While individual components may be genuine, the adhesive that connects them might be based on speculation.
Stating "There is no evidence" or "It is merely speculation" is, in itself, a correct attitude. However, if immediately after that statement, a single conclusion is strongly impressed upon the viewer through visuals, music, repetition, and questioning, only a sense of cause and effect may remain in the viewers' minds.
Furthermore, there is a narrative style where the speaker concludes by saying, "I will not give you the answer. Please think about it yourselves," leaving the conclusion to the viewers. The story presents meetings between individuals, traces the flow of funds, and outlines the timeline of policies, and then ends with the question, "Is this a coincidence?" Even without the broadcaster explicitly stating a conclusion, the viewers feel that they have "discovered the secret themselves."
Conspiracy theory videos proceed more like puzzles than explanations. Viewers become participants who are solving a secret, rather than simply listening to information.
And in the conclusion, there are: protagonist, antagonist, intention, secret, cause and effect, and ending. "Multiple factors came together" is less clear as a story than "it had been planned for several years," which makes the story easier to understand and more surprising.
"The world doesn't know," "the media won't say it," and "we noticed it" – this structure provides not only knowledge but also a sense of self-evaluation as being "in the know" and belonging to a community. Adding new materials can create sequels, and this format is well-suited for deductions in comments, sharing, and long viewing times.
However, this is not simply a matter of blaming the YouTube algorithm. It needs to be considered as a combination of factors: the content creator's editing, viewer demand, distrust of society, entertainment value, monetization, community building, and recommendation environment.
How to Verify When Encountering Conspiracy Theories
When you encounter a story that seems like a conspiracy theory, there is no need to believe it from the beginning, and there is also no need to immediately laugh and deny it.
When divided in the following order, it becomes easier to verify the claims.
- What facts have been confirmed?
- What is interpretation or speculation?
- What evidence exists for the causal relationship between the facts?
- Who are "they" specifically?
- Who planned, approved, and executed it, and who opposed it?
- Are you confusing those who benefited with those who caused the event?
- What is the number of people involved in the plan, its duration, interests, information sharing, and the level of risk of leakage?
- Is there a mechanism that can produce the same result even without one designer?
- What observations would lead to revising the hypothesis?
By dividing a vague, large narrative into specific subjects, evidence, conditions for establishment, and alternative explanations, it is possible to transform it into verifiable claims.
Do not make the world understandable to just one person.
This paper summarizes the central hypothesis.
Conspiracy theories become easier to form when a society, which consists of numerous entities with different intentions, is understood as a single entity with one intention.
At that time, the following things may be confused.
- Unification of actions and unification of intentions.
- Unification of results and the existence of designers.
- Speculation about what "I" would do, and what others are actually thinking.
- Those who gained benefits and those who caused the events.
- The influence of actions and the dominance of the result itself.
Resistance to conspiracy theories is not about questioning everything. It's about understanding that people and organizations are complex, and each has its own information, interests, and intentions, while maintaining that complexity.
Do not make the world into a single, easily understandable person.
To make it easy to understand, while avoiding a closed perspective, and to open up possibilities for verification. That is the idea I would like to present in this paper.