Live Q&As

I think the web is doing both things you suggest. People are getting some confirmations about their beliefs. The web is also giving people access to more information that will allow them to "detect" conspiracies.

Absolutely. Conspiracy theories were prevalent enough in the 1980s, when I first tuned into the phenomenon.  My mailbox was stuffed with cheaply printing tracts and conspiracy magazines that I subscribed too for my research. (The mailman must have thought I was crazy.) With the Internet the phenomenon has been amplified by many magnitudes.

Hmmm...I'll take that as a rhetorical question.

And I'll pass.

It seems like with many breaking stories and scandals these days, a (very) few of the speculations turn to conspiracy theories to try to explain why it's happening. The conspiracy narrative is out there, in some people's minds, and even the mere suggestion of it tends to attract attention and make it newsworthy. There's no gag order on what's reported in the media or posted online (most of the time).

I agree. People who are prone to the paranoid style of thinking need only the slightest nudge to start spinning vast conspiratorial webs. They don't believe in accidents. Everything is connected. 

They start in people's minds, as an ever-growing narrative in our culture (think the movie 'JFK'). They spread because they captivate and sensationalize, and because now anyone can be part of the media (e.g., through their own webpage or blog).

In "Architects of Fear" I traced the current crop of conspiracy theories back to the French Revolution when some Catholic priests were trying to explain away the rebellion as a complexly orchestrated plot by evil Freemasons. That is when the Illuminati myth was born. In the United States there were Federalist conspiracy theories casting the Jeffersonians as Illuminati agents. The same memes are picked up and recycled again and again.

I imagine the speculation in France (and Europe) is much more specific, since he is more well-known there, as are his politics and the details of his history.

I'm going to limit myself to the more general subject of the phenomenon of conspiratorial thinking. I know no more about the Sofitel incident than what I read in the newspapers. Of course in the paranoid style, the newspapers will be dismissed as agents of the plot.

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a good reply for a potential leader. I'm no expert on his situation, but I believe he came from a wealthy background.

There's the big question. The next question I'd ask is, if that's the case, then why???

It's important to take conspiracy comments with a grain of salt; these are just a few people making comments. Don't assume that there are necessarily a whole crowd of people believing in the conspiracies--probably fewer than it seems. "Conspiracy" comments get a rise out of readers; thus, a few people are motivated to make lots of them.

I don't know the FDR quote, but I doubt that he meant that everything, down to the finest detail, is planned -- that nothing happens accidentally. (Some conspiracy theorists have actually called that view "accident theory.") And of course there are real conspiracies -- just not the overarching, almost supernatural ones that some people are so eager to invent and believe.

Can we really say that FDR was a conspiracy theorist just from this quote? Imagine if George W. Bush had said the same thing--Would you still interpret it as conspiracy-minded?

But you bring up a good point. That there have been conspiracies uncovered in US history (things that almost anyone would agree constitutes a conspiracy--something like the Tuskegee experiment). But just because they have happened in the past, this doesn't not necessarily lend credibility to conspiracy theorizing on any given issue.

I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head. Our brains are wired by evolution to see connections. Lightning is followed by thunder. A rustle in the grass means a predator is lurking there. Or else it is just the wind. We are driven to find order in the world  -- and to impose it when it doesn't exist.

Agreed. But there are many ways to make sense out of events, and conspiracy theorizing is just one of these ways--though it often has the advantage of trying to explain more than it can.

Ideally, we'd want to reserve judgment until more facts present themselves, but endless speculation is practically unavoidable, since there are few laws against it. As I understand it, the French media places different restrictions on what the media can present when someone's arrested. Welcome to the modern media...I don't expect there's a way to end all the speculating.

The historian Richard Hofstadter wrote a famous essay called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."  And some conspiratorial thinking seems to arise out of Protestant fundamentalism. If you look deeply into a lot of rightwing conspiracy theories you'll find elements of millenarian religion and biblical prophecy woven in. But the phenomenon is also international. Conspiracy theories involving the Protocols of the Elders of Zion continue to proliferate all over the world. They were big for awhile in Japan.

Mmmm...a very good question. It's difficult to know how easily and reliably media outlets are getting information. And whether any info is being withheld due to the nature of the events.

There are real conspiracies, of course. Think of Watergate or Iran-Contra, and people do theorize about them. What fascinates me are the concoctions in which everything is connected. History is planned in advance in the minutest detail by the secret cabal at the top of the pyramid -- International bankers, Jews, the Catholic Church, Freemasons. In the most mind-bending versions all of these are connected . Lyndon Larouche's followers have a conspiracy theory so immense that it includes its own theory of electromagnetism. Quantum mechanics, with its principle of acausality, is part of the conspiracy! Solar energy companies have their roots in Ancient Egyptian mystery cults that worshipped the Sun God Ra. . . . and on and on. The IMF is in there somewhere as well.

You have to expect the defense to say as little as possible at this point. I'm guessing not THAT many people are crying that it's a conspiracy (even if it makes a headline or two). Conspiracy accusations are a good way to deflect blame.

I wonder whether endorsement by birthers can really just be thought of as a "disapproval" vote for the president. I can see that if someone really dislikes the president, there may be a tendency to endorse anything against him (knowing that if polls show that many people believe he wasn't born in the US, then this can damage his credibility. But whether they truly believe the "conspiracy," that's another story I think.

Interesting comment. But what were your 2nd and 3rd thoughts? Just because our mind turns to something first, doesn't necessarily make it more valid. We still have so little information about what happened.

You're exactly right. That is another crucial part of the phenomenon: the ability to absorb any countervailing evidence as disinformation, part of the smoke screen put out by the conspirators. Conspiracy theorists are not empiricists, gathering information and inducing a theory. They are starting with a deep, preconceived belief and adorning it with scraps of information torn from context and glued into a new collage. My book "Architects of Fear" was translated into Japanese -- with a preface saying that the book was disinformation and I was part of the Trilateralist plot.

There's another big question, and the way you asked it is very interesting. I think we like it because it's sensational and leads to complex plots and powerful players. It's a bit like asking, why do people have such a drive to enjoy gossip. Because it's interesting. Some people dislike the whole idea of gossip, and so are turned off by it. But most people are interested in it (for many reasons I'm sure).

Ahhh, but presumed innocent by whom? Legally maybe, but so exactly so in the media (and among potential jurors).

If you look, I think you'll find there have been complaints given in the past.

I guess it depends on what you consider a conspiracy. I mentioned the Tuskegee experiment. If you go back and read enough documents, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the US government and law enforcement tried to squelch some of the civil rights movement when it was getting going.

When I was immersing myself in this world, back in the 1980s, I was struck by how very intelligent many of the conspiracy theorists were. They had an amazing ability to absorb data, sort it into patterns. They read voraciously. In a different life they might have become physicists or university scholars.  

It's the rare voice (like yours) that calls for delaying judgment until more facts are presented.

Also, I'm not sure I would necessarily classify your examples as "Conspiracy theories" per se. Conspiracy theories means that multiple (usually many) people are intentionally collaborating to achieve the same goal.

Not just within the IMF. He was going to be a top candidate to be the next leader of France! If there are people out to get him, I'm guessing it would have more to do with that, or his political party.

Ah, the French people are respesented!

I haven't seen that, dear reader. But guess is that these theories will not come from the narcissist, who tries to shine the spotlight more on him or herself, rather than some other event having nothing to do with them. But attention getting does seem to play a role sometimes.

That is an interesting idea that I haven't seen addressed. Most conspiracy theorists are men and most of the ones I met seemed very lonely. I remember a widower named Frank isolated in a Minneapolis suburb combing through the newspapers for evidence to weave into the plot. He called me one day at the newspaper where I worked and I used to visit him to hear his latest ramblings. 

Wow...a great point! I guess, because both you and I are now here, engaged and attracted to this dialogue. It's not just the conspiracy theories that attact attention, it's also the judgments and evaluation and discussion of them that attracts attention (and readers and commenters) too. From this day forward, we should all try to be drawn in to this kind of sensationalism...or at least try to ignore them better. It's hard to completely ignore things like conspiracy theories and gossip, because they usually elicit such a strong gut reaction, whichever side you're on...

Extreme beliefs, in addition to beliefs that are personally important to us, tend to be sticky and difficult to extinguish. Think of superstitions, and how irrational they sometimes are, and how hard to "disbelieve" them it is sometimes.

Simpler explanations are not as exciting, and don't lead to the same conclusions that the believers want to believe.

Yes, there is so little friction now to disseminating ideas. A lone individual with a computer can broadcast worldwide. I wonder though if that ease of communication bequeaths real power. There are so many voices drowning each other out.

Ahh, your description of human volition has hints of conspiracy thinking. Are many aspects of our live REALLY in the hands of vast instiutions? We rely on digital technology and information and corporations for many things. But are we really at their mercy? Have people really lost their autonomy? Yes, privacy is decreasing and a lot more of our information is out there, but there are lots of benefits to the individuals that come with that.