Summary = we are all mad data poor deluded fuckwits. That's made us all reconsider..NOT

By Damien Stewart MAPS 🧐

Personal observations about conspiracy theorist clients

In addition to the research behind conspiracy theory belief, I would also like to add the following observations about people I have encountered, both within and outside of therapy, who espouse conspiracy theories.

Evidence for their theories is usually wafer thin or does not meet the usual standard for evidence or proof - the evidence is often as implausible as the theory itself. Generally, believers point to online videos or websites that are populated by people and articles that support the believer’s beliefs. These articles and videos similarly lack any evidence other than to refer to vague notions of “I’ve heard”, or “people have told me”.

Explanations tend to be couched in terms of questions, rather than answers. People won’t be able to point to evidence but will instead make their argument by bringing into question an idea or notion, such as “don’t you think”, or “isn’t it strange that”, or “I’m just asking questions”

People must convince you of their way of thinking, they need to be validated. A denial of their thinking is therefore not a rejection of their thoughts, beliefs, and opinions, but a rejection of their very being.

Once evidence or argument is discredited, you are explained away as “one of them”, the “other”, placing you not in the position of someone who can make an argument about the issue at hand, but placed into the other ideological group. Therefore, your opinion is explained away because of the group you belong to, the enemy, not because you possess a rational argument.

Once a conspiratorial argument is discredited, an interesting dynamic ensues. The issue that was being discussed slowly disappears, and you the person become the subject of attack. The conspiracy theorist cannot win the argument based on the facts, so they attempt to win the argument by discrediting you the individual. If the person can discredit you, their belief in their argument can be maintained, because the discussion has left the original point and is now about something else completely, you as a person.

The argument is like a slippery fish 🐟, it moves and bends and is hard to hang on to as the point shifts into something you can’t argue, or both agree on. Once again, the original ideology can be maintained because it is no longer the point of discussion.