The Conspiracy Theory Of Conspiracy Theories

I'm fascinated by conspiracy theories, and just happened across the Daddy. Corey Doctorow, the entertaining science fiction writer, believes he's found the source of them all:

"... [conspiracy theories] aren’t attributable to ideology or mind-control rays... at root, they are a disagreement about how we know whether something is true or not. When we argue about the flat Earth, we’re not just debating the shape of our planet: We’re debating the method by which we can know its shape....40 years of rising inequality and industry consolidation have turned our truth-seeking exercises into auctions, in which lawmakers, regulators and administrators are beholden to a small cohort of increasingly wealthy people who hold their financial and career futures in their hands. Industry consolidation makes it startlingly cheap to buy the truth: Once an industry consists of a handful of players, it’s easy for everyone to agree on the play, and the only people qualified to be referees are drawn from the companies’ own executive ranks, whence they will return after their spin in governance’s revolving door."

Not only is this thesis merely political hogwash designed to justify a call to break up certain industry oligopolies, but it also serves to highlight how the human brain works to make conspiracies attractive in the first place (as explored by Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahneman and Nicholas Taleb, often mentioned here). 

The central problem is 'overconfidence' - the belief that our existence is somehow 'controlled' rather than random (also at the root of creationism vs natural selection, for example).

I mean, just imagine if all the data that every human perceives really were "bought" or curated by "a handful of players" - let alone after only 40 years of trying...

A moment's thought, let alone a cursory read of James Gleick's excellent history of humanity's attempt to master information reveals this would not be possible. And many different conspiracy theories abound in the many different communities around the planet.

Even complaints about deliberate misinformation causing the outcome of specific votes, like Brexit, are overdone. As Taleb points out, such outcomes may be classified as Black Swans - surprise events that we try to rationalise by hindsight. Lies and misinformation might be part of the swirl surrounding Brexit, yet may really only correlate with the result without being causative - they could be just as symptomatic of a deeper malaise as the result of the vote itself. 

That's not to say lies and electoral violations should be overlooked or go unpunished - or that we should not try to rectify obvious economic mistakes or life-threatening misconceptions like the "Anti-Vax" movement. But ultimate 'control' just isn't an option. We can only minimise our exposure to the downside, and maximise our exposure to the upside, of the major events that shape our history.

Applying that to Doctorow's theory: the break of up of industry oligopolies may be worthwhile for certain reasons, but that process will not somehow restore human control over the 'truth' - any more than it will alter human psychology.

The Weakness Of Postive Thinking

As an avowed pragmatist, I've been savouring Barbara Ehrenreich's Smile or Die, about the tyranny of positive thinking.

Barbara traces the rise of 'positive thinking' out of the misery of Calvinist soul-searching amongst people deemed non-productive by that religious movement, through 'christian science' to popular psychology and self-help books, to academic psychology and, finally, to major corporations, banks and other institutions, where critical thinkers tend to be ritually sacrificed as having a "negative attitude". Barbara patiently explains why "positive thinking" will not of itself produce a desired outcome, and how it has proved positively harmful to suppress critical thought and to avoid addressing genuine doubt and 'negative' sentiment. She also helpfully points out that 'positive' does not equate to 'good', and 'negative' does not equate to 'bad'.

All of which will seem trite to anyone who hasn't seen Up in the Air, or been subjected to the ramblings of a 'success coach' or 'motivational speaker', like Tony Robbins, or had a colleague earnestly suggest you read "Who Moved My Cheese".

Of course it's helpful to approach life positively. Committing to a particular goal is certainly enormously helpful - if not critical - to achieving it. But it is not determinative of the outcome. Similarly, to imagine or envisage a successful performance in a given scenario will contribute to your confidence when the time for performance arrives, and that should help you perform better. But that's only one factor that contributes to your performance, not the 'cause' of your success.

Otherwise, the world would be governed by repressive dictatorships that command optimism. And Kim Jong-il really would be able to control the weather with his mood.

Instead, we do our best to figure out and cope with all the variables likely to significantly affect a scenario, including all the 'bad things' that might happen, as well as the fact that the world is random and heavily influenced by surprise events, or "Black Swans". Approaching that process proactively and positively is also clearly going to be helpful but, again, not of itself determinative of success.

Ultimately, Barbara questions the effect of positive thinking on 'happiness', and it's easy to see that adherence to positive thinking does not end well - the inevitable result of suppressing and repressing all 'negative' news, thoughts and emotions. Barbara cites the Lehman Brothers top brass, Dick Fuld and Joe Gregory, who may have made plenty of money eschewing analysis and 'going with their guts', but eventually the blew the bank. Joe Stalin, too, was big on 'optimism' and a little hard on 'defeatist' critics and others who didn't 'get with the programme', and doubtless Kim Jong-il constantly curses the 'naysayers' for the under-performance of his 'optimistic' regime.

And let's not forget, among the long list of victims, all the angry and confused positive-thinkers out there who hot-desked, travelled incessantly, ignored their friends and family, slept with their Blackberries and generally drank the corporate Kool-Aid, only to discover they were surplus to requirements.

I hope they don't get fooled again.

Here's Jon Stewart's interview with Barbara on the Daily Show.