#transference — Public Fediverse posts

Ok, this is my two cents on " #conspiracy #theories ", why the arise and why people stick with them.

"Conspiracy theories" are based on the assumptions that:
• nothing happens by chance
• nothing is like it appears
• everything is connected
(Michael Barkun)
In such "closed systems" nefarious and omnipotent actors aspire control of institutions, nations, even the world.

"Conspiracy theories", it is said, are entertained by mostly insecure people to make a chaotic world more reasonable and controllable; at times such "theories" are said to give their believer a sense of self-importance and the opportunity to circumvent educational deficits. They *know* what is happening and their "knowledge" is beyond doubt, falsification or test.

One of the shortcomings of this "explanation" is that many highly educated people are prone to fall for "conspiracy theories" as well. Often, I'd guess, believers in such "theories" are neither stupid nor uneducated, neither weak nor in need of self-aggrandizement or feelings of regained control.

To pity the poor and dumb in believing in "conspiracy theories" is more or less nothing else than another form of #classism , without much merit beyond the feeling of self-aggrandizement it provides to those who believe in such an explanation of why a certain class of people believe in "conspiracy theories"...

I don't think that "conspiracy theories" are there to provide the weak and dumb some handrail to manage their way through the world. Rather, what happens is that the legitimacy of a conflict between claims or constraints is transfered to some utter nonsense to provide the latter with legitimacy.

Take for example the current pandemic and the legitimate conflict between a) the guaranteed individual liberties—assemblance, freedom of speech, the right to carry arms (should you live in the U.S.), etc.—and b) the obligation of the state authorities to mitigate public health hazards. Which one has the priority? Esp. when one may only persist at the expense of the other? Normally such conflicts are taken to the courts. But in "conspiracy theories" the legitimacy of this #conflict is transferred and applied to a totally different question, e.g., that the state authorities "invented" a public health hazard in order to curb on individual liberties (like bearing arms)—with the result that a) the hazard is declared unreal and b) the restrictions of individual liberties are deemed real. Same in the variant a) the hazard is real, b) the infringement of liberties is real, and c) that this is so *because* Bill and Melinda Gates, via their foundation, want a) to exist, have the means to coerce b) in order to develop a vaccine and make much cash. (Interestingly, no-one ever mentions Warren Bufffet in this game, the third trustee of the Foundation.)

The main reason everyone is prone to "conspiracy theories" is that this cognitive structure of #transference of #legitimacy from one set of questions or conflicts to some other allows for the rationalization and justification of persoonal anger and hate.

It's pretty much the same as with the choice of political orientation. One doesn't chose a political leaning according to facts and arguments one has chewed through; one has a specific leaning or outlook on the world and via that choses the political orientation that provides the best "material form" for it. So some turn out hard left, others Green, and others become fleabags like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell. They didn't argue with themselves to reach the corresponding political stance; their psychological and emotional st-up made them by more sympathetic to this or that leaning.

"Conspiracy theories" are vehicles to rationalize and display wrath, dismay, scorn, and hate. Not much else. They are not a sign of weakness but a way to safe face. Esp. towards oneself.


#talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten