What do you think?
Rate this book
The Psychology of Everything
The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories
Who believes in conspiracy theories, and why are some people more susceptible to them than others? What are the consequences of such beliefs? Has a conspiracy theory ever turned out to be true? The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories debunks the myth that conspiracy theories are a modern phenomenon, exploring their broad social contexts, from politics to the workplace. The book explains why some people are more susceptible to these beliefs than others and how they are produced by recognizable and predictable psychological processes. Featuring examples such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks and climate change, The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories shows us that while such beliefs are not always irrational and are not a pathological trait, they can be harmful to individuals and society.
108 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2018
26 people are currently reading
532 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
April 27, 2020
With the Covid-19 situation, I kept seeing many posts which were borderline conspiracy theories, some from friends or acquaintances who I generally admire and consider of average or above-average intelligence. This made me curious behind the psychology of conspiracy theories. I already some understanding of the topic given that I lightly touched upon the subject in my psychology degree, but I wanted to go a little bit more in-depth.
He defines conspiracy theories with 5 factors: pattern making, agency, coalitions, hostility, and continued secrecy. Almost any conspiracy theory you can think of, with minor exceptions, will fit this description. An interesting point that the book starts with is that conspiracy theories are not new. We associate them with the internet or at least the modern era, but they have existed forever.
For example, in the Middle ages large number of people died, in large part due to lack of medical and scientific understanding. This was often scapegoated to young women, who were believed to be witches and conspiring with the devil. Another common scapegoating was that Jewish people were causing epidemics. Not only are not new, but they also aren't on the rise either. While we may more easily be aware of them, its prevalence and belief on them has been more or less stable.
Conspiracy theories are caused by crises of some kind. Like terrorist attacks, natural disasters, wars, revolutions, epidemics, economic crisis, etc. The crises lead to increase attention and an attempt at sense-making. In turn, there are emotional and cognitive psychological mechanisms that get amplified during these situations.
The emotional aspect is fear and uncertainty (especially with a feeling of helplessness). They are the bread and butter of conspiracy theories. People look for patterns due to our minds being particularly primed for imminent threats. And given that false negatives are more costly than false positives, worse-case scenarios are assumed. Then there are also cognitive factors, with are biases that amplified the belief in conspiracies. Like the proportionality bias (important events seem to require important causes), self-interest bias (other people are often selfish and immoral), among others. Some other factors are also covered, like the affiliation with political extremism (both right and left), identity, in-group protection, agency detection, and randomness.
Something that is often misunderstood is that the cognitive processes behind conspiracy are not pathological. They are normal and function. They simply get amplified in a certain context and increases their error. Similarly, it's not easy to box who believes in conspiracy theories. They are incredibly widespread and affect all types of people imaginable.
The book was made by Dr. Jan-Willem van Prooijen, who is a researcher in the field, and was incredibly well written. It's quite short (about 100 pages), but touches all the key points and has a good amount of information. It is divided into 6 chapters, with further sub-sections. They have a very logical sequence and they're very succinct. Each chapter ends with a helpful summary.
I appreciated the author's emphasis that this does not mean that conspiracy theories cannot be true. They can, and in fact, he provides several examples where that is the case. However, that does not exclude the psychological mechanisms that lead people into believing them in the first place where evidence was at the time insufficient. Even if they happen to turn out to be accurate (although that's almost never the case), the psychology behind the initial belief remains.
When reading the introduction, I was a bit afraid of getting into some pseudoscience. I was not aware of the background of the author, and some of the descriptions sounded a bit too much like a psychoanalysis of conspiracy theories. But I was wrong. It is quite well supported by data, and numerous studies are referenced to support his claims.
Overall, I highly recommend the book. Especially given its length, it's a must-read if you are interested in the topic of conspiracy theories.
He defines conspiracy theories with 5 factors: pattern making, agency, coalitions, hostility, and continued secrecy. Almost any conspiracy theory you can think of, with minor exceptions, will fit this description. An interesting point that the book starts with is that conspiracy theories are not new. We associate them with the internet or at least the modern era, but they have existed forever.
For example, in the Middle ages large number of people died, in large part due to lack of medical and scientific understanding. This was often scapegoated to young women, who were believed to be witches and conspiring with the devil. Another common scapegoating was that Jewish people were causing epidemics. Not only are not new, but they also aren't on the rise either. While we may more easily be aware of them, its prevalence and belief on them has been more or less stable.
Conspiracy theories are caused by crises of some kind. Like terrorist attacks, natural disasters, wars, revolutions, epidemics, economic crisis, etc. The crises lead to increase attention and an attempt at sense-making. In turn, there are emotional and cognitive psychological mechanisms that get amplified during these situations.
The emotional aspect is fear and uncertainty (especially with a feeling of helplessness). They are the bread and butter of conspiracy theories. People look for patterns due to our minds being particularly primed for imminent threats. And given that false negatives are more costly than false positives, worse-case scenarios are assumed. Then there are also cognitive factors, with are biases that amplified the belief in conspiracies. Like the proportionality bias (important events seem to require important causes), self-interest bias (other people are often selfish and immoral), among others. Some other factors are also covered, like the affiliation with political extremism (both right and left), identity, in-group protection, agency detection, and randomness.
Something that is often misunderstood is that the cognitive processes behind conspiracy are not pathological. They are normal and function. They simply get amplified in a certain context and increases their error. Similarly, it's not easy to box who believes in conspiracy theories. They are incredibly widespread and affect all types of people imaginable.
The book was made by Dr. Jan-Willem van Prooijen, who is a researcher in the field, and was incredibly well written. It's quite short (about 100 pages), but touches all the key points and has a good amount of information. It is divided into 6 chapters, with further sub-sections. They have a very logical sequence and they're very succinct. Each chapter ends with a helpful summary.
I appreciated the author's emphasis that this does not mean that conspiracy theories cannot be true. They can, and in fact, he provides several examples where that is the case. However, that does not exclude the psychological mechanisms that lead people into believing them in the first place where evidence was at the time insufficient. Even if they happen to turn out to be accurate (although that's almost never the case), the psychology behind the initial belief remains.
When reading the introduction, I was a bit afraid of getting into some pseudoscience. I was not aware of the background of the author, and some of the descriptions sounded a bit too much like a psychoanalysis of conspiracy theories. But I was wrong. It is quite well supported by data, and numerous studies are referenced to support his claims.
Overall, I highly recommend the book. Especially given its length, it's a must-read if you are interested in the topic of conspiracy theories.
May 3, 2024
كتاب قصير ويقرأ في جلسة واحدة، ويبدو الكتاب جيدًا ككل للوهلة الأولى، لكن بعد إمعان النظر؛ أرى أنَّ الكاتب حاول أن يكون موضوعيًا؛ لكنه فشل في ذلك، ومهما حاول تنضح من بعض المواضع تحيزاته الخاصة والعائدة لخلفيته الشخصية، وهناك مقارنات أيضًا غير منطقية والكاتب يستخدمها كحقائق.
June 29, 2021
I can't believe I ended up dropping this. It's a very short book, and I was only like 15 pages away from the end, but I just can't stomach it. There are definitely some really insightful and useful concepts explored here. I don't feel like reading it was a total waste of time (especially because it's so short), and I thought some of the ideas he develops were very valuable.
HOWEVER:
The tone was very annoying at times. While never going full euphoric-atheist tier, some sections just read *so* smug. I really could have done without that. An especially obnoxious attempt at humour, for example, is this:
Way to show that ppl who believe dumb conspiracy theories are silly by uhhh... dunking on the victims for dying? Neat!
The smug tone is quite funny coupled with the fact that the constant insistence of the scientific nature and objectivity of social psychology (unironically writing a sentence like "Psychology offers a scientific approach that helps to objectively establish..." and referring to his social psychologist colleagues as "scientists" in the first chapters a lot) just SMACKS of insecurity real bad.
The worst part is that he does this thing where he's just aware enough to say something to the effect of "we shouldn't automatically reject skepticisim of powerful ppl/institutions as certain conspiracy theories have been shown to be factual" or like "it's important to recognise certain underpriviliged groups have reasons to distrust certain others" (paraphrasing) and then just goes on to write things that make it sound like he doesn't actually believe that at all.
He's massively uncritical, in my opinion, when it comes to separating the valid fears that inspire some conspiracy theories (pharmaceutical companies often being awful is a very easily demonstrable thing) from their outlandish, harmful and unacceptable conclusions (vaccines cause autism). He often lumps them together and uses valid, evidence-based distrust (e.g. about governments, pharmaceutical companies or intelligence agencies) as the stand-in or shorthand for the conspiracy theory. Pharmaceutical companies often acting incredibly immorally is not a conspiracy theory; vaccines being tools of the powerful elites to control the population is. His phrasing is massively biased if not downright dismissive when mentioning the distrust some minorities feel about the medical establishment, especially in a US setting. It literally takes 2 seconds of googling to know that forced sterilisation of Black and migrant women is not, in fact, a conspiracy theory; and that Black people, for instance, have been and still are mistreated by the medical establishment. Many have every reason to distrust.
There's also a really obnoxious both-sides-ism centrist vibe going on that leads the author to unironically write things like:
with no further comments. This, in combination with all of the above, is when I decided to put the book down for good. God, don't you just love objectivity and facts and presenting both sides! These things are all comparable! You have to present both sides, of course, so it makes sense to draw a comparison between the left's disdain for uhh... literal bankers.... and millionaires.... and the right's disdain for... ah, yes, Muslims and gays : ) I love science and presenting facts, hehe.
So yeah an interesting topic with some valuable content made unreadable (to me) by questionable choices and terrible takes from the author left and right. For someone so clearly insecure about the scientific nature of his work, instead of writing things to the effect like "this is science" before presenting a finding from a study asking some uni students some questions in exchange for a candy bar, I'd suggest working a lot harder to remove his own voice and bias from the stuff he's attempting to present. I think that would be neat.
Oh, I did love framing Santa Claus as a (benign) conspiracy theory though!
HOWEVER:
The tone was very annoying at times. While never going full euphoric-atheist tier, some sections just read *so* smug. I really could have done without that. An especially obnoxious attempt at humour, for example, is this:
The Malaysian airlines Flight 370 disappearance (which had 227 passengers and 12 crew members on board; I assume here that they are dead, and not filming a new season of Lost on an island).
Way to show that ppl who believe dumb conspiracy theories are silly by uhhh... dunking on the victims for dying? Neat!
The smug tone is quite funny coupled with the fact that the constant insistence of the scientific nature and objectivity of social psychology (unironically writing a sentence like "Psychology offers a scientific approach that helps to objectively establish..." and referring to his social psychologist colleagues as "scientists" in the first chapters a lot) just SMACKS of insecurity real bad.
The worst part is that he does this thing where he's just aware enough to say something to the effect of "we shouldn't automatically reject skepticisim of powerful ppl/institutions as certain conspiracy theories have been shown to be factual" or like "it's important to recognise certain underpriviliged groups have reasons to distrust certain others" (paraphrasing) and then just goes on to write things that make it sound like he doesn't actually believe that at all.
He's massively uncritical, in my opinion, when it comes to separating the valid fears that inspire some conspiracy theories (pharmaceutical companies often being awful is a very easily demonstrable thing) from their outlandish, harmful and unacceptable conclusions (vaccines cause autism). He often lumps them together and uses valid, evidence-based distrust (e.g. about governments, pharmaceutical companies or intelligence agencies) as the stand-in or shorthand for the conspiracy theory. Pharmaceutical companies often acting incredibly immorally is not a conspiracy theory; vaccines being tools of the powerful elites to control the population is. His phrasing is massively biased if not downright dismissive when mentioning the distrust some minorities feel about the medical establishment, especially in a US setting. It literally takes 2 seconds of googling to know that forced sterilisation of Black and migrant women is not, in fact, a conspiracy theory; and that Black people, for instance, have been and still are mistreated by the medical establishment. Many have every reason to distrust.
There's also a really obnoxious both-sides-ism centrist vibe going on that leads the author to unironically write things like:
Compared to moderates, the political extremes tend to be less tolerant of groups that they perceive as different – implying that the extreme left derogates groups such as bankers, millionaires, and soldiers, and the extreme right derogates groups such as Muslims, gay and lesbian people, and scientists.
with no further comments. This, in combination with all of the above, is when I decided to put the book down for good. God, don't you just love objectivity and facts and presenting both sides! These things are all comparable! You have to present both sides, of course, so it makes sense to draw a comparison between the left's disdain for uhh... literal bankers.... and millionaires.... and the right's disdain for... ah, yes, Muslims and gays : ) I love science and presenting facts, hehe.
So yeah an interesting topic with some valuable content made unreadable (to me) by questionable choices and terrible takes from the author left and right. For someone so clearly insecure about the scientific nature of his work, instead of writing things to the effect like "this is science" before presenting a finding from a study asking some uni students some questions in exchange for a candy bar, I'd suggest working a lot harder to remove his own voice and bias from the stuff he's attempting to present. I think that would be neat.
Oh, I did love framing Santa Claus as a (benign) conspiracy theory though!
November 13, 2022
قرأت الكتاب من إصدار دار صفحة ترجمة منير عليمي
110 صفحة من القطع المتوسط
***************************
يتحدث الكتاب عن الأسباب النفسيه التي تدفع الناس للإيمان بنظرية المؤامرة أساسها الخوف وعدم اليقين
كذلك اوصح صفات المؤامرة أو مكونات المؤامرة
*************
الكتاب سريع ويمكن الانتهاء منه في جلستين
اعتبره سطحي إلى حد كبير كان يمكن اختصاره في مقال بدلاً من كتاب خاصة وقد كرر الكاتب أفكاره لمرات متعدده في الكتاب
اعتمد كثيراً على أحداث ١١ سبتمبر لشرح سيكولوجية نظريات المؤامرة و شككت للحظة أن الكتاب مخصص لتفنيد نظرية المؤامرة ل ١١ سبتمبر لكثر ما تكررت في الكتاب
بعض الأفكار غير واضحة رغم أني وجدت الترجمة جيدة
الكتاب في نسخته الأصلية طبع في 2018 وترجم في 2021
تمنيت لو تمكن المترجم من كتابة مقدمة يشير فيها إلى Covid -19
ونظرية المؤامرة إذ كان سيضفي للكتاب عمقاً وواقعية
أغفل الكتاب تأثير وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي الحديثة ودورها في نظرية المؤامرة
كرر الكتاب موضوع الخوف وعدم اليقين مرات كثيرة وكأنها ثيم ثابت لافتتاحية كل فصل
********
اقتباسات
"نظريات المؤامرة هي رد فعل طبيعي ينشأ عن المواقف الاجتماعية التي تثير مشاعر الخوف وعدم اليقين"
" غالباً ما تكون نظريات المؤامرة هواية غير ضارّة. ولكنها في مقابل ذلك قادرة على أن تُلحق الضّرر بالإنسان ، وأن تُحفّز الجانب العدوانيّ تجاه أشخاص أو مجموعات أخرى"
"كُلما زاد ارتباط الناس بهويتهم الخاصة داخل مجموعة معينة، ازداد احتمال إيمانهم بنظريات المؤامرة، عندما يقع أفراد هذه المجموعة ضحية"
"نظريات المؤامرة هي نتيجة لميل الناس الطبيعي إلى تصنيف العالم إلى "نحن" مقابل" هم" ، وفي محاولة لحماية مجموعاتهم الاجتماعية من التهديدات الخارجية"
110 صفحة من القطع المتوسط
***************************
يتحدث الكتاب عن الأسباب النفسيه التي تدفع الناس للإيمان بنظرية المؤامرة أساسها الخوف وعدم اليقين
كذلك اوصح صفات المؤامرة أو مكونات المؤامرة
*************
الكتاب سريع ويمكن الانتهاء منه في جلستين
اعتبره سطحي إلى حد كبير كان يمكن اختصاره في مقال بدلاً من كتاب خاصة وقد كرر الكاتب أفكاره لمرات متعدده في الكتاب
اعتمد كثيراً على أحداث ١١ سبتمبر لشرح سيكولوجية نظريات المؤامرة و شككت للحظة أن الكتاب مخصص لتفنيد نظرية المؤامرة ل ١١ سبتمبر لكثر ما تكررت في الكتاب
بعض الأفكار غير واضحة رغم أني وجدت الترجمة جيدة
الكتاب في نسخته الأصلية طبع في 2018 وترجم في 2021
تمنيت لو تمكن المترجم من كتابة مقدمة يشير فيها إلى Covid -19
ونظرية المؤامرة إذ كان سيضفي للكتاب عمقاً وواقعية
أغفل الكتاب تأثير وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي الحديثة ودورها في نظرية المؤامرة
كرر الكتاب موضوع الخوف وعدم اليقين مرات كثيرة وكأنها ثيم ثابت لافتتاحية كل فصل
********
اقتباسات
"نظريات المؤامرة هي رد فعل طبيعي ينشأ عن المواقف الاجتماعية التي تثير مشاعر الخوف وعدم اليقين"
" غالباً ما تكون نظريات المؤامرة هواية غير ضارّة. ولكنها في مقابل ذلك قادرة على أن تُلحق الضّرر بالإنسان ، وأن تُحفّز الجانب العدوانيّ تجاه أشخاص أو مجموعات أخرى"
"كُلما زاد ارتباط الناس بهويتهم الخاصة داخل مجموعة معينة، ازداد احتمال إيمانهم بنظريات المؤامرة، عندما يقع أفراد هذه المجموعة ضحية"
"نظريات المؤامرة هي نتيجة لميل الناس الطبيعي إلى تصنيف العالم إلى "نحن" مقابل" هم" ، وفي محاولة لحماية مجموعاتهم الاجتماعية من التهديدات الخارجية"
April 12, 2020
I'm actually surprised how good this book was. It was a great overview and led to some deeper and more complex thoughts although it's not even 100 pages long. The book was easily understandable, main points were clear and accentuated. I'm happy I read it at the time when there are so many annoying conspiracy theories going around. It calmed me a bit in a weird way by giving me some new ideas how to explain why people behave as they do.
April 9, 2023
Solid, quick, with some good insights, accessible, if a bit too simplistic.
A lot of the focus in reviewing the literature is on author’s own studies - one is left with a sense that this might not have been entirely comprehensive. Overall it seemed a bit under-sourced and breezy in some of it’s more general claims (especially when it comes to areas outside his expertise).
A lot of the focus in reviewing the literature is on author’s own studies - one is left with a sense that this might not have been entirely comprehensive. Overall it seemed a bit under-sourced and breezy in some of it’s more general claims (especially when it comes to areas outside his expertise).
April 24, 2022
كتاب جيد في تلخيص سيكولوجية المؤامرة... الخوف وعدم اليقين هما جذر المشكلة.
May 23, 2024
Academic, but with a lot of the big words shortened
This book has two points to make right up front.
Conspiracy Theories are based in normal thought (Not crazy / abnormal pathologies)
Conspiracy Theories are dangerous (Not cute, harmless, and comical)
This is a book for straight boring answers, not titillating thrills or descriptions of Crazy Beliefs.
The author is a dutch Psychology professor who has apparently been studying the phenomena of Conspiratorial mindsets for a while now. He sites a lot of peer reviewed studies from Europe and the US. He lays out what we know about who and why people believe Conspiracies.
Most of this book is the opposite of shocking as he lays out very rational reasons why people who feel threatened and mislead would form their own answers that seem to clarify a frighting and confusing world.
The big shocker? This is NOT the most Conspiratorially active time in the last few hundred years. Our grandparents were apparently worse. We just spread them faster, but don't keep them as long.
One teeny tiny gripe is that I love and collect big words and this guy cuts them out for clarity sake. He's describing the human tendency to see patterns in randomness and I know this one: it's Apophenia. But the author calls it The Phantom Pattern Problem. Dude! That's way more clear but... man come on! there's already a Latin sounding word for it! This is no fun.
This book has two points to make right up front.
Conspiracy Theories are based in normal thought (Not crazy / abnormal pathologies)
Conspiracy Theories are dangerous (Not cute, harmless, and comical)
This is a book for straight boring answers, not titillating thrills or descriptions of Crazy Beliefs.
The author is a dutch Psychology professor who has apparently been studying the phenomena of Conspiratorial mindsets for a while now. He sites a lot of peer reviewed studies from Europe and the US. He lays out what we know about who and why people believe Conspiracies.
Most of this book is the opposite of shocking as he lays out very rational reasons why people who feel threatened and mislead would form their own answers that seem to clarify a frighting and confusing world.
The big shocker? This is NOT the most Conspiratorially active time in the last few hundred years. Our grandparents were apparently worse. We just spread them faster, but don't keep them as long.
One teeny tiny gripe is that I love and collect big words and this guy cuts them out for clarity sake. He's describing the human tendency to see patterns in randomness and I know this one: it's Apophenia. But the author calls it The Phantom Pattern Problem. Dude! That's way more clear but... man come on! there's already a Latin sounding word for it! This is no fun.
February 19, 2022
A small book, but it probably doesn't need to be any longer. (To make sure there is no misunderstanding there is a quite a lot of repetition.) It says little about individual conspiracies, but it is interesting at identfying what sort of people are most prone to believing in conspiracy theories and why. One of the most useful points it makes is that there would appear to be no more, or less, conspiracy theories than at any other time in recorded history. The conclusion is that people tend to embrace them when they feel (for a wide variety of reasons) disenfranchised, uncertain and afraid.
February 15, 2023
Interesting scientific read about conspiracy theories, I always wondered why people tend to easily believe in conspiracy theories. I thin this book provides very good insights and answers for this particular question.
December 14, 2021
عرض للكتاب باللغة العربية
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0KsX...
Listen to الحلقة السادسة: كتاب سيكولوجية نظرية المؤامرة by Taha Sewedy on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/2TqJX
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0KsX...
Listen to الحلقة السادسة: كتاب سيكولوجية نظرية المؤامرة by Taha Sewedy on #SoundCloud
https://soundcloud.app.goo.gl/2TqJX
December 14, 2020
Bit of an insight into what makes an otherwise reasonable person don a tin foil hat. (Possibly because their reptilian overlord forced them at laser point).
December 13, 2020
I enjoyed reading this book, it gives a good introduction to why people believes in conspiracy theories.
May 18, 2021
A really excellent little book about how conspiracy theories grow out of social interaction and are not an individual pathology. The author points out how CT's have always been with us and are a response to uncertain times and the perceived attack on a social in-group (nationality, race). He shows, with research, how black Americans hold many conspiratorial beliefs which they adopt to explain the bad hand they have been dealt in life that is more to do with deeper issues of poverty and structural racism than sinister government plots (even accounting for Tuskegee).
Also how people perceive patterns as a short cut to comprehending the world which is an evolutionary psychological adaptation, with CT it has gone awry. EG“Sometime events truly are random but people look for patterns anyway. This is referred to as illusory pattern perception." People perceive patterns whenever dealing with chance or uncertain outcomes.” Eg gambling
Even pigeons perceive patterns and repeat behaviour they were doing before previously receiving a treat because they make a connection.
It's been commented on that creative people have a strong tendency to CT's because they see patterns in things. It's my own view that the artistic self employed life also leads to isolation an an iconoclastic mndset that reinforces sometimes cranky views.
“Theory of mind” - a persons consciousness of their actions on others eg keeping music volume low correlates to understanding of social cues. CT's misperceive cues and cannot put it in a proper context.
This allows people to determine whether things are done on purpose or accidentally. I'm often shocked at how little many people understand about how the world actually works, even non CT's. Unless you have basic grasp of history, evolution, trade, economics, the scientific method, and even geography the world must be very confusing.
CT's assume a lot of agency to things that are in fact random. This is a strong human instinct which is why the profoundly random lack of agency involved in evolutionary natural selection is so disturbing to us, we are always in a search for meaning.
CT's have always been around and have been merely supercharged by the internet. THere are many excellent pithy quotes from this book, here are a sampling:
"Even beliefs in mutually exclusive conspiracy theories are positively correlated. One study has found that people who believe Princess Diana staged her own death are also likely to believe that Princess Diana was murdered”. Ha ha, you can't reason with a C Theorist.
Also how people perceive patterns as a short cut to comprehending the world which is an evolutionary psychological adaptation, with CT it has gone awry. EG“Sometime events truly are random but people look for patterns anyway. This is referred to as illusory pattern perception." People perceive patterns whenever dealing with chance or uncertain outcomes.” Eg gambling
Even pigeons perceive patterns and repeat behaviour they were doing before previously receiving a treat because they make a connection.
It's been commented on that creative people have a strong tendency to CT's because they see patterns in things. It's my own view that the artistic self employed life also leads to isolation an an iconoclastic mndset that reinforces sometimes cranky views.
“Theory of mind” - a persons consciousness of their actions on others eg keeping music volume low correlates to understanding of social cues. CT's misperceive cues and cannot put it in a proper context.
This allows people to determine whether things are done on purpose or accidentally. I'm often shocked at how little many people understand about how the world actually works, even non CT's. Unless you have basic grasp of history, evolution, trade, economics, the scientific method, and even geography the world must be very confusing.
CT's assume a lot of agency to things that are in fact random. This is a strong human instinct which is why the profoundly random lack of agency involved in evolutionary natural selection is so disturbing to us, we are always in a search for meaning.
CT's have always been around and have been merely supercharged by the internet. THere are many excellent pithy quotes from this book, here are a sampling:
"Even beliefs in mutually exclusive conspiracy theories are positively correlated. One study has found that people who believe Princess Diana staged her own death are also likely to believe that Princess Diana was murdered”. Ha ha, you can't reason with a C Theorist.
September 18, 2020
Not sure what I was expecting, but this one was underwhelming.
The author writes clearly and concisely. He substantiates his claims with research and studies. But the psychological processes that he describes and that he asserts contribute to the likelihood someone might believe in conspiracy theories are predictable. According to Van Prooijen, conspiracy theories are the result of natural psychological processes. He mentions patternicity (our brain's ability to notice patterns) and agenticity (a tendency to imbue these patterns with agency or intent). That's interesting.
But he also offers up less interesting explanations like: fear and uncertainty increase the likelihood of belief in conspiracy theories (the theories offer simplistic, if somewhat fanciful/imaginative, explanations. Cohesion and meaning in an otherwise random, meaningless universe); or people tend to be more susceptible to theories when they feel threatened by out-groups (the "us" versus "them" idea); or the painfully obvious observation that the more ideologically extreme someone is (in either direction, left or right) the more likely they'll believe wacko theories. Can that last one truly be classified as a psychological explanation? Seems more like a correlation between types of belief. Like what psychological processes push someone to either ideological extreme? Again, maybe my expectations were skewed going into this book.
Despite all this, I kept reading until the end, which proved to be the most disappointing part. After diagnosing for 85 pages, the author then gives his suggestion on how to reduce conspiracy theories. His solution: emphasize rational arguments (since many conspiracy theories are irrational, he says) and ensure better, inclusive leadership (participative leadership). Involve individual citizens in the decision-making process. This will reduce alienation and cynicism. See? Underwhelming ... I wonder if he’s tried using logic and reason to convince someone that their deeply held (superstitious) beliefs are, indeed, nonsense?
Maybe I'm just in an unforgiving mood. Truth be told, reading this book wasn't a total waste of time. I learned a few things, like the proportionality bias. Even if it had been a total waste of time, at least it's a short book.
The author writes clearly and concisely. He substantiates his claims with research and studies. But the psychological processes that he describes and that he asserts contribute to the likelihood someone might believe in conspiracy theories are predictable. According to Van Prooijen, conspiracy theories are the result of natural psychological processes. He mentions patternicity (our brain's ability to notice patterns) and agenticity (a tendency to imbue these patterns with agency or intent). That's interesting.
But he also offers up less interesting explanations like: fear and uncertainty increase the likelihood of belief in conspiracy theories (the theories offer simplistic, if somewhat fanciful/imaginative, explanations. Cohesion and meaning in an otherwise random, meaningless universe); or people tend to be more susceptible to theories when they feel threatened by out-groups (the "us" versus "them" idea); or the painfully obvious observation that the more ideologically extreme someone is (in either direction, left or right) the more likely they'll believe wacko theories. Can that last one truly be classified as a psychological explanation? Seems more like a correlation between types of belief. Like what psychological processes push someone to either ideological extreme? Again, maybe my expectations were skewed going into this book.
Despite all this, I kept reading until the end, which proved to be the most disappointing part. After diagnosing for 85 pages, the author then gives his suggestion on how to reduce conspiracy theories. His solution: emphasize rational arguments (since many conspiracy theories are irrational, he says) and ensure better, inclusive leadership (participative leadership). Involve individual citizens in the decision-making process. This will reduce alienation and cynicism. See? Underwhelming ... I wonder if he’s tried using logic and reason to convince someone that their deeply held (superstitious) beliefs are, indeed, nonsense?
Maybe I'm just in an unforgiving mood. Truth be told, reading this book wasn't a total waste of time. I learned a few things, like the proportionality bias. Even if it had been a total waste of time, at least it's a short book.
July 5, 2025
This is quite a short book - it's an accessible and informative overview of the psychology of conspiracy theories.
It was a bit repetitive - often it seemed like the same point was being made two or three times, in slightly differently worded ways, which got a bit tedious. There were some parts that I wasn't completely convinced by.
The author did acknowledge in places that certain studies he referenced might have some flaws, and/or that it might be difficult to collect data or perform testing on certain demographics (due to distrust, or belonging to high control groups). He also acknowledges that some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, and some are feasible even if they're false (rather than all being the stereotypical tin hat/flat earth kind).
For the most part, I thought it was a really interesting read (and a good way to get an overview before perhaps delving into more detailed texts, or texts with a narrower focus). There was understandably a lot of overlap with the tactics of and psychology behind indoctrination and cults, and, of course, that cohesion made a lot of sense!
It's also stressed that the processes behind believing in conspiracy theories are natural processes that all humans experience to some degree, which is why conspiracy theories are so common and widespread. I appreciated this, because I think part of what makes people so vulnerable to indoctrination and being unduly influenced is the belief that conspiracy theories and cults are obvious, absurd, and only foolish people believe in/are taken in by them. However, very intelligent, educated people can be indoctrinated or radicalised (cults want high value members - intelligent, educated, skilled members who can be useful, and who lend credibility to the organisation/cause), and can become a convincing mouthpiece for conspiracy theories, and it's important that this is recognised. No one is immune, and it's only through understanding that and being much more mindful and being prepared to question things (even if we have an automatic urge to believe something, or because we feel aligned with the source of the information) that we can protect ourselves from harmful influence.
It was a bit repetitive - often it seemed like the same point was being made two or three times, in slightly differently worded ways, which got a bit tedious. There were some parts that I wasn't completely convinced by.
The author did acknowledge in places that certain studies he referenced might have some flaws, and/or that it might be difficult to collect data or perform testing on certain demographics (due to distrust, or belonging to high control groups). He also acknowledges that some conspiracy theories turn out to be true, and some are feasible even if they're false (rather than all being the stereotypical tin hat/flat earth kind).
For the most part, I thought it was a really interesting read (and a good way to get an overview before perhaps delving into more detailed texts, or texts with a narrower focus). There was understandably a lot of overlap with the tactics of and psychology behind indoctrination and cults, and, of course, that cohesion made a lot of sense!
It's also stressed that the processes behind believing in conspiracy theories are natural processes that all humans experience to some degree, which is why conspiracy theories are so common and widespread. I appreciated this, because I think part of what makes people so vulnerable to indoctrination and being unduly influenced is the belief that conspiracy theories and cults are obvious, absurd, and only foolish people believe in/are taken in by them. However, very intelligent, educated people can be indoctrinated or radicalised (cults want high value members - intelligent, educated, skilled members who can be useful, and who lend credibility to the organisation/cause), and can become a convincing mouthpiece for conspiracy theories, and it's important that this is recognised. No one is immune, and it's only through understanding that and being much more mindful and being prepared to question things (even if we have an automatic urge to believe something, or because we feel aligned with the source of the information) that we can protect ourselves from harmful influence.
March 22, 2021
Living in the age of social media, in which we are bombarded with information - both accurate and ludicrous - every moment of every day it sometimes feels like conspiracy theories are way more popular than that have been, say, 20 years ago. Thus, when I came across this book, it instantly grabbed my interest as I figured it would offer an explanation as to why this is the case.
In this respect, this short little book certainly met my expectations. It offers a number of meaningful insights and debunks some common notions about conspiracy theories and the people believing in them (including the impression that their popularity has grown). All of this is done in a very scientific way, referring to studies and thus substantiating the points made. Granted, many of the explanations offered seem obvious, but for me, personally, seeing such intuitive answers reflected by actual data was a novelty.
Unfortunately, despite the interesting content offered, reading this book was a bit tedious. This is largely due to the fact that it often feels awfully repetitive, which is remarkable as this book is under 100 pages long. Honestly, I think it would suffice to just read the concluding chapter as it neatly wraps up all the content of the previous ones. Beside the same points being made over and over again, what was really striking is that the difference between correlation and causality is explained pretty much every time correlation is mentioned. Of course, I understand how crucial it is to point this out. Nevertheless, I think one time would have been enough. This is especially true given the fact that the audience of this book probably is familiar with these concepts.
Beside its shortcomings, I would recommend this to anyone wanting to learn more about the psychology of conspiracy theories. However, it is important not to expect too much from it. After all it is relatively short and the new information offered is limited.
In this respect, this short little book certainly met my expectations. It offers a number of meaningful insights and debunks some common notions about conspiracy theories and the people believing in them (including the impression that their popularity has grown). All of this is done in a very scientific way, referring to studies and thus substantiating the points made. Granted, many of the explanations offered seem obvious, but for me, personally, seeing such intuitive answers reflected by actual data was a novelty.
Unfortunately, despite the interesting content offered, reading this book was a bit tedious. This is largely due to the fact that it often feels awfully repetitive, which is remarkable as this book is under 100 pages long. Honestly, I think it would suffice to just read the concluding chapter as it neatly wraps up all the content of the previous ones. Beside the same points being made over and over again, what was really striking is that the difference between correlation and causality is explained pretty much every time correlation is mentioned. Of course, I understand how crucial it is to point this out. Nevertheless, I think one time would have been enough. This is especially true given the fact that the audience of this book probably is familiar with these concepts.
Beside its shortcomings, I would recommend this to anyone wanting to learn more about the psychology of conspiracy theories. However, it is important not to expect too much from it. After all it is relatively short and the new information offered is limited.
May 25, 2024
Pattern perception and agency detection can be adaptive psychological skills. However, when they are illusory and irrational, they become maladaptive. Risk aversion is likewise an adaptive behaviour in the context of uncertainty and threats. But when unjustified they are akin to paranoia. Fear encourages intuitive thinking and downplays analytical reasoning. These are all recipe for predisposition to conspiracy theory. Proportionality bias is another ingredient. The proneness of humans to cheat and to be corrupted does not help either as it can justify such ideations. Some conspiracy theories turned out to be true. Witness Watergate and the Iran-Contra Affairs. Most are however fantastical. Conspiracy theories need contents and targets. This is where ingroup identification comes into play. Strong identification with an ingroup increases the incidence of conspiratorial ideation. The targets are perceived powerful outgroups who are felt to have victimised and alienated the ingroup the conspiracy theorist has identified with. It is easy to see why extreme ideology facilitates this. This small and short book effectively uses evidence and studies to demonstrate and prove the above. Evidence is also provided to show the prevalence of people harbouring conspiracy theory is high and is stable with time. Technology such as social media does not lead to any rise of its occurrence but merely speeds up its propagation. The remedy is empowerment of the populace through participative leadership and procedural justice. Informative and to the point - five stars.
March 16, 2022
Just read the last chapter. It's straight forward, to the point, get-what-you-need-and-go, information. The rest, didn't have any additional substance and, I thought, targetting against anyone that could entertain conspiracy theories. Science is meant to be agnostic to the unprovable (even when it's ridiculous) but I found myself wondering, "why does the author just assume that everyone thinks that the specific conspiracy theory is not at all rational? I personally don't have the information and don't see this as an implausible hypothesis and without supplying any information one way or another, how can the author assume that everyone will share their conclusions?" In the last chapter the information is delivered and the example conspiracy theory is even given a proof of how the science would work. Bravo. This book should have been a paper. Only the summary (last) chapter is worth reading and, by-the-way it is worthwhile.
June 22, 2023
This book discovers a lot of the traits people who believe conspiracies have in common, and addresses them in a respectful way without making fun of people. I personally love that the author talks about what these people have in common, and that it’s not stupid people who fall prey to these ideologies. We often hear people calling conspiracists “idiots” or “stupid” which is not the case. The author explains it in a beautiful manor that even the smartest of the smartest fall prey to this conspiracies by their convincing nature, and how biases plays a major role in how we evaluate information we get served.
As a person standing close to people that have been convinced by conspiracies, it was very comforting to read this book to see that I’m not alone, and that there is a lot of common traits you can see in people believing in conspiracies. I felt lost trying to explain my side of things with these people, but now I have some answers that give me comfort. Really recommend this book!!
As a person standing close to people that have been convinced by conspiracies, it was very comforting to read this book to see that I’m not alone, and that there is a lot of common traits you can see in people believing in conspiracies. I felt lost trying to explain my side of things with these people, but now I have some answers that give me comfort. Really recommend this book!!
May 8, 2025
سيكولوجية نظرية المؤامرة من الكتب اللي تدخل فيها وكأنك بتكتشف “الآخرين”، لكن تكتشف بعد شوي إنك تقرأ عن نفسك أيضًا – عن لحظات الشك، والرغبة في الفهم، والحاجة للسيطرة على عالم يبدو فوضوي.
الكتاب ممتع من حيث الفكرة، ويطرح أسئلة جوهرية: ليش نصدق نظريات المؤامرة؟ هل الناس أغبياء فعلًا؟ ولا هل في حاجة نفسية أعمق؟ وهنا يبدأ الكاتب يسرد، بالدليل والتحليل، كيف أن هذه النظريات تخاطب مشاعر العجز، الهوية، والانتماء، أكثر من كونها مجرد “أفكار خطأ”.
أعجبتني صراحة الكاتب وتوازنه - ما سخر من الناس، وما مدحهم، لكنه كان يشرح الظاهرة وكأنها مرآة لشيء أكبر. لكن بصراحة؟ تمنيت فيه تنوع أكثر في الأمثلة أو حتى جرأة أكبر في بعض الفصول، خاصة أن الموضوع مليء بالحالات المثيرة اللي ما تم التوسع فيها كفاية.
ما أقدر أقول إنه كتاب غير حياتي، لكنه وسّع نظرتي: صار عندي فهم أعمق ليه البعض يتمسك بالأفكار الغريبة بشراسة، حتى لو كانت ضد المنطق.
الكتاب ممتع من حيث الفكرة، ويطرح أسئلة جوهرية: ليش نصدق نظريات المؤامرة؟ هل الناس أغبياء فعلًا؟ ولا هل في حاجة نفسية أعمق؟ وهنا يبدأ الكاتب يسرد، بالدليل والتحليل، كيف أن هذه النظريات تخاطب مشاعر العجز، الهوية، والانتماء، أكثر من كونها مجرد “أفكار خطأ”.
أعجبتني صراحة الكاتب وتوازنه - ما سخر من الناس، وما مدحهم، لكنه كان يشرح الظاهرة وكأنها مرآة لشيء أكبر. لكن بصراحة؟ تمنيت فيه تنوع أكثر في الأمثلة أو حتى جرأة أكبر في بعض الفصول، خاصة أن الموضوع مليء بالحالات المثيرة اللي ما تم التوسع فيها كفاية.
ما أقدر أقول إنه كتاب غير حياتي، لكنه وسّع نظرتي: صار عندي فهم أعمق ليه البعض يتمسك بالأفكار الغريبة بشراسة، حتى لو كانت ضد المنطق.
August 10, 2018
Conspiracy theories play a major roll in shaping public opinion these days so a book on how they form and the thinking that produces them is most welcome. The language is a little dull in places but the surprising insights that come out of this book make it well worth the effort. Comprehensively backed up with sources and citations this book will provide any skeptic with useful ammunition and tactics for the next time you run into a conspiracy theorist.
May 31, 2023
دراسة بتشرح ايه هي الأسباب اللي بتخلي الناس تصدق بنظريات المؤامرة اكتر من غيرها وازاي نمط التفكير والحياة مؤثر في حاجة زي كدة.
كنوع من الاختصار المخل جزء كبير من الاسباب كان نفسي واجتماعي اكتر منه عقلي، الاحساس بفقدان الأهمية او السيطرة على حياتك او ان ملكش دور بينمي عند الانسان ميل اكبر لتصديق ان في مؤامرة خلت حياته كدة كنوع من ترييح الضمير.
على الطرف الاخر جنون العظمة او توهم الافضلية برضو بيخلي الناس تصدق بالنظريات من نوع بيفشلونا ومش عاوزيننا ننجح عشان احسن منهم.
كنوع من الاختصار المخل جزء كبير من الاسباب كان نفسي واجتماعي اكتر منه عقلي، الاحساس بفقدان الأهمية او السيطرة على حياتك او ان ملكش دور بينمي عند الانسان ميل اكبر لتصديق ان في مؤامرة خلت حياته كدة كنوع من ترييح الضمير.
على الطرف الاخر جنون العظمة او توهم الافضلية برضو بيخلي الناس تصدق بالنظريات من نوع بيفشلونا ومش عاوزيننا ننجح عشان احسن منهم.
November 4, 2025
watched bugonia and this was the logical next read
I had a hard time with the section on illusory pattern perception and how it firmly states things that happen are always coincidence. i don’t think i can let go of “the universe is sending me a message” and maybe that makes me more susceptible to conspiracy theories who knows.
psudo science is so interesting to read about until I realise just how much it actually covers and i have to look inward lol
I had a hard time with the section on illusory pattern perception and how it firmly states things that happen are always coincidence. i don’t think i can let go of “the universe is sending me a message” and maybe that makes me more susceptible to conspiracy theories who knows.
psudo science is so interesting to read about until I realise just how much it actually covers and i have to look inward lol
April 21, 2021
Useful, informative, and helpful
This book is relatively short and packed with grounded insight. Useful for understanding an array of paranoid thinking while also approaching with compassion and understanding.
This book is relatively short and packed with grounded insight. Useful for understanding an array of paranoid thinking while also approaching with compassion and understanding.
June 23, 2021
A good little insight into the world of conspiracy theories that was required reading for my class but I still enjoyed it anyway
June 24, 2021
Peng Ting
February 18, 2022
I came across conspiracy theories every now and then, and found many of them unreasonable and preposterous. Very often, I would just laugh at them and then wipe them off from my mind. This book is intriguing as it got me to think seriously about the reasons behind the emergence and prevalence of conspiracy theories. My only suggestion is that it could be less repetitive.
August 2, 2022
Good 101, nothing special tho
October 15, 2022
يبين الأسباب النفسية خلف تبني الناس نظريات المؤامرة، تناول الموضوع بشكل سطحي. الترجمة جيدة لكن أعتقد أن الكتاب قد يكون أفضل بالنسخة الأصلية.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews