Rescue from Conspiracy Theories

Part 3. Leading a person out of conspiracy thinking.

6 min readFeb 24, 2021

Challenging the way

Because we are not dealing with the conspiracy itself but rather an intricate self-protecting identity, helping your loved one find freedom becomes a delicate issue. I have heard many stories of evidence being explained away or ignored, reports of failed attempts to challenge the foundations of a belief, encountering hostility, and one that I have personally dealt with repeatedly, unabashed deflection. The truth is, we cannot disprove a conspiracy theory to a conspiracy theorist for two reasons.

First, a conspiracy theorist interprets every point we make as a personal attack. They see counterpoints as an attack. This occurs because the propensity for belief in conspiracies is in and of itself an addiction.(1) Threatening to separate an addict from his drug is inevitably seen as hostility.(2) For this reason, it is imperative never to appear to be opposed to a person’s belief itself. I am not suggesting that a person has to pretend to accept the premise. It’s often better to avoid outright opposition to it. Phrases such as “That’s so interesting,” “That is compelling,” or “That makes me think” imply that a person is an ally. The point here is to leave the door open for further discussion.

Second, a conspiracy theory itself can’t be disproven. “Conspiracy theories are essentially irrefutable: logical contradictions, evidence showing the opposite, even the complete absence of proof have no bearing on the conspiratorial explanation because they can always be accounted for in terms of the conspiracy.”(3) In other words, the theory itself will change to account for any contradictory evidence. Evidence, proof, and scientific facts are utterly useless tactics against a well-formed conspiracy. When caught up in the web of conspiracy theories, we suspend our reliance on truth. Research has shown, “the stronger a person believes in a conspiracy, the less likely they are to trust scientific facts.”(4)

All is not lost. Conspiracies may be impenetrable fortresses of illusion, but the one that believes in them is not. In other words, when challenging how a person processes information and not the information itself, cracks will emerge. Ultimately, a thought process led a person to accept an illogical conclusion. This thought process is our way in. It is incumbent on those who care to ask simple, non-intrusive questions to encourage interlocutors to strive to be better thinkers. We make no mention of the case’s facts, just the journey they took to arrive at their conclusions. This method relies on epistemology, and it is intensely compelling.(5)

Three questions that break the cycle

These three questions that you can ask a conspiracy theorist could eventually break the cycle of accepting illogical information. I have seen the method work in my own life, especially in the months spent researching this very article. It’s based on the Socratic Method but differs in that it focuses on how we come to know what we know, rather than exposing root presumptions. The goal here is that the person you are questioning will begin to unravel their ways of thinking independently.

A couple of notes before we dive into the questions:

It’s important to note that you will not win an argument with these questions. If an argument develops, you have already failed.
The goal is that the conspiracy theorist comes to conclusions on their own. This autonomy means that the process is slow. Accept that and be ready for disappointment.
You have to care. If you don’t care about the other person, this is simply manipulation rather than positive influence.

Keep these points in mind, and proceed with love.

Question 1: What exactly do you believe?

The fact that many conspiracy theories exist in the abstract means that there is a good chance that the person you are trying to help doesn’t have an answer to this question. Exhorting a person to express their beliefs in concrete words will often be a difficult challenge. One of two things will happen here; they will abandon the conversation altogether or state what they believe. Either way, this is good. As you embark on this endeavor, you will grow used to others abandoning their position or deflecting not to answer the question. If the latter happens, lovingly bring the question back up. Say something like, “That’s interesting, and I’d love to hear more about that later, but first, what exactly do you believe?” When the person verbalizes their belief, you are ready to move on to the next question.

Question 2: What evidence led you to believe this?

By first stating their beliefs, the person in question will be reticent to change the view to benefit its existence. Changing a belief mid-conversation is called “Moving the Goalpost” and is a typical self-protection tactic. If this happens, ask, “I thought you said you believed ____________. Has that changed?” If it has, go back to question one.

In rare cases, the person will have evidence. Evidence is good; it allows you to move to the final question. If they do not have evidence or want you to watch a YouTube video, or tell you to do your own research, don’t back off. Promise to do so, but in a kind tone, ask them again, “What evidence (in this video) led you to believe what you believe?” Have compassion here; we are challenging a person’s very identity built on a foundation of despair. We hold onto our identity tightly.

When evidence exists, give it respect. Look at it with rapt attention, and promise to think about it. As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” If you don’t have time at the moment, promise to look at it later and follow through. Never give your opinion on the evidence, as this is only an invitation to distraction. “That is very interesting, but I am not yet completely convinced” is often enough.

“Model the epistemic attitudes that you want to see everywhere. In particular, be genuinely open to revising your own beliefs. You cannot fairly expect the interlocutor to be willing to revise their beliefs if you are not willing to do the same.”(5)

Question 3: What evidence would convince you that this isn’t true?

This is the big question. Once asked, you have indirectly challenged a deeply held conviction. Beware that the response might not be friendly, and proceed with caution. The reason that this question has so much power is that it contains in it the very framework for logical thought and the fallacy of illogically held belief. If what one believes is true, it must have falsifiability.(6)

As an example; If I tell you that gravity exists, the falsifiability exists in that dropping a ball will lead to it floating into the atmosphere rather than falling. Conspiracy theories do not have falsifiability, and the conspiracy theorist will suddenly realize this but will probably not let on. I rarely have been given a satisfactory answer to this question, nor do I expect one; that is the point. The conversation is basically over. Extend grace as you end the discussion by promising to think about what is important to them.

Conclusion

This method isn’t meant to be argumentative and will usually feel like losing rather than winning. By the time you have walked through these questions repeatedly, challenging the thought processes that led to the acceptance of many core beliefs several times, the conspiracy theorist will more than likely have already begun to question things themselves. Recovery is a delicate time as they need to see that life after confusion is safe and accepting. Never gloat. Don’t bring up sensitive topics. Always be ready to ask the questions again.

Hopefully, a change is occurring . A change to the persons active considerations of cause and effect, a skill which take time to develop or relearn. In the meantime, make sure to protect yourself from emotional harm. Sometimes it’s not you that needs to walk this road with a conspiracy theorist, especially if the pain is unmanageable for you to do so. If you decide to take this journey, be patient, and know that you will most likely never get credit for your role if done right.

A final note, and one that is very important, the key to this method is ending the conversation. Leaving the discussion for further thought allows for a person’s views to be reconsidered. The temptation will always be to keep the conversation going, but this will only lead to becoming buried in the weeds of minor points. We aren’t challenging the validity of the theories themselves. Doing so will strengthen a conspiracy theorist’s position. Challenge the way a person comes to conclusions, then walk away.

— — — — — — — — — — — — —

Sources