Here are some corollary ideas:

By adopting systemic explanations that capture a repeated pattern, we are farther ahead in dealing with the next challenge of design, perception or interaction than if we have the correct but exceptional explanation in any particular case. Call this the “secular” assumption or “uniformity” assumption. Patterns that repeat in some form give us options for response.  Exceptional explanations take away our ability to react sanely.

It is easy to mistake familiar as equivalent to simple. This is true in some sense as there are mental and emotional costs in incorporating and using new tools, ideas and perspectives.  I don’t mean emotionally simply or personally simple (convenient). Simple means this explanation accounts for more facts and events with fewer assumptions, especially assumptions in-particular (i.e. super-natural forces).  This situation is analogous to algorithmic complexity or compression and coding.

Some failures to recognize a simpler-than-CT solution may be merely naive or narrow perception or laziness (failure to exploration a plurality of explanatory systems. See Kevin Kelly on Simplicity and Occam’s razor.)

CTs make us helpless by removing (i) learning from the past (ii) learning from the experiences of others (iii) removing confidence in our ability to apprehend a new situation without making the primary assumption that secret or esoteric knowledge will be needed to interpret and understand.

Pew research shows we don't beleive what we see.

The idea that most of us don’t believe in climate change stuns and amazes me.  (I assume this applies to “global climate change” as well, and that people are not making a subtle and sophisticated distinction between “global warming” and “global climate change.”) Somehow global climate change has become a “conspiracy theory” for which expressing skepticism in public is acceptable or even intelligent.

One of the ways this has happened is that there are two types of questions that seem to be confused in much of the public discourse.  The question of “What do we see?” is a different kind of question and has a different kind of truth than “What can we infer from it?” and “What ought our response to be?”  The uncertainties are different and the type of public policy discourse around one verses the other ought to be quite different.

But for us to say we don’t believe in global climate change is simple to deny what we see.  There are many sources showing one outcome-melting ice. Here is one interesting example:

But there are many other ways to see it as well. Try to find some for yourself–that would be a responsible thing to do as part of a democracy in which we collaborate on policy decisions.

Why do we think the idea of global warming is merely a conspiracy theory? What do the promoters of the conspiracy theory gain? What is their motivation? How have we been lulled into waiting for scientists to settle a debate that isn’t going on anymore among the scientists.  The only debate seems to be among people who aren’t looking around and asking basic questions like “if a lot ice is melting, what must be the case regarding temperature?” and yet refuse to listen to experts who are.

Good Will.  With good will, we give the benefit of the doubt to people’s statements and actions. "They had good intentions" we will say in explanation and forgiveness. We will overlook unintended consequences resulting from the actions of a good actor without changing our overall opinion.  In terms of CTs, We have good will toward Outside Actors (see Conspiracy Theory Requirements post), but a little more disdain for Ignorant Outsiders than for Helpless Outsiders.

Bad Will. Fundamental known: bad actors are bad.  They have better understanding, more complete foresight, and more consistent and rational behavior than good actors. Bad actors are consistent and comprehensive in their bad actions.  A seemingly good action is just part of a poorly understand plan for a bad outcome. Regarding CTs, we harbor bad will for suspected Inside Actors.

This is a simple and powerful for classifying people.  But it also kills opportunity. It is arrogant to assume you know the internal state of another free agent and that it is temporally consistent (while you are sure you can change for the better). The error of fundamentalism is that the first and last items in the chain

(actor’s internal state)–>Action–>Outcomes–>(new state of the world)

are morally equivalent without regard for Actions and Outcomes (i.e. the actual events in the chain!).  Bad Will is a fundamentalist assumption that removes any space for good actions from presumed Bad Actors.  And so it assures their perpetual status as Bad Actors.

We love conspiracy theories. Ideas about the perpetrators of 9/11, reasons for hiding aliens at Roswell, NM, or how a local politician came to power provoke heated explanations for adherents to each particular conspiracy theory (CT).

What are conspiracy theories? How are the grown? How do they evolve? What purposes do they serve? How do they trap us? How do they help us explain the World? Why are they so attractive?

Below are attributes of conspiracy theories that I distilled from recent conversations with coffee, beer and hiking buddies.  I am not convinced it is useful to distinguish whether a particular CT is true or not. I don’t know that actual conspirators have any of these attributes. Rather, below I am trying to describe what external adherents to a CT must project on the inside actors of the CT for it to maintain its vibrant, attractive CT status:

(1) Theme or Metaphor.  There is always a central, organizing idea.  Usually some awesome or horrific event gains a back story and not-so-obvious context.

(2) Inside (and Outside) Actors.  There is an inside group of Actors (the conspirators). The identity of the inside actors may not be known, but it is very important to the CT.  Outside actors are tools or pawns–ignorant players in someone else’s game. Inside actors are conscious of their actions and identity. A good CT splits the World into three neat groups:

    (a) Inside Actors
    (b) Ignorant Outsiders: They don’t know "what is really going on"
    (c) Helpless Outsiders: They know, but are powerless to stop the CT.  (This is the person telling you about the CT!)

(3) Secrecy. Information has to be held back by the inside actors. Transparency kills the need for a CT.  Secret information can be about the actors (it may be known that there are many actors, but their identities are be kept secret), the theme (you will hear the phrase "what is really going on") or the actors plans for future actions. I refer to these as identity, metaphor and plans.

(4) Nefarious Objectives.  We don’t have a good CT without the actors’ bad intentions. A benevolent and secret objective is an O’Henry story, not a CT.

(5) Steadfast Motivations.  This is closely related to (4) but important to call out separately because sustaining a CT sometimes requires the actors to have very powerful motivations that are not fleeting (e.g. anger and lust are out because they come and go much too quickly) but rather enduring (revenge, religious fundamentalism, spite).

(6) Discipline.  Again, this is related to (4) and (5). In most cases, the CT depends on the Actors keeping the secrets (identity, metaphor and plans), acting in alignment with the metaphor, and nurturing possible unusual motivations in the face of opposition, punishment and failure.  And they often have to carry all this knowledge to the grave for the sake of the survival of the actors and the metaphor.  This property of CT insiders is remarkable given normal people’s general lack of ability to keep the smallest secrets.

Are there any attributes missing?