Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by api 4749 days ago
When institutions behave like this they're not just tarnishing their own image. They're destroying civilization.

Got into a debate around here a while back trying to explain why otherwise-rational people are afraid of GMO foods. This is an example of my point. Things like this erode trust not just in the particular institution in question but of all institutions in our society. At some point many people actually start to assume the worst and flip over into seeing official pronouncements as contrarian indicators: "oh, the paid shills say it's safe and it's produced by a big agribusiness corporation so it must be bad for you..."

Even worse still, we have junk like this:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=moon-landi...

I've seen a rash of these articles lately, deconstructing in elaborate detail why people distrust science and officialdom and believe in increasingly outlandish "conspiracy theories." They're all elaborate dances to avoid the obvious issue: trust.

It's almost a kind of blame-the-victim mentality: yes you have been lied to, but you should ignore that. If the fact that you've been treated contemptuously causes you to begin harboring suspicions, it's because you are irrational and stupid. Now shut up and believe what you're told.

No, it's not the victim's fault. It is the authorities' fault. Trust is earned through consistent transparency and honorable behavior. When the institutions of society behave dishonorably and unethically, trust is systematically weakened across the entire society.

Once a person learns that their authorities may well be shills, liars, quacks, fools, or worse, then it becomes increasingly easy to harbor increasingly-damning suspicions about what else "they" might be lying about. Hence 9/11 was an inside job, moon hoax, and other conspiracy theories.

Keep in mind that sometimes such suspicions are correct. The executive branch lied the US into war in Iraq, to give one example. With examples of that magnitude, I personally question whether belief in outlandish conspiracy theories is even particularly irrational.

And it's very, very dangerous. Trust is one of the key differences between the first world and the third world. Part of why places like sub-Saharan Africa can never develop is that nobody trusts anyone and nobody dares do anything. They "know" (and sometimes with good reason) that anything they do will simply be stolen by their kleptocracies, and that anything their authorities say is probably a lie. (Hence the prevalence of things like HIV/AIDS denialism in those cultures... another symptom of decayed trust.)

If our leaders, authorities, and institutions continue to treat the public with dismissive contempt, the third world is where we are headed. The prevalence of conspiracy theories and alt-health fearmongering is a leading indicator of an overall breakdown in the implicit trust relationships and social contract that underlies advanced Western societies.

5 comments

Looking over things like MKULTRA and the list of problematic experiments that have been committed in the name of science, it is easy to grasp why conspiracy theories form.
Yeah, at least we have IRBs today. The mid-20th century was an ugly time for that kind of thing: MKUltra, syphillis experiments, "here guys, look at the atomic blast, it's pretty!", and so on...
I don't care how little trust you have, it's stubborn and wrongheaded to believe in hideously impractical conspiracies. Just because 'they' don't tell you the truth doesn't give them magical powers.
I agree, and that's why I don't believe in them.

But consider this:

The reason I don't think 9/11 was an inside job isn't that I don't think there are people in Washington or in -- say -- the defense industry who would do such a thing. There surely are. I don't think it was an inside job because I doubt there are enough of such people or that they are cooperative or competent enough to pull of something of that magnitude and audacity.

But yeah, I think there are people who'd do it. Consider how ugly a statement that is about our leaders.

We have a problem.

That makes very little sense.

There obviously were enough people who could pull off such an atrocity. (Unless you think it was all done with mirrors and holograms).

And, looking at other attacks which have come out as state sponsored (Glenanne gang), or other conspiracies (Iran–Contra) - there are obviously enough people within "the system" who demonstrably have pulled off such plots.

The only questions left are...

Was X an "inside job"? If so, how high up did it go?

(For the record, I don't have an opinion on 9/11 or any other attacks).

It's not the number of people needed to fly a plane; that's a couple people per plane. It's the enormous number of people that would have to be involved in the conspiracy timeline all maintaining perfect secrecy.
The next question then is how you construct the power and communication structures within an organization to make it trustworthy.
If you're interested, Machiavelli's "Discourses on Livy" is a good place to start.

He explores the institutions within different societies that allowed them to grow and develop trust. It's one the first book in history that I'm aware of that explored the idea of societal checks and balances, and how the non-enlightened self interest of a group of people can be healthy when its functions are tempered by the self interest of different groups with different agendas.

I think that idea is still fresh, and people don't play around with it enough.

> Now shut up and believe what you're told.

Nobody is saying this. What they're saying is "apply the same level of skepticism to your pet theories as you do to consensus reality", which is something conspiracy theorists seem incapable of doing.

Which often gets translated as "now shut up and believe what you're told" as soon as it gets past your target's ears.

Also, conspiracy theories do not just get counter points. They face sneers and coarse laugh, which are very effective at quickly convincing people who haven't make up their minds yet, though it does alienate conspiracy theorists themselves.

I recall having receiving coarse laughs when talking about cryonics. Many people first believe it's an obvious con job. Which is a rational reaction, by the way (it's expensive, unproven, and appeals to our not wanting to die). I just happen to know a bit more than they do (the nature of identity, the possible progress of science, the possibility for intelligence explosion, and possibly a few more wacky sounding beliefs).

Oh, but that's exactly what your regular "truther" thinks: you don't believe him because you lack the background, you poor ignorant fool! But then, how can we make the difference between the conspiracy theorist and the cryonics advocate?

---

By the way, I do think a relatively limited number of powerful people do influence the world in a way that is significant, against the will of most people, and not widely known. Take the monetary system for instance. Put it bluntly, private banks effectively print more money than the public states through tricks that allow them to lend more money than they have (at an interest, of course). Not exactly a conspiracy theory (it's hiding in plain sight, just look up Fractional Reserve Banking), but very close in my opinion.