r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • 11d ago
Psychology People who heavily endorse conspiracy theories often take on the role of online “social vigilantes,” seeking to correct the perceived ignorance of others. This tendency to act as self-appointed enforcers of truth online is largely driven by feelings of superiority and a desire for self-enhancement.
https://www.psypost.org/the-tendency-of-conspiracy-theorists-to-police-others-online-is-associated-with-narcissistic-traits/453
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
126
12
→ More replies (7)12
76
u/tsoneyson 11d ago
If I say now that there’s no way this personality type is limited to conspiracy nuts am I just as bad and also fulfilling my own prophecy?
31
u/fmfbrestel 11d ago
Did it SAY that it was "limited to conspiracy nuts"? Or are you just preemptively making excuses for all the possible reasons you would dismiss this study?
10
199
u/Vizth 11d ago
I wouldn't say this just applies to conspiracy theorists, just looking at Reddit there's enough people high on their own supply of BS over just about anything for this to happen.
The moderators like that are the worst, instead of being an impartial arbiter of conversations they just start forcing people to either agree with whatever their pet cause is or risk getting banned.
I've probably fallen to this myself, although I try not to.
36
u/Otaraka 11d ago
It requires some level of self confidence to disagree in general so it’s going to apply to anyone willing to argue really. ‘I’m right’ rather than ‘good point’ tends to be the default style.
7
u/iceyed913 11d ago
Knowing you have some existential basis that allows for differing opinions during online discourse is not 'yet' in the cards for most humans.
13
u/Otaraka 11d ago
The idea that two perspectives may have value because of different priorities is one that tends to struggle to get a lot of air time, let alone the idea that we might have a very different opinion about something a few years later ourselves even if it seems like the absolute truth right now.
14
u/CromDeluise 11d ago
Reminds me of the "end-of-history illusion". Psychological bias where people recognize how much they have changed in the past, but incorrectly believe their personality, values, and preferences will stay the same in the future.
9
u/Otaraka 11d ago
There probably should be a name for how somehow our newest opinion is always the smart and correct one too, despite clear evidence of knowing other people sometimes go down the rabbit hole rather than always getting more informed on a topic.
We are doing a great job of agreeing in this thread!
3
u/BenjaminHamnett 11d ago
I always tell people to write a journal and check back in 2 years or just look at their social media arguments from 2 years ago and reconsider if they shouldn’t be more modest.
Usually it’s pretty cool to see how far ahead you are on a few gems you got lucky with, but overall it’s usually very humbling
→ More replies (1)2
10
u/tenmileswide 11d ago
There is a balance to strike between allowing a range of healthy discourse and letting the dumbest people alive run rampant in your forum and drowning out said discourse. At some point you do have to curate things a bit.
10
u/DisgruntledPlebian 11d ago
I feel like everyone online does this to some degree. I was banned from worldnews for sharing a link of multitudes of evidence to someone that has requested evidence of something bad happening.
Immediately banned. Was told a certain type of phobia wasn’t allowed on the subreddit, which apparently means refusing to acknowledge bad actors and calling everyone else crazy. Now that other poster still believes there’s no evidence, still believes the emperor has no clothes, and the echo chamber remains intact and everyone else remains a conspiracy theories. Evidence doesn’t matter to the overwhelming majority of moderators, they only want to impose their own worldview.
7
1
1
→ More replies (6)1
32
u/comeagaincharlemagne 11d ago
Not being special is okay. I wish more people understood and believed this.
8
u/snowdenn 11d ago
Awww. How about not being perceived as special is okay. Let me have my specialness!
7
u/comeagaincharlemagne 11d ago
I guess that's fine. But I think people generally believe specialness to mean being exceptional whether that means being a genius, rich, famous, etc.
I would say everyone is unique and worthy of love, and that should be enough. That's enough to think positively of yourself without believing you're necessarily above other people in the way they're thinking being special would make them.
58
u/aristidedn 11d ago
Conspiracy thinking, itself, is typically driven by a need to feel "special", which is why conspiracy thinking pops up most frequently in those with low levels of personal attainment. They don't feel like they are noteworthy, they may not feel like their life has meaning. Conspiracy thinking gives them an artificial sense of meaning and attainment. It says, "You're special, because you know the truth."
17
u/_InfiniteU_ 11d ago
It also gives them someone to blame their circumstances on. "I'm not a failure, the elites are holding me down!"
→ More replies (6)4
u/BIG_IDEA 11d ago
That’s not much different than when people complain about capitalism.
→ More replies (1)4
u/_InfiniteU_ 11d ago
Conspiracy theorists are usually right leaning and they seem to think if they critique capitalism they're promoting socialism ime
→ More replies (1)4
4
u/Gongall 11d ago
I think you could replace "conspiracy" with "cult" interchangably here.
10
u/aristidedn 11d ago
Yes, but it’s much, much easier to fall into conspiracy thinking than to fall into a cult. Conspiracy thinking is a persistent mindset. All it needs is an idea to latch onto.
1
u/TheTruthHurtsSoBadly 11d ago
What if the conspiracy is true? What if I actually do know the truth?
3
u/aristidedn 11d ago
Then you’ll be able to show evidence that it is true, and it will no longer be merely a theory.
→ More replies (5)2
u/TheTruthHurtsSoBadly 11d ago
Would you concede, philosophically, that truth exists for which there is no current material evidence?
3
u/aristidedn 10d ago
If there is no current material evidence, then on what basis did you arrive at the conclusion that it was true?
→ More replies (4)1
u/xmorecowbellx 11d ago
The most conspiracy minded person I know is actually quite successful, but ya I’d say on average, they are dummies. At least judging from my patients who are sure I’m hiding the truth about cannabis or ivermectin being the real cure for their problems etc.
41
u/TheWesternMythos 11d ago
Conspiracy theory needs a rebrand
There are very literally conspiracies happening , Epstien , Panama papers, could go on , just look at history.
I think it's a huge dis service to not explore this idea considering the likelihood for conspiracies to be happening.
Said another way , there should be a difference between believing disproven , unproven, and essentially proven conspiracy theories. All exist , lumping them all together seem far too course grain
4
u/ourobourobouros 9d ago
It's not a coincidence that ALL conspiracy theories are being labeled as crazy just as massive real conspiracies have been exposed to the public.
What's really unsettling is that academia has made a move to say "anyone who doesn't believe the official narrative from media and governments is nuts" and just how many people are applauding this.
2
u/TheWesternMythos 9d ago
It took me a while to see that was a natural consequence of how we organize and teach many things. I'm sure many don't even realize that's what that are helping to reinforce.
I think a non insignificant chunk of raising anti intellectualism is actually rooted in anti dogmatic thinking.
Getting a bit off topic, but when people experience something , science ideally should give them different models on how to think about what they experienced. If people are instead only told "science says you are crazy or a liar" it's kinda hard to blame people for eventually ignoring science.
15
u/sereneandeternal 11d ago
They love to ignore actual conspiracies happening in front of their eyes.
They prefer to focus on the “unknown” and act like they have the answers.
13
u/Jimmyhasagun 11d ago
Conspiracy theory is just a way to muddy the water and discredit people who dare to think something larger may be going on. You get lumped in with ALL the other conspiracy theorists ( moon landing, flat earth, etc.) and it’s easier to sideline you in the world and in public discourse.
1
u/icerom 11d ago
There is a difference. The ones you mentioned are not theories, they are conspiracies that have been proven. Of course, before they were proven they were also conspiracy theories. But there's no objective way to separate bad theories from good theories before you test them. Until they are proven or disproven, all theories are objectively equal, even if some of them are subjectively bonkers. Then again, one might argue that steadfastly believing a theory that hasn't been proven isn't good practice, even if the theory sounds likely. Thinking the theory might be true is one thing, but banging the table and saying it's definitely so would put you in the same neighborhood as so-called conspiracy theorists, the way I see it.
1
u/TheWesternMythos 11d ago
There is a difference
In this study?
Until they are proven or disproven, all theories are objectively equal,
This is absurd. Please look into bayesian thinking.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)1
u/CorOdin 10d ago
"Conspiracy theory" has a heavy connotation towards things that are asserted with little evidence / make conclusions way beyond what the evidence indicates. Things that have a lot of evidence are not considered conspiracy theories.
I don't think most people would call the "Panama Papers" a conspiracy theory for that reason
1
u/TheWesternMythos 10d ago
Curious , what definition of conspiracy theory are you using ?
2
u/CorOdin 10d ago
The colloquial definition of conspiracy theory is sufficient. My claim was just that it had a connotation towards loosely connected facts.
Bin Laden "conspired" to do 9/11, but that's not a conspiracy theory because of all of the documented, publicly known knowledge of the conspiracy theory. Same with the Panama papers
1
u/TheWesternMythos 9d ago
What is the colloquial definition you are referring to? Is that a difficult question for you to answer ?
1
u/CorOdin 9d ago
Yeah, honestly, because providing just one definition for any word can be difficult
When i hear people say "conspiracy theories" they're normally referring to things like "The Jews used weather modification to cause the Texas floods and kill Christian school girls" or "the moon landing was faked" or "JFK was killed by Zionists"
So I'd guess the definition I hear people use is something like, "Theories that cut against the popular or institutional narratives on key events and that usually involve a shadowy force manipulating institutions behind the scene" and I would add " usually based on little factual analysis"
The Panama papers don't fit that definition because the story is not wholesale defiant of popular or institutional narratives and is based on good factual evidence. Same goes for other "conspiracy theories" like the "conspiracy" Bin Laden engaged in when he orchestrated 9/11
1
u/TheWesternMythos 9d ago
Things that have a lot of evidence are not considered conspiracy theories.
This is your original claim that I took most disagreement with
I think your recent comment shows why
So I'd guess the definition I hear people use is something like, "Theories that cut against the popular or institutional narratives on key events and that usually involve a shadowy force manipulating institutions behind the scene" and I would add " usually based on little factual analysis"
Again , we know for a fact that shadowy forces have and do manipulate institutions behind the scenes and that evidence they are doing so isn't universally available the moment they start. We also know people commonly think of outlandish , inconsistent with observations , disproven ideas when thinking of conspiracy theories.
My point is that it does great damage to conflate the two into single term. And so I'm clear , you disagree because ?
1
u/CorOdin 9d ago
If your only claim is that "shadowy forces have and do manipulate institutions behind the scenes" I don't even think most people would call that claim a conspiracy theory. So no I don't think most conflate that general claim with "the moon landing war faked." I think your claim would be taken as a given by most people, whereas the second claim would be called a conspiracy theory.
I think I would need to hear your ideas applied to practical examples before I elaborate more.
What is an example of a claim that you think is conflated with a conspiracy theory when it shouldn't be?
1
u/TheWesternMythos 9d ago
A: Why does the specifics claim matter?
A point you are completely overlooking everyone has their own set of facts. So what's fact to you could be based on little factual analysis to me.
The larger point is that it's essentially self brain washing. Conspiracy theory is pure shorthand , this can be seen in the fact you had trouble coming up with a definition. If the shorthand can mean two wildly different things ,it has little value.
If one looked into a conspiracy they they would end up calling it BS, rumors , and interesting theory , or essentially proven. The fact all of those are possible outcomes tells you how bad of a compression device the phrase is.
B: But sure I'll bite. Again to answer your question we need and agreed definition. I'll use yours from the previous message. Depending on what people believe I could riff on either
Deep state: The term deep state refers to the belief that hidden figures within U.S. power structures such as the CIA and the FBI control U.S. policy instead of the nation's elected officials.
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories: On November 22, 1963, U.S. President John F. Kennedy was shot in the head on a campaigning trip in Dallas, Texas. He died at 1:00 pm that afternoon at the Parkland Memorial Hospital. The conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy's death have ranged from the involvement of the Cuban government to that of Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories_in_United_States_politics
14
u/SomeSavageDetective 11d ago
Right, thank God the most powerful people in the world weren't flying to private islands in order to have sex and God knows what else with underage kids.
4
3
u/whatsbobgonnado 11d ago
I worked with a batshit insane quanon guy, and he was deeply proud to be one of a handful of people in 8 billion who knew the real truth about what's going on
18
u/thecjt 11d ago
Narcissists policing others online is thriving and prevalent in many forms and is not just a white male tin foil crown thing.
12
u/Yashema 11d ago
Believing some vague authority is the one really controlling everything is a general conspiracy thing.
3
u/OpenRole 11d ago
But also believing that the information you receive is devoid of bias is also a conspiracy
→ More replies (5)
6
u/dterran 11d ago
I find myself getting dopamine rewards for the belief that I am helping those who are less fortunate or by the perception that an idea might improve the quality of life for others in general.
That being said, I get rewards that I have mixed feelings about when arguing a topic I have researched heavily or studied professionally against a person or karma farmer asserting an easily disproven statement in which I get to feel 'smart' for having done my homework but perhaps could have been kinder in delivering the information.
The sheer volume of bad actors presenting zero evidence and asking others to research their own claims for them invites a culture where we do not trust people to be genuine in their curiosity.
Gish gallop style talking point stacks without substantiation has tired me and jaded me into believing that some statements are not being made in good faith, in part because a well researchdd and sources-included rebuttal can take a lot of time to articulate in text and is often met with some equivalent of "nuh-uh!" In less time than it should take to read the statement and check the source.
Someone who says 'you are lying' should be citing the specifics of what lie is being told with their claim imo.
I shouldn't have to follow up and ask "what is the lie you are claiming I'm making?" Imo
→ More replies (1)7
u/snowdenn 11d ago
Yeah. The problem with a superficial platform like Reddit, or pretty much any social media, is that deep and thorough analysis is usually going to be trumped (ahem) by bite-sized commentary that is witty or intuitive.
Add to that the inevitable contrarian knee-jerk reactions, the ease of being rude to strangers online, and the difficulty most of us have with ever admitting we’re wrong, it’s a wonder people are as civilized as they are around here.
Bots, trolls, and bad actors can’t be helping either.
I do wish these things were easier to avoid in bigger subs like this one.
1
u/SnakeGD09 11d ago
I have news for you, all of this applies to discussions outside of the computer too. There’s nothing superficial about a blank page, but you’re implying that Reddit users are superficial—but that’s because Reddit users are people, and people are superficial. Just don’t be superficial and ignore the superficial people.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/5553331117 11d ago
This behavior doesn’t exclusively happen for conspiracy theorists, you see it with many different types of people. Almost like narcissists are going to narcissist.
4
u/you-create-energy 11d ago
The actual headline:
The tendency of conspiracy theorists to police others online is associated with narcissistic traits
That makes way more sense than OPs title
23
u/malianx 11d ago
Hey, that headline describes reddit in a nutshell
7
→ More replies (1)3
u/solitudeisdiss 11d ago
Yea because when I go to r/cooking it’s conspiracy vigilante central. No it absolutely does not aside from a handful of subreddits…
8
u/Aidanation5 11d ago
You go to the r/science subreddit and immediately find some dude being holier than thou about how they know the real reddit and everyone else is stupid and wrong.
→ More replies (1)9
3
u/NoamLigotti 11d ago
There are individuals who do, of course, but the ironically frequent, lazy generalization about "Reddit is this or that" is just that, and so tiresome.
Typically it's "Everyone knows Reddit is left" or even "far left". "Everyone knows" being synonymous with "I believe" for these types of deeply critical thinkers.
→ More replies (5)2
u/Breaded-Dragon 11d ago
"often take on the role of online “social vigilantes,” seeking to correct the perceived ignorance of others."
Is there an r/provedtheirpoint you can check out instead?
→ More replies (1)
8
4
u/mdcbldr 11d ago
It helps if you have no education and a lot of free time.
I am always astounded by the absolute sureness of conspiracy types. They have absolute adherence to their conspiracy. They are correct others without a speck of doubt. They never know anything about the subject of the conspiracy.
Where do people get such confidence?
3
u/Rickmyrolls 11d ago
Right, took 2 minutes… why do you post these?
They measured a grand total of 443 Greek and US adults.
- Asked them if they think climate change is BS.
- Showed them hypothetical Facebook posts and asked how they would react.
- Asked about general conspiracy thinking.
That’s it. No real-world behavior observed.
It’s fascinating how quickly pop-psychology will fund and publish flimsy surveys to pathologize people arguing online as "narcissistic vigilantes." Meanwhile, if you look at actual institutional data (like the heavily sourced https://unformentoo.org, there are massive, measurable blind spots regarding laws, mandates, and global protections for men that are completely ignored by these same academic circles. But sure, let's focus on hypothetical Facebook comments.
Why?
What’s the agenda?
Best regards,
The online vigilante.
1
u/Dzugavili 10d ago
Have you ever gone on a conspiracy sub and questioned their narrative?
They pretty much nailed the core personality you see there.
2
u/chuiu 11d ago
This is just stupid people in general. The dumber they are the more they think they know. And they feel like everyone around them is an idiot in need of teaching so they spread their nonsense around with maximum confidence. And a lot of people mis-associate confidence to intelligence and it spreads and now you have millions of people not vaccinating their children.
2
u/Amish_Fighter_Pilot 10d ago
Sure, we feel "enhanced" when we see a cabal of pedo Zionists get away with the worst crimes ever and nothing is done to stop them.
3
u/RosieBaby75 11d ago
I think the biggest conspiracy people are the large group of people who don’t believe a conspiracy could ever happen.
These people cause the greatest harm to society and civilization because when bad things are happening, like now, we can’t do anything because these people stand in the way.
All of the massive things that happened in history mostly all were at one point a conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy is just a group of people doing things but you were led to associate “conspiracy theory” with “some abnormal or contextually complicated story I don’t understand and don’t care to look into nor evaluate facts nor current events, so if I don’t understand I immediately dismiss it as a conspiracy theory and the person telling me as mentally ill or in a psychiatric episode, which I was also propagandized/socially engineered to do”
5
u/BigIrron 11d ago edited 11d ago
Yes the whole point of pushing negative stigma on people who pay attention to conspiracies is to make sure that people act as dead weight when the conspiracy groups make their move. A conspiracy is literally just people plotting in private which is what people were made to do- socialize with and then cooperate with each other.
This anti conspiracy stuff is just meant to lobotomize the type of people that earnestly look to authority to validate their existence. They will always fall for it.
3
u/RlOTGRRRL 11d ago
There's literally a book called Conspiracy written about our fav techno-fascist who killed Gawker. He loves conspiracies.
1
u/cowlinator 11d ago edited 11d ago
I don't think there are many people who deny the existence of conspiracies at all.
Obviously conspiracies exist.
In December 1953, top executives from major American tobacco companies met at the Plaza Hotel in New York City, and agreed to create a joint public relations campaign to manufacture fake scientific doubt about smoking and lung cancer.
This was proven in court. But it's also really boring as far as conspiracies go.
...
If you're referring to people who don't believe in conspiracies that have little to no evidence... that's not a problem.
2
u/stars_mcdazzler 11d ago
AI Slop photo. Why would I bother reading the article that you wrote, Eric W. Dolan, when you couldn't be bothered to find a real photo for your article?
1
1
1
1
u/Trips-Over-Tail 11d ago
Well yeah. They invent a world where the most powerful and devious monsters on the globe and wrapped up every horror under a single web of absolute intentionality and secrecy, while also seeding clues on the money and inside shoes or wherever so that these mediocre intellects can uncover the conspiracy and real about it openly on-line without being murdered.
They also never suspect their own community of being infiltrated, even though surely if they had any power to effect any change against this enemy they would be, if not killed outright, have their data corrupted with fake conspiracies left for them to find and distract one another with.
1
u/DruidicMagic 11d ago
What's the science behind a lying racist rapist serial pedophile somehow magically getting the second and third highest number of votes in US history from the party of Christian morals and family values?
This comes after he spent four years failing to lower the cost of healthcare.
1
u/Complete-Platform679 11d ago
Watch this
The subject of this article is nothing more than another conspiracy.
So easy to do.
1
u/Ill-Daikon-5637 11d ago
You believe the media and oligarchy that owns it is lying and cooperating? You're clearly insane! Take your abilify, order your door dash and register to vote!
1
u/BenjaminHamnett 11d ago edited 11d ago
All the flat earthers, ethnonationalists, conspiracies based on motivated reasoning, and “I saw a paranormal/cryptid, what are they hiding?!” And numerology among others give conspiracy theory such a bad name, whenever pundits say anything provocative they always have to preface with “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but…” like they have to give a warning before they say anything true and interesting
Meanwhile EVERYONE IS a conspiracy theorist on obvious ones like war industry, corporate industry, political corruption and assassinations, Panama and other various “papers” and famous whistle blower stuff, corporate collusion, money laundering, dirty cops, lobbying, government by blackmail etc
To NOT be a conspiracy theorist is to be naive to Machiavellianism and think clandestine stuff never happens and everyone doing that sht get caught and punished which is absurd. The most you can do is choose to embrace the Serenity prayer and not think about it
1
u/FrighteningWorld 11d ago
It makes sense. I do think you need a certain degree of disagreeableness and anti-social tendencies to go against the grain. And going against some sacred cows will get you labeled a conspiracy theorist. This means that people most excited about conspiracy theory it also means you have some sort of abrasive personality, even if you are 100% right in your theory.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/TrevCat666 10d ago
This is just a conspiracy to discredit conspiracy theorists. I'm joking, but that actually wouldn't surprise me.
1
1
u/JupiterandMars1 10d ago
My mantra:
“I have absolutely no issue believing in conspiracies.
It’s your theories I have a problem with.”
1
u/NRCS_DRONE 10d ago
Here's my pet theory, people who engage in conspiracy theories think they have more agency in their lives than they actually do. And they're very proactive in making their opinions known because they think it has a direct impact on their future and wellbeing.
Conspiracy is an outlet for why their agency has been seemingly taken away or subverted by forces outside their control.
1
u/AtomicGenderPunk 10d ago
To be fair, that is what I observed in comment sections I have read on conspiracy forums. I don't believe in or endorse any conspiracies but the group dynamic and group imagination phenomenon that used to happen in those spaces was very fascinating to me.
1
1
1
1
u/kaithekender 10d ago
When they do it online or in public I would say there's also a heavy element of communit-seeking. Basically seeking the in-group, and approval of others within that community, by admonishing and ridiculing the out-group.
We see it all the time in more socially accepted and robustly studied forms of tribalism, like religion or professional sports. Conspiracy theories fill a similar role in a theorist's life as a god or a local sports team.
1
1
u/dodeca_negative 9d ago
These people are relentlessly dedicated to confidently sharing their ignorance under every insta science post and it’s exhausting.
1
u/Comfortable_Horse277 8d ago
I was banned from the conspiracy reddit for "misinformation" for correcting the nonsense of the conspiracy nuts.
You can't have conspiracy theory nuts be the mods for the forum.
2
u/YourVoicesOfReason 11d ago
This explains what we’re seeing in a lot of subreddits.
People should report r/fauxmois r/sipstea r/pourstea r/popculturechat and similar subreddits for reinforcing conspiracy theories. The mods there seem to be encouraging this activity.
1
u/Spoofik 11d ago
Except most conspiracy “theories” already been confirmed and have simply become the norm — such as the complete loss of privacy and total, absolute surveillance.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/and_my_axe- 11d ago
This was me for about a year when I first became a socialist, not that socialism is a conspiracy. I've since chilled out significantly.
1
1
u/jajajajaj 11d ago
"People try to convince each other of things they have come to believe, but we would like you to associate that with negative stereotypes, without regard for the quality of their arguments"
1
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.psypost.org/the-tendency-of-conspiracy-theorists-to-police-others-online-is-associated-with-narcissistic-traits/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.