Pattern Seeking And Conspiracy Theories

I’ve talked before about pattern seeking – the ability many (or most?) animals, including humans, have developed over the millennia that has helped them to survive, so in this article I’m going to talk about how I think this related to conspiracy theories, given that there are so many going around right now with the current coronavirus epidemic / pandemic.

It is said that the term “conspiracy theorist” started as a derogatory term coined by the CIA, to belittle those who questioned the official narrative.

And these days, it still has those negative connotations – even though many so-called conspiracy theories did in fact turn out to be true. (See this article for a few examples, and if that link doesn’t work, try this one instead.)

There is no shortage of these theories around – and I’m using the word “theories” here in the non-scientific way, because in scientific parlance, a theory is something very different to the way it is used when people simply mean an idea or wild guess.

You’ll no doubt be aware that there are many people who question much of what the government tells us, including the truth about the 9/11 tragedy, vaccines, aliens, chemtrails, 5G, and so much else.

But when there is a precedent for being lied to, or, at least, information changing, who is to say that what we are seeing on the news and in the media in general is the truth or not?

Especially when you see who are some of the biggest advertisers on television. (Some estimates show the pharmaceutical industry contributing as much as 70% of the advertising you see during the news.)

So, getting back to pattern seeking, one of the ways that these “conspiracies” start is because some people start to detect what looks like a pattern, and from there, they often dig deeper to see where the trail leads.

There are those who say there are no such thing as coincidences – and I’m not one of those people, by the way (see the fantastic book by John Allen Paulos called Innumeracy for a great discussion about this) – and there are those who think everything happens for a reason (and, of course, I’m not one of those either).

Humans are almost hard-wired to find patterns – even in situations where there isn’t one (or, at least, a deliberate one). This is one reason why people experience pareidolia.

But let’s suppose that you detect a pattern – for example, whenever A happens, B often or always seems to follow.

Initially, you would have to classify that as a correlation, but it’s not necessarily causative – there are all sorts of correlations that are clearly not causative in nature, and you can see some weird ones here.

In other words, there may be other reasons why the two events appear to be related.

That is why true research needs to be conducted in order to determine whether or not A does actually cause B.

This sort of study can take time, money, and effort, and often the type of equipment that is not available to the man in the street.

Having said that, you can do online research (yes, Google can be a valuable tool – for example, because it leads you to peer-reviewed scientific studies on a subject) to at least see whether anything has been documented about the pattern you think you see.

Another factor in all of this is anecdotes.

Those who typically believe the official narrative often say that anecdotes mean nothing – but remember that an anecdote is simply somebody’s story of what happened.

They may be lying about it, or perhaps embellishing it, but there is also a good chance that it’s true (as best as they can recall, given that our memory is far from infallible).

For example, given the current view about so-called “anti-vaxxers” (who are often, more accurately, ex-vaxxers, because they did trust vaccines right up until they saw harm or death to their children), why would any parent speak up and tell the world that their child was damaged or killed by one or more vaccines when they know what type of reaction they’re going to get?

What’s in it for them, because I truly don’t believe it’s a case of their “15 minutes of fame” – it’s a warning to others.

And, by the way, there is no doubt that vaccines can harm, in spite of what the media might tell you – otherwise why would Merck, one of the larger vaccine manufacturers, say that vaccines can cause encephalitis right on their own website, or here if the previous link doesn’t work, and why would the US government (or here if that link is broken) list encephalitis as a vaccine injury that you can be compensated for?

But here’s a question: how many anecdotes does it take before somebody decides that further investigation may be warranted?

If ten parents report that their child regressed after their vaccinations, you could easily choose to discount it, and you probably would.

What if that number increases to a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand, or even a million?

When do you reach the point that it should be looked into?

(By the way, when challenged in court, the CDC were unable to provide any studies to back up their claim that the vaccines given to children during their first six months do not cause autism, as you can see here or here.)

But this article is not meant to be about vaccines – it’s just that this is one of the most common so-called conspiracy theories around right now.

The other reason conspiracy theorists are made fun of is because they are questioning the official narrative – they are daring to suggest that people are doing things that may be harmful to themselves and their families because of information they were given by people or organizations that they assume they can trust.

But can you trust them?

Remember that many people typically look after themselves and their own kind first – so how many government officials and corporations do things for the public?

This makes me think of a line from the movie Clear And Present Danger: “they want want every first-term administration wants – a second term.“

And who do corporations serve, really – the public or their shareholders?

Perhaps one reason why people find it so difficult to question what they’re being told, by people they believe they can trust, is cognitive dissonance and, in the case of vaccines, for example, the refusal to accept that they may have harmed their children by trusting people who ought, in an ideal world, to be trustworthy.

In fact, cognitive dissonance is one reason why so many people who were brought up within a deeply religious household find it so difficult to break free of that mindset – and yet when you look for actual, hard evidence, that most of what is written in their holy book is true, there is little to none. (Some Christians say that the Bible proves God exists, but the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.)

So while there are certainly those who take their pattern seeking and conspiracy theorizing too far, maybe they’re right too.

Personally, there are many official narratives that I question, but some of these theories are too far out there for me – at the moment.

For example, there are those who think the Large Hadron Collider built by CERN is an attempt by satanists to open a portal to another dimension.

It sounds crazy, based on what is known now, and it’s definitely too crazy for me (at the moment – until I can find evidence that they are correct, which is unlikely because I have better ways to spend my time).

But there are other of these theories that are a lot less extreme than that.

As Voltaire wrote, if you want to know who controls you, see who you are not allowed to criticize.

And then look at the response people who question the safety of vaccines, for example, are given – they are told they are murderers, irresponsible, bad parents, stupid, and a lot more.

Is this because the science of vaccines is settled?

No, of course it’s not – science is never settled. If it were, it wouldn’t be science, it would be dogma.

So to me, the fact that so many people accept what the government and the media tell them, without question, is a disturbing sign that people are being deliberately dumbed down.

It’s not a pleasant conclusion, but to me, it’s real.

As an example, the British Medical Journal confirmed in a 2016 article that fluoride (i.e. the substance added to public water supplies in many cities) is a neurotoxin, and at least one other study, out of Harvard, has shown that fluoride can reduce your IQ. (Archive copies of these articles are available here and here.)

Do you remember the days when the news told you what had happened and it was up to you to decide what you thought and how you felt about it?

I know I do.

But today, it seems more a case of being told what to think about something, and it’s up to you to decide whether it even happened or not.

For me, I will continue to look at the patterns I see developing and to follow those that intrigue me to see where they lead, because as the late great George Carlin said, you should never trust anything the government tells you.

The problem is, once you start down that rabbit hole, there’s no turning back!