06 - The Conspiracy Playbook

This is the general playbook of how alternative-thinkers will attempt to prove their point without any or a good standard of supporting evidence. I used many of these myself back when I was indoctrinated in the Netflix documentary pseudoscience environment that is the internet. I will include the tactics, and how I believe it is best to counter them.

​

This isn't limited to conspiracy theories as it can be applied to anyone parroting a bad or ill-thought idea. But it especially applies to alternative-thinkers.

​

Play #1 - Prove me wrong

​

Play:

This is a fundamentally dangerous demand to let them get away with. They will demand you prove them wrong instead of them proving their statements to be valid or correct. The reason for this is because they have no idea how proof actually works. This reasoning is evidence that they have no grasp of basic philosophy or logical reasoning. They haven’t fulfilled the burden of proof, and their argument means nothing without proof. Without proof, it’s speculation.

Not only that, but it allows them to sit back and watch you present actual evidence for them to just flat out ignore, dismiss and laugh at. The typical “prove me wrong” alternative thinker’s logic is mostly based around a rejection of information and this is a clear indication of it.

Counter:

Explain to them that it is their responsibility to support their argument with evidence, not the other way around. You can make an example of unfalsifiable arguments such as “I have an imaginary friend, prove me wrong.” Do not accept this reversal of the burden of proof. If they can’t prove their point with sufficient evidence, then there’s no reason to believe their statements. Expose the holes in their argument by spotlighting their lack of evidence.

Play #2 - Do some research

Play:

They will try to tell you to do some research, or when asked to provide evidence they will say a variation on this such as “do you own research”, or “I’ve done my research.” In reality they haven’t researched anything at all. Not scientifically, anyway. They’ve conclusion shopped on google, but they haven’t fact-checked anything or scrutinised the information they’ve absorbed. 

Counter:

If they’ve done their research or they tell you to do some research, then ask to see theirs. I can guarantee you that their will either have none, or they will link you to someone else's website. In the off-chance they actually share a study, then you move onto the “quantity play”. If they tell you to do some research or say they’ve done theirs, then that’s a clear message to you that they think they have something. Get them to prove it. Put up or shut up. Don’t let them avoid this. Keep on and do not allow them to pretend to hold information they do not. For the “im not going to do your research for you”, this shows you they haven’t got anything either. It’s a deflection from having to provide evidence. Call them out on it.

Play #3 - Bunny Hopping

Play: 

When a point they’re trying to make cannot be defended or the counter-point argued against, they will jump between other points, as to present the whole conspiracy as a point that needs to be defeated as opposed to a singular point. It’s easy to debunk the claim that face masks don't work, it’s a lot harder to debunk multiple points if the point in question is constantly switched out for a fresh one when the current point is weak. Regardless of how strong or weak each point is, each acts as a buffer to preserve the world-view from scrutiny. 

Counter:

Be clear that the point being argued is the original topic which they have now abandoned for new points. You were debating whether face masks worked for preventing droplet spread, and all of a sudden you're talking about  vaccines, and then the virus recovery rate. That’s not what you’re talking about. Get the conversation back on track immediately. If they counter this by saying you’re avoiding the new points, then say you can get to those once you finish the original.

Play #4 - Generalities

Play:

As conspiracy theories aren’t based on a nuanced or reasoned investigation into facts and a balanced weighting of evidence, they usually don’t have any specific factual content. Because of this, the claims are general and non-specific. If someone tries to get specific, you will find they’re unable to prove their claim at all, or they present something which doesn’t prove it. 

Counter:

Drag them into being specific. Don’t let them get away with broad generalities. For example, “the covid-19 vaccine will have a microchip in it”. OK… Which vaccine? What model microchip? What will it do and how will it work? They can’t answer because they haven’t thought that far. Conspiracies break down once you reject the generalities and get into specifics, and then get them to verify those specifics with evidence. They can’t do it.

Play #5 - Loading

Play:

This is related to bunny hopping and generalities but it is a more tidal version. A common play by conspiracy theory advocates is to load up a huge statement that takes a long time to unpick. As I’ve said just now, conspiracy theories break down when you get into specifics. They will present you with a super loaded statement and the whole is presented as stronger than the sum of its parts. A variation of this is when an alternative-thinker site is shared which supposedly has 100’s of studies proving their point. 

Counter:

Take the time to unpick the statement. Focus on one thing at a time. Don’t let them play the numbers game, because more often than not, it’s a game of quantity over quality. Even with these sites proving their claims with hundreds of studies. Take the time to sit down and read some. You’ll probably find they don’t even prove their point at all, or say the opposite, or are the product of biased researchers. Again, when you get specific, conspiracy theories fall apart.

Play #6 - Dismissal

Play:

They will simply not listen to you. They will react to every comment you make with laughing emojis, be very childish and rude in their replies, and not take you seriously. Even if you without question prove them wrong, they will simply stop responding to the conversation. They will mock you with gifs, and in general, not be courteous to you at all.

​

Counter:

Ignore the dismissal. Address their points seriously and don’t bite back. Be the better person. It will be obvious to everyone else who is the one being unreasonable. Work on your patience and realise that it’s just another person who’s unable to know any better. You aren’t going to die, so don’t let it get to you.

​

Play #7 - The See-Saw

​

Play:

For this play, you might ask for clarification or ask for specific information about a claim. You might contest the logic or the way in which the conclusion or its interpretation was arrived at, and instead of providing more information, they will turn it around and say something like "so you think that *opposing argument* is true?" It's another form of the deflection of the burden of proof. Again, conspiracy theories break apart when you get specific. The alternative-thinker is so biased towards preserving their belief and world-view, that if you express scepticism, then you must therefore think the opposite.

​

Counter:

As with most counters, keep the conversation on track. Go back to your original point. They might start bunny hopping or utilising the loading play. You can even say you'll get to the other points they introduced later on once the original point is addressed. There is a good chance eventually it will create the third phase: the stalemate. You have your opinion, I have mine; We'll have to agree to disagree; no matter what I saw it won't be good enough. Don't let them get away with not proving secific information or proving their points. If they can't, then it's a good indication they haven't thought about them very much.

​

Next, I will be reviewing some of the psychological literature to see what researchers have found about the conspiracy mentality. I will pull out quotes and put them in context according to how I know I used to think and behave.

​

Play #8 - Testing the waters

Play: 

This play consists of sharing something controversial or conspiratorial. The intention of course is to share something they agree with. When challenged and no counter-argument can be given they retreat into “I’m just sharing” or “I wanted to see what everyone thought”. You can be rest assured if no one challenged it they wouldn’t have said that, and didn’t share it by asking anyone. 

Counter:

Debunk it as normal I guess. But they have to understand that their sharing of misinformation influences others and misinformation can be dangerous and in the extreme example can result in people dying. This kind of play is completely removing all responsibility for their postings by passing it off as “just sharing” or masked by some kind of pseudo-curiosity. 

Play #9 - Premature Stalemate

Play: 

When they’ve exhausted their arguments and feel like they might be losing or unable to counter the evidence you’re presenting they will attempt to end the conversation by calling a premature stalemate. If it’s a draw they didn’t really lose, right? They will attempt to call a stalemate by throwing our generic phrases like “you’re entitled to your opinion”, or “we’ll have to agree to disagree”, or “I don’t have time to argue about it”, or “I’ve got better things to do”. Sometimes they might openly just say it’s a stalemate. 

​

Counter:

I don’t really have a counter for this making it clear that it’s a matter of evidence and not opinion. The alternative-thinker is based in subjective opinion and not objective evidence, so will assume you are, too. You can’t let them normalise the idea that it’s just a difference of opinion. If it’s a scientific or objective conversation, opinion means close to nothing. 

​
 

Play #10 - The Unspecific Specific Trap

Play:

They will share something related to a conspiracy which they openly and vocally support and post about, but will actually have a super specific alternative meaning behind it. When challenged on the obvious implication of the post they will then hide behind their intentionally set trap by pointing out that “no, it’s actually this other thing”, or “There’s no implication, I shared this very specific thing and that’s all there is to it”. It’s hiding behind semantics while protecting their obviously conspiratorial post and attacking the people who saw through it with plausible deniability. I should know, I did it myself.

​

Counter:

Is there a counter? If you point out what they’ve done they’ll deny it and will use it to prove you’re conditioned or enslaved or something. If you don’t then they’ve trapped you and that’s it. You can try not to fall for it by asking them what they mean first. It’s a difficult one because it’s a really underhanded and disingenuous trap to prove a point they manufactured themselves.

​

Play #11 - Subjective Objective Switcheroo

Play:

This play is them basically switching between a stance of “there’s a lot of evidence” and a subjective opinion based on belief. When pretending to be evidence-driven they might claim there is a lot of evidence and say they can provide a ton of it. If you share scientific research they will retreat to a subjective place of “you believe that?” “you believe science isn’t corrupt?” or “you’re believing what you’re told” and will find a way of Instantly shrugging it off. When the objective is not on their side, they’re subjective. When they don’t need to be subjective, they pretend to be objective. 

Counter:

I find the best way of keeping the conversation on track is to be specific, stop them making the conversation general and about multiple things, and to question their statements. Conspiracy theories are a denialism of evidence and science, and the inference of corruption and lies because they feel it. Every time I’ve asked someone to provide evidence to their specific argument they can’t do it. 

​

Next Page: Consrpiacy Mentality - The Psychological Profile

​