Two Hypotheses
Why is conspiratorial thinking on the rise?
Legacy media is grappling with the loss of trust in it, and is constantly promoting a theory that finds the fault lies elsewhere. In particular: a) there is a rising far-right b) social media allows echo bubbles to form and fuels extremism and c) the lockdowns, vaccine passports and other response to covid further fueled conspiratorial thinking. This idea is evident when Sam Harris criticizes those that ‘do their own research’, when Josh Szeps argues that the ‘intellectual dark web’ have gone ‘bat shit crazy’, as well as in fact checking units employed by legacy media and big tech, and New Zealand’s former PM’s extraordinary attempt to dismiss any non-government source of information.
The alternative hypothesis I think needs some attention. This hypothesis is that an institutional crack up has occurred making previously trustworthy organizations fundamentally and transparently dishonest. This drives massive distrust, and yes conspiratorial thinking in critical minds. Amongst these critical minds are both people with admirable and questionable character; and conspiracies some questionable and others preposterous. This makes it harder to tell the truth from fiction. We need to tolerate both those who fell for the information pushed by previously trustworthy sources like government and academia (perhaps like Szeps and Harris), and those whose distrust may have caused them to fall for untrue conspiracies (perhaps like the Weinstein brothers or Maajid Nawaz).
The first part of the alternative hypothesis: is there an institutional crack up? Here are just a few examples:
Mask wearing was promoted as a proven non-pharmaceutical measure against covid yet a systematic review of the evidence again showed that this was not the case.
Joe Biden has said: “to parents of transgender children: affirming your child’s identity is one of the most powerful things you can do to keep them safe and healthy” and Rachel Lavine argue that “There is no argument among medical professionals – pediatricians, pediatric endocrinologists, adolescent medicine physicians, adolescent psychiatrists, psychologists, etc. – about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care.”, yet systematic reviews in the UK, Norway and Florida show that the evidence for these medical interventions are very weak, the society for evidence based gender medicine (SEGM) documents the lack of consensus in detail. The original uncontrolled Dutch study which transitioned healthy minors had a fatality rate of greater than 1%.
The Biden administration has instructed big tech to censor information, including information that turned out to be truthful and big tech complied.
In the UK, government units directed at countering disinformation have gained massive surveillance powers against critics of the government.
The US government has built up a similar capability to spy on its own citizens.
Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci operated a coordinated attack on the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration. Director General of the WHO Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also in response to the GBD made false statements about herd immunity, even though the premises of the GBD form the basis of the 2009 UN pandemic plan. Collins and Fauci do not deny this conspiracy.
Collins and Fauci also falsely denied that the US supported gain of function research on coronaviruses and attempted to suppress discussion of the lab leak hypothesis. Big tech assisted in this effort.
The United Nations handed the names of Uyghur dissidents to the Chinese Communist Party as exposed by whistle blower Emma Reilley. The UN then interrupted Reilley’s participation in an online conference on the Uyghur’s by getting the police to send a S.W.A.T team to her door, and fired the judge that found in her favor. Copious documents back up Reilley’s story. Nobody has been brought to justice, this story has barely registered in international media.
An editorial in “Nature” claims that sex is not binary.
While I agree with Harris’ premise that most people are ill equipped to do their own research, there are two problems. There are very good reasons to distrust our institutions. Secondly, policy should be a combination of expertise plus values and regular citizens are absolutely entitled to contribute their values.
Harris and Szeps are very judgmental of some commentators and former friends, but they fail to reflect on how they also uncritically platformed some dubious voices and suspect information. For example Szeps did an entirely uncritical interview with Eric Feigl-Ding someone with no credentials in infectious diseases epidimiology and even the most adherent advocates of stringent pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical interventions distanced themselves from him. Feigl-Ding’s ill informed, emoji filled and hysterical tweeting were legendary and often mocked.
Similarly Harris interviewed Eric Topol, who as Francois Balloux reminds us was instrumental in the rise of Theranos. Vinay Prasad also fact checks Topol’s claim that covid vaccines prevent heart attacks and finds them wanting.
I would agree with Harris and Szeps that Brett Weinstein’s platforming of Peter McCullough and Robert Malone shows perhaps questionable judgement (Vinay Prasad’s analysis is persuasive). However, they are have no self-awareness of having done much the same thing themselves. The lack of respect Szeps and Harris show to people with differing views shows an extremely illiberal tendency that is worryingly common in the elites at present.
Harris and Szeps also make repeated criticisms of Maajid Nawaz. To this, I want to say Nawaz brought attention to the Emma Reilly story. That other journalists and public intellectuals fail to do the same is a scandal in itself.