How do we choose our flavour of news: with a nose for truth, or a taste for adventure?

by William Pattengill

The lockdowns, restrictions, and growing dependence on the internet brought about by the pandemic have provided us with ever more opportunities to question State actions. Some people have had their complacency shaken by the authoritarian and sometimes contradictory pronouncements of elected, as well as un-elected (HSE etc.) officials. The heavy-handed orders coming from Dublin can be seen as necessary for public safety and the ‘greater good’, or as misguided and short-sighted costly mistakes, or as repressive dictatorial curtailment of basic freedoms and a portent of things to come. Several high-profile celebrities, epidemiologists and medical professionals have contradicted the directives of the HSE and charged them with creating an ‘infodemic’ and branded RTÉ as ‘the real virus’. Furthermore, the introduction of the Vaccine Certificate has an unfortunate similarity to tactics used by totalitarian regimes to monitor and control the public. These developments have served to energise the pre-existing anti-vaccine groups, and the world-wide reach of the virus and subsequent international restrictions also feed into fears of a global takeover by a combination of corporate and political forces (the U.N., George Soros, Bill Gates and others). For the conspiracy theorists and their believers, this is the equivalent of the opening of a new fast-food franchise.  

The prevailing wisdom among many psychotherapists is that these believers have one or more predispositions to anxiety, distrust, fear of losing control, rigid thought patterns, and narcissism. Some research has shown a correlation between these predispositions and lower levels of education and poverty (Mills, 2021). In an interview on the American Psychological Association website, Karen Douglas, PhD. states that “people with lower levels of education haven’t been given access to tools to allow them to differentiate between …credible and non-credible sources” (Mills, 2021). There is often a cognitive bias that can lead to jumping to conclusions without much factual evidence, relying on intuition or ‘gut feelings’ rather than analysis. These can also be traits of some forms of schizophrenia - though there is no established link between belief in conspiracies and pathology (Carey, 2020).  

In their article entitled ‘Belief in Conspiracy Theories is not Delusional’, Roland W. Pies MD and Joseph M. Pierre MD describe these beliefs as more like extreme but culturally sanctioned religious or political convictions. But as involvement increases, behavioural addiction and obsessions may arise that interfere with basic daily activities, increase isolation from society at large, and quite often cause a break with non-believing friends and family. And like other addictions over time, they may stop providing a sense of relief and instead bring back those familiar feelings of anxiety, fear, and alienation. The line between belief and delusion can become blurred when believers are compelled to take action as if on a personal mission. Whether as lone actors or in groups, they may act with good intentions, but with opposite results for the greater good – for example, the destruction of 5G towers, the campaign against vaccines, and most dramatically, the assault on the U.S. Capitol. Once in a while pre-existing and unrecognised delusions can propel the highly suggestible into even more drastic action, such as the murder of his own children by Matthew Taylor Coleman, a follower of the QAnon cult. The acts described above show the vulnerability of those unable to resist the workings of the ‘manipulation machine’, and how our ‘free will’ can be so easily compromised. 

While ‘truth seekers’ prone to mistrust may demonstrate negative thought patterns, they also exhibit some constructive behaviors and basic human needs at work. Suspicion by its very nature was an adaptive advantage for our hunter-gatherer ancestors. The tendency to find connections and patterns in seemingly random events can serve us in many other ways than just ‘connecting the dots’ to see the outline of conspiracies. This process is called apophenia, and it is the same creative talent that lets us see faces and animals in the clouds. A belief in conspiracy theories can provide simple and accessible explanations for complex events and provide comfort and reassurance, as opposed to the anxiety and overwhelm dispensed by mainstream media.  

Membership in these semi-secret societies also can provide the sense of ‘belonging’ we all crave, with the added bonus of the superior feeling of having ‘inside information’ that sets its members apart from the flock of sheep blindly following their leaders. Belonging to these groups can counter low self-esteem and the feeling of being powerless over current events. Efforts to convert or enlighten the ‘sheep’ might be altruistic and well-intentioned but are mostly unsuccessful, with the opposite effect of further withdrawal from the larger society.  

Since this growing trend has been both recent and unexpected, clinicians have no formal training in working with the proudly converted and/or disillusioned casualties of the rising tide of misinformation. Professional organisations may be hesitant to take a formal position on the subject, in consideration of the political nature of most conspiracy theories. Yet some members of the profession regard it as a public health problem.  

If one were to begin a conversation with a committed ‘truth seeker’, there must be an effort made to find some common ground. It would not encourage dialogue to immediately challenge beliefs or question anyone’s version of reality; an apparent attempted conversion could threaten the delicate bond of trust. On the other hand, avoiding discussion could make a therapist complicit and miss an opportunity to address how their client’s beliefs may be negatively impacting their well-being. A therapist with relevant experience observed that talking to people about these theories was like telling a teenage child you don’t like who they are dating. Trying to talk them out of the relationship usually increases their defensiveness and resistance to all arguments, ending the conversation (McNaughton-Cassill, 2021). A more productive approach would be to calmly enquire about the sources of information that support their beliefs and engage their critical thinking to re-evaluate their authenticity. 

 A psychotherapy client may bring up their belief in conspiracies as a distraction from other issues. Instead of trying to redirect the conversation, it might be useful to enquire as to how their beliefs align with personal values and whether or not it helps them work toward goals. The clinician could also try to determine if their embracing such beliefs could result in violence toward others or harm to themselves, and how much effort should go towards redirecting them. Maintaining respect and compassion for others’ beliefs could be problematic in these situations.  

Clinicians have attested to the importance of curiosity, compassion, empathy, and patience. For those in relationships with ‘truth seekers’, those qualities may inspire an emotional generosity that was exhausted long ago. It might be helpful to express ‘creative curiosity’ about beliefs and share the awareness that not all things can be fully comprehended or controlled, especially the complex forces at play in the wider world. This honest acceptance of ‘not-knowing’ could offer comfort to these troubled individuals, in the letting go of attachments to what is really beyond our reach.  

       

It is important for us all to remember that many conspiracy theories have proven to be true over time, even in our recent history. The CIA actually did secretly ‘dose’ unsuspecting citizens with LSD as part of their experimentation in mind control, and the U.S. government did make under-the-table payments to the Dalai Lama to aid in his resistance to the Chinese takeover of Tibet. Not to mention the conspiratorial cover-ups by the tobacco and oil industries of their own scientific research that yielded results unfavorable to them. These real conspiracies lend credibility to the current crop, and remind us that we do not have any proof (as yet) of their being fabrications.  

Science journalist David Robson hopes that government health information campaigns can soon “help stem the spread of false claims using a form of ‘inoculation’ with ‘mental antibodies’ that can eventually create ‘herd immunity against misinformation.” (Robson, 2021).  

Some have called Big Tech’s recommender systems a “manipulation machine…weaponizing every societal fault line with relentless surveillance to maximize engagement” (Center for Humane Technology, 2020). The ‘echo chambers’ they create can use repetition of baseless claims and falsehoods over time to create an alternative reality. In response to the now-obvious connection between anti-social behaviour, or worse, and the pollution of the internet’s information stream, a number of health and tech leaders are exploring ways to address this metastasising social illness. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has joined forces with the UK government to raise awareness and caution about Covid-19 misinformation. Moonshot, an Irish co-founded tech startup, uses data analytics to reach people both engaging in and affected by a range of online harms, and not just disinformation: they also address human trafficking, gender-based violence, and child abuse. They offer positive, supportive messages and services to vulnerable individuals as they perform online searches for anti-social content.  

Similar work is being done by the Radicalisation Awareness Network (RAN), a grouping of frontline practitioners who work with those vulnerable to radicalisation, and those who have already been recruited. I found on their website the partial answer to a nagging question that arose during my research: would a person paranoid enough to endorse conspiracy theories be willing to trust a psychotherapist? According to RAN, internet browsing self-proclaimed radical right-wingers were 48% more likely than average to click on mental health ads, and among those browsing those sites but not yet recruited, the figure was 115% - encouraging statistics.  

In the interests of adding a more personal angle to this research I briefly interviewed some attendees of anti-vaccine/anti-lockdown protests in Cork and asked them about their earliest awareness of mistrusting ‘the authorities’ of any kind. I wanted to keep my focus on the socio-political realm as opposed to the cosmic/apocalyptic, though the two can sometimes overlap. For some there was a common theme of betrayal by those they had placed trust in: parents, priests, physicians, or teachers, as I had suspected. Others could not identify any particular event or experience and identified as ‘born skeptics’. I also contacted some organisers and activists for groups sponsoring these protests and found them initially open to interviews, but they then became very inquisitive about my credentials, affiliations, etc. and when it came time to set a time to meet, my emails went unanswered. This was despite, or maybe due to, my claiming to be non-judgmental and open-minded.  

As I followed the many links in researching this subject, I experienced increasing curiosity about these alternative views that are so contrary to my own. As I unearthed more and more ‘evidence’ and ‘expert testimony’ debunking the ‘myth’ of the virus, I started to ask myself, “What if some of this IS the underlying reality?” My father was a lifelong cynic and skeptic and I heard his voice echoing, “Don’ believe everything you read in the papers.” I could feel the seductive allure of these narratives and some empathy for those already mistrustful by nature. Was the allure some sort of resonance with my own unaddressed fears and suspicions? I also felt a newborn compassion for my brother, who clearly inherited the skeptic gene from my Dad and was always forwarding me his latest frightening prophecy or exposé. Is he tapping into a vein of truth, and am I the blissfully ignorant ‘sheep’? Fortunately, I never had to arrive at a definitive answer for that question once my own research offered me the option of honestly saying to myself, “It’s OK not to know.”  

In other words, how do we form our concepts of the wider world beyond our first-hand experience? We are being offered more options than ever before, and the choices we make not only reflect our past experience but can shape us and change the directions our lives may take. According to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI), in 2020 46% of 18-24-year-olds prefer social media websites, while 33% of the general populace choose televised news and 13% prefer radio.  

In simpler times we relied on the accounts of travelers or emissaries to learn of happenings in the next town or province, and our concerns were more with changes that might impact us directly, not so much the happenings in faraway lands. I suppose most of us trusted the spoken words of the bearers of news in those days, but as ways of communicating expanded our world view and pumped up the volume of information, the measure of trust has not followed suit. And our attention has moved from our nearby surroundings to the international scope of history in the making, with its inevitable struggle and suffering. Now we can indulge in ‘All News, All Stress, All of the Time’.  

Some of us might remember a time when there was something of a national consensus and a reliance on accredited newspapers, radio, and television – people didn’t always agree of course, and opposition views were also presented in the name of free speech and democracy. Today we see the mainstream news establishment competing for our attention with folks on their laptops in their basement offices, daily dispensing their personal views of reality. Some have called this the ‘Post-Truth Era’, which is appropriate since we now have alternative facts. We can allow our individual beliefs and bias to guide us through the digital menu of news to find our favorite flavour, unencumbered by factual evidence or inconvenient truths, and discover the vast range of conspiracy theories on display.  

So why is this not a good thing? It’s a triumph of democracy, and freedom of speech on steroids. Why shouldn’t we hoover three hot fudge sundaes and let the (chocolate) chips fall where they may – it’s a free country, right? Wouldn’t we all like to think so. But the ever-expanding internet has become a virtual wilderness of quagmires and bottomless rabbit-holes where our freedom is often an illusion.  

Besides the high-profile popular conspiracy theories, there are other actual conspiracies at work very much hidden behind the scenes, at almost every click of the keys. They are known as algorithms and are designed to not only reinforce our pre-existing beliefs, but also entice us to explore content of ever-increasing extremity, contributing to the unhealthy polarisation and fragmentation of computerliterate societies worldwide. We can follow the links like tasty breadcrumbs to find an abundance of sites offering a different reality than what the state-sanctioned media voices have to offer. At one end of the continuum, we can find a dose of ‘healthy skepticism’ of the dominant paradigm, then an array of ‘alternative voices’, eventually spiraling downward to where warning cries emanate from a dark world of dystopian dread. It is significant that the BAI media user survey revealed that only 28% of Irish internet users know the definition and function of algorithms.  

Anyone not buying what the government is selling has to find where their tastes are most satisfied along that convoluted ‘information highway’. We have such little first-hand experience of the complex and rapidly unfolding events that shape our world, who do we entrust with our continuing education? Do we still trust the words of our government, our religious leaders, or the mainstream news reporters, despite being the exposure of long-running coverups and corruption in high places? The answer is, most of us do not. According to the BAI 40% of news consumers do not trust their own preferred sources (a lower percentage than in the US, UK, or EU) and 62% are concerned about the proliferation of ‘fake news’.  

We all have been told ‘we are what we eat’, but I also believe ‘we are what we read’. Just as our choices of diet have great impact on our physical health and development, our media choices can have a significant influence on our mental health. I certainly hope there is not an ongoing parallel process between the impact of fake news on our mental health and our consumption of junk food and sugary drinks that is slowly but surely causing us harm.  

William Pattengillis a member of the editorial board and occasional contributor to Inside Out. After retiring from the home renovation field, he has enjoyed the opportunity to return to his roots as a journalist. 

References

Carey, Benedict (2020). A theory about conspiracy theories, New York Times. Retrieved January 25th, 2022, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/health/psychology-conspiracy-theories.html  

Ellwood, Beth (2021) Conspiracy theories, PsyPost. Retrieved January 7th, 2022, from https://www. psypost.org/2021/06/new-psychology-research-uncovers-why-people-with-dark-tetradpersonality-traits-are-more-likely-to-believe-conspiracy-theories-61088 

Good Therapy staff (2015), Is belief in conspiracy theories a mental health issue? www.goodtherapy.org 

Maynooth University. Spotlight on research: Why do so many people believe in conspiracy theories? Retrieved January 13th, 2022, from https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/research/spotlightresearch/why-do-so-many-people-believe-covid-19-conspiracy-theorieswww.  

McNaughton-Cassill, Mary, Conspiracy theory in the consulting room, Psychology Networker. Retrieved January 25th, 2022, from https://www.psychotherapynetworker.org/blog/details/1890/conspiracytheories-in-the-consulting-room.  

McVeigh, Dr. Joanne and MacLachlan, Prof. Malcolm, Why do so many people believe Covid-19 conspiracy theories? Retrieved January 6th, 2022, from https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/ research/maynoothworks/news-events/latest-news/joanne-mcveigh-and-mac-maclachlan-allinstitue-publish-article-rt-brainstorm-entitled-why-do-so-many  

Mills, Kim (2021) Speaking of psychology: why do people believe in conspiracy theories? Retrieved January 6th, 2022, from https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/conspiracy-theories 

IAHIP 2022 - INSIDE OUT 96 - Spring 2022