Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational

Rate this book
Best-selling author Michael Shermer presents an overarching review of conspiracy theories―who believes them and why, which ones are real, and what we should do about them.

Nothing happens by accident; everything is connected, and there are no coincidences: that is the essence of conspiratorial thinking. Long a fringe part of the American political landscape, conspiracy theories are now mainstream: 147 members of Congress voted in favor of objections to the 2020 presidential election based on an unproven theory about a rigged electoral process promoted by the mysterious group Q-Anon. But this is only the latest example in a long history of ideas that include the Satanic Panic of the 1980s, the New World Order and Vatican conspiracy theories, fears about fluoridated water, speculations about President John F. Kennedy's assassination, and the notions that the Sandy Hook massacre was a false-flag operation and that 9/11 was an inside job.

Trust in conspiracy theories, Shermer writes, cuts across gender, age, race, income, education level, occupational status―and even political affiliation. One reason people believe conspiracies, Shermer argues, is that enough of them are real that we should be constructively conspiratorial: elections have been rigged (LBJ's 1948 Senate race); medical professionals have intentionally harmed patients in their care (Tuskegee); your government does lie to you (Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Afghanistan); and, tragically, some adults do conspire to sexually abuse children. But Shermer reveals that other factors contribute: anxiety and a sense of loss of control play a role in conspiratorial cognition patterns, as do certain personality traits.

This engaging book will be an important read for anyone concerned about the future direction of American politics, as well as anyone who's watched friends or family fall into patterns of conspiratorial thinking.

376 pages, Hardcover

First published October 25, 2022

Loading interface...
Loading interface...

About the author

Michael Shermer

92 books1,099 followers
Michael Brant Shermer (born September 8, 1954 in Glendale, California) is an American science writer, historian of science, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, which is largely devoted to investigating and debunking pseudoscientific and supernatural claims. The Skeptics Society currently has over 55,000 members.

Shermer is also the producer and co-host of the 13-hour Fox Family television series Exploring the Unknown. Since April 2004, he has been a monthly columnist for Scientific American magazine with his Skeptic column. Once a fundamentalist Christian, Shermer now describes himself as an agnostic nontheist and an advocate for humanist philosophy.


more info:
http://us.macmillan.com/author/michae...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_...

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
97 (22%)
4 stars
172 (40%)
3 stars
123 (29%)
2 stars
15 (3%)
1 star
15 (3%)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews
Profile Image for Liquidlasagna.
2,311 reviews77 followers
October 16, 2023
Amazone

I am very surprised to learn of Shermer's belief that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, despite the Select Committee on Assassinations ruling that there was most probably a conspiracy and highly likely that more than one gunman was involved.

This is to say nothing of newer information presented in Oliver Stone's documentary Through the Looking Glass, although, in Shermer's defence, this documentary came out around the time Shermer was finishing this book.

He repeatedly refers to Vincent Bugliosi as some sort of paragon of truth, and with regards to this I would simply invite people to read Tom O'Neill's book, Chaos about the Manson murders, in which O'Neill demonstrates very effectively that Bugliosi repeatedly lied under oath, intimidated witnesses, tampered with evidence etc during the Manson murders trial.

He also refers to David Ray Griffin, who wrote 'The New Pearl Harbor' as a 'conspiracy theorist' however, having read that book, Griffin merely presents an account of what did and didn't happen on the day of 9/11 and invites the reader to come to their own conclusion.

Overall, an average book which I'm glad to have got out of the way.

Andrew Teece

---

Not Too Sure

Where the author lost me was when he talked about the mechanics of media "conspiracies" and how it is impractical to create a literal conspiracy by them.

He made a case for that happening because they watch each other and repeat the mantra; not a true conspiracy, even though they end up saying the same thing. That's kind of where he lost me. I failed to appreciate the difference.

So if you want to learn about the technical difference between collusion and a conspiracy, this may be the book for you. It goes to the book fair for me.

John

..............

Actually the real difference is that conspiracy is technically a crime

however look at the contradictions

---

NPR

The term collusion might not be in the lawbooks but other crimes like conspiracy are.

and look at the 180 twist-a-roo

Grammatist

Conspiracy describes two or more people secretly plotting an action, usually but not limited to a harmful or illegal action. Conspiracy may refer to the plot itself or the act of planning of the plot. Conspiracy comes from the Old French word conspiracie, which means plot or conspiracy. The plural form is conspiracies, the verb form is conspire.

Collusion describes two or more people secretly plotting an illegal or fraudulent action. Collusion may refer to the plot itself or the act of planning the plot. Collusion comes from the Old French word, collusion. The verb form is collude. Remember, conspiracy describes a secret plot that may or may not be illegal, collusion is always an illegal or fraudulent plot.

............

Again

NPR
Collusion Or Conspiracy; What's Really The Difference?

RUDY GIULIANI: I've been sitting here looking in the federal code trying to find collusion as a crime.

UNIDENTIFIED BROADCASTER: It's not.

GIULIANI: Collusion is not a crime. Everything that's been released so far shows the president to be absolutely innocent. He didn't do anything wrong.

The term collusion might not be in the lawbooks but other crimes like conspiracy are. NPR's Audie Cornish speaks with Georgetown law professor Paul Butler to break down what law says about collusion.

CORNISH: So both Giuliani and Trump - we see they're making the argument that collusion isn't illegal, that it's not in the criminal code. Tell us what you know. What's the fact here?

BUTLER: If you look at the very long federal criminal code, which contains over 4,000 crimes, you won't find a crime called collusion. But you will find crimes that punish people for hacking into email or computers or election fraud or violating campaign financing laws. And then other laws punish people for conspiracy, which means working with other people to commit crimes. So at the end of the day, it's really just kind of a rhetorical device to say that collusion isn't a crime because special counsel Mueller certainly understands that. And so what he's charged most frequently is conspiracy to defraud the United States.

...........

wikipedia

Collusion is illegal in the United States, Canada, Australia and most of the EU due to antitrust laws, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place.

Covert collusion is known as tacit collusion and is considered legal.

Collusion often occurs within an oligopoly market structure, which is a type of market failure. Therefore, natural market forces alone may be insufficient to prevent or deter collusion, and government intervention is often necessary.

.........

So i'm not surprised people are muddled on the issue

and well, Shermer is not that great of a writer or a thinker, so buyer beware.

.............

The moral of the story is that Shermer basically says

a. trust your mainstream media
b. trust your government

anything else stinks of conspiracy theory

.........

PS

The moral of the story is that Shermer REALLY says

a. trust your mainstream media
b. trust your government

anything else stinks of conspiracy theory
unless it contradicts the Mike Shermer school of Libertarianist Opinionista!!

......

PPS

Urban Dictionary
Opinionista

A person committed to the belief that opinions matter as much as facts and that her own ignorance is of equal value to others' expertise.
Profile Image for Mya.
Author 1 book46 followers
December 18, 2022
The first third of this was great! I really enjoyed the insights into WHY people believe in conspiracies. The later thirds, which focus on debunking conspiracies and how to talk to people who believe in them, were less captivating. The general centrist take in the final third was a bit annoying, but I expected that, lol. One can be a skeptic and still have principles!
4 reviews
January 9, 2023
As far as books that belittle their potential audiences go, you can't find one that does a better job. This book should really be called Conspiracy: Why I'm Smarter than Everyone. It's 360 pages of author grandstanding, and hardly anything of educational value, unless you happen to be someone who just happens to have the same opinion and desire to brag about your own ego.

I don't understand all the rave reviews. This is a person who needs to study audience and that this isn't a scholarly journal. This is supposed to be a book that breaks down why people believe what they believe in regards to conspiracy theory, but then he speaks to his audience like they're stupid. The book itself, suggests that it's taking an educational approach to understand how minds work, but then uses language that speaks down to the very people he should be educating.

Here's an example of that from his first chapter:

"The 'Qincidences' (spelled with a Q) include the recurrence of certain numbers"

That's right! He actually spelled a word with a Q, put it in quotes and told his audience that he just spelled the word with a Q, because we're too stupid to see that he just used a Q instead of a Roman numeral C or something. That's how dumb he thinks his audience is. He thinks it can't tell what a Q is that he has to tell it he just used a Q to spell a word that only an illiterate person would not know was spelled with a Q.

If that kind of speaking down isn't enough, he loads the pages, introduction and explanations with so much drivel that he never actually gets a point without unnecessarily using large vocabulary like so many freshman writers do when they think it will impress a writing professor.

All of this adds up to a person who cares little for his audience and is all about puffing up how smart he is. This is a great topic, but he's the worst I've ever seen at reading it. His whole approach of, "When I saw people marching on the capitol, I suddenly got interested at a group of people I don't like and wanted to show how stupid they were."

It's very clear from the get-go that this isn't a discussion on conspiracy, but further smear into creating political divides with people he doesn't like. Opinionated more than factual, it's more like an inside joke with people he regards to be as smart as he is rather than helping to connect with an audience that could have learned something from him about why their conspiracy beliefs are unfounded.

It's very difficult for people to hear helpful ideas when the author is all "Ego! Ego! Big words (when smaller words would do) to show I deserve my ego because I never had a college teacher tell me, 'do you really need to use that word or will another, smaller one do the job so you can reach more audience.

And there are 360-some pages of this belittling drivel.

I love conspiracy theory discussion and am fascinated with why people subscribe to so much of it, but this was the most insulting read of anything I've seen out there. In fact, I'm quite confident in saying the majority of people who have given this book good reviews or even enjoyed this were people of the same mind of thinking people they don't like are dumb.

That's not a formula for a good book, that's a formula for cementing a mindset with people who agree with you.

If you can get through the opening Apologia of this book and feel like you didn't have to force yourself to stay involved only to find the entire section didn't go anywhere, then maybe this book is for you. But if you think it might be more enjoyable to have your teeth drilled by an unqualified dentist with a rusty drill than read that Apologia again, you'll probably find more joy in reading something by, well, anyone, even someone self-published and undisciplined in their writing on this matter.

No way around it. This is badly presented drivel to support his own ego and does nothing to open minds but to reinforce other minds that take joy in their own egos over others as well.

Horrible, horrible presentation. Could have been told in 100 pages (at most). Didn't need 260 more of his ego-grandstanding.
Profile Image for Ryan Boissonneault.
201 reviews2,151 followers
November 1, 2022
If I were to ask you if you believed that a group of shape-shifting, interstellar lizards posing as humans controlled the US Government, I’m assuming you’d probably say no. I don’t imagine you’d have much trouble explaining why, either. But I bet you'd have a much harder time explaining how it’s possible that around 12 million Americans—according to one Public Policy Polling survey—actually do believe this.

And not only that. In addition to concerns about alien lizard overlords, approximately 15 percent (!) of Americans believe that the Democratic Party, along with various Hollywood elites, is involved in a global satanic sex cult and pedophile ring operating out of pizzerias—as endorsed by QAnon conspiracists. Clearly, we don’t think much of our elected politicians. We don’t even believe they are human.

On one hand, it’s tempting to dismiss these beliefs outright and to simply mock conspiracy theorists for their embarrassingly low standards of evidence. But this would be the easy way out. Clearly, more than a few people believe this stuff—people who are otherwise intelligent and successful in other areas of life—so we need to know how and why so many people can fall for, frankly, patently idiotic ideas. Explaining this “conspiracy effect,” or “why smart people believe blatantly wrong things for apparently rational reasons,” is the goal of Michael Shermer’s latest book, Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational.

First, it’s important to get the terminology down. As Shermer defines it, a conspiracy is “two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.” A conspiracy theory is then “a structured belief about a conspiracy” irrespective of whether the conspiracy is true, and a conspiracy theorist, or conspiracist, is someone who holds such a theory.

Now, based on this definition, it’s obvious that conspiracies can and do occur, and have in fact occurred throughout history. No one would deny this. The prospect that groups of people—particularly those in positions of power—conspire in secret to illegally or immorally gain an advantage over others is not only plausible but likely. That’s why Shermer is correct to point out the key difference between realistic conspiracy theories and paranoid conspiracy theories.

For example, the idea that big pharmaceutical companies sometimes (though not always) prioritize profits over the health of their consumers is a realistic conspiracy theory, considering, for example, that it is widely acknowledged that Big Pharma was largely responsible for the ensuing opioid epidemic. Likewise, the idea that businesspeople and politicians conspire to rig the economy in favor of the wealthy is also realistic, considering current levels of income inequality. The idea, however, that the Democrats are cannibalistic pedophiles who harvest the blood of children for its psychedelic and life-extending benefits is an example of the paranoid variety.

Shermer, in the process of debunking various popular paranoid conspiracy theories—and exploring the real ones—provides a much-needed toolkit to help distinguish between the two. You’ll learn that most conspiracy theories simply involve too many people, and that it’s unrealistic to suppose that so many people could act so competently over time. Moral compulsions, slip-ups, mistakes, leaks, defections, and more all work against any conspiracy’s attempts to keep nefarious details a secret. The sheer improbability of it all is enough to debunk most of the more eccentric theories. The bottom line is that things never go exactly as planned, yet paranoid conspiracy theories depend on the fact that they always do.

Another way to think about it is this: If you’re a QAnon conspiracy theorist, are there any conspiracy theories you wouldn’t believe in? Are there any theories that would make you say, “wow, now that’s crazy”? When you lower your standards of evidence that much, there is no longer any reasonable method to determine between which conspiracy theories might be plausible and which are not. You are basically, at that point, surrendering your critical faculties. This book can help you recover them.

The real question remains, however, how so many people can nevertheless fall for these more outlandish theories. Shermer devotes a large part of the book to answering this question, and, having spent 30 years investigating the psychology of strange beliefs, is in the perfect position to do so. The result is a fascinating (and often unnerving) tour through the mind of the conspiracist.

To oversimplify things—and you should read the book because the details are fascinating—people believe in conspiracy theories, such the QAnon conspiracy theory above, because they (1) are evolutionarily primed to do so (recognizing patterns and agency where there is only randomness and chance), (2) believe in specific conspiracies as proxies for more fundamental or tribal beliefs, and (3) use conspiracy theories as a means of virtue signaling to their chosen group. So, for example, while people may not give much thought to the idea that Democrats harvest the blood of children, they may still profess to believe in it because (1) they distrust the government, liberals, or “elites” in general, (2) other conservatives or people they know believe in it, and (3) they find solidarity and comfort in a simple story that tells them their own group is fighting the good fight against an opposing out-group that is pure evil. This has high entertainment value as well, evidenced by the fact that many conspiracists become noticeably animated when discussing conspiracies.

The reality, of course, is that the world is complex, chaotic, and messy; conspiracy theories tell you the opposite: that the world is simple, predictable, and its evils are entirely solvable—granted you’re in on the “secret” knowledge that a group of bad guys control everything and need to be defeated at all costs. People seem to like the simplicity of this message and the moral superiority they feel from holding it.

But this doesn’t mean that the message is not complete bullshit, and it’s possible that Shermer is giving conspiracists too much credit by going out of his way to defend their beliefs as “apparently rational.” In fact, there’s a possible contradiction in Shermer’s approach that’s worth taking a minute to point out.

In a 2016 study, it was discovered that a large percentage of Americans believe that the government is concealing information about various events such as the 9/11 attacks (54.3%), alien encounters (42.6%), global warming (42.1%), the JFK assassination (49.6%), and the moon landing (24.2%), among others. But what’s interesting is that 33 percent of respondents also believe the government is withholding information concerning the “the North Dakota crash,” an entirely made-up event!

On one hand, this surely lends support to Shermer’s theory of proxy conspiracism, whereby the details of any specific conspiracy theory are deemed less important than the theory’s general correspondence to more deeply held beliefs and dogmas. If someone can believe that the government is covering up an event that never happened, then we know that a fundamental distrust of the government is dictating that individual’s specific beliefs.

But doesn’t proxy conspiracism then contradict Shermer’s “conspiracy effect,” or the idea that “smart people believe blatantly wrong things for apparently rational reasons.” What could possibly be “apparently rational” about believing in something with no information or evidence—or, in the North Dakota crash example—no possibility of evidence? If this isn’t irrational, then what possibly could be irrational? Unlike Shermer, I don’t feel any special need to justify delusional beliefs as being anything other than what they are.

Shermer might counter that the reasons for conspiratorial thinking are rooted in evolution, and that they are therefore rational. But just as we wouldn’t call the behavior of overeating ourselves to death “apparently rational” simply because we evolved in an environment of nutritional scarcity, I wouldn’t call believing in far-fetched conspiracy theories “apparently rational” simply because we evolved in an environment when it made sense to be suspicious of everyone and everything.

Rationality is best defined as the use of reason to override delusional or harmful beliefs. In the same way we would credit someone as being rational for developing healthy eating habits in the presence of an overabundance of food, we should likewise credit someone as being rational for resisting outlandish conspiracy theories in the presence of an overabundance of misinformation. Otherwise, almost anything can be called rational—when justified in evolutionary terms—and the term loses any significant meaning. So why the hesitation to call belief in QAnon conspiracy theories exactly what it is: manifestly idiotic.

Nevertheless, Shermer has, I believe, correctly identified the reasons why people believe in paranoid conspiracy theories, and I would highly recommend reading the book for the full story and psychology behind the phenomenon. It will help you to make sense of the plethora of delusional beliefs you find all around you.
26 reviews
October 31, 2022
This book is a masterpiece and was what I had hoped Shermers' previous book, Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time would have been.

In Why People Believe Weird Things, Shermers' thesis states that "smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons" (Why People Believe, p. 297); while I believe that the thesis was fascinating, I felt that his defense of that thesis was not as strong, instead focusing on things such as the history of the Holocaust denial movement.

On the contrary, I felt that Conspiracy is a much more approachable and focused exploration on the topic of conspiracy theories and his previous thesis.

The first part of this book is an exploration of the psychology of conspiracy theories, notably the types of conspiracy theories and their foundations: proxy and tribal conspiracism, motivated reasoning, and the various forms of cognitive biases (confirmation, hindsight, myside, etc.) and the motivations of conspiratorial thinking (p. 69).

Additionally, Shermer also defines a framework for categorizing conspiracy theories in contrast with their rational equivalent: ordinary/extraordinary, mundane/mystical, knowledge/intuition, science/pseudoscience, natural/magical, explained/mysterious, visible/hidden and history/conspiracy (p. 62).

The second part of this book is devoted to evaluating the claims of conspiracy theories and how to determine if a conspiracy theory is true or false — to do this, Shermer defines a “Conspiracy Theory Detection Kit” which consists of questions one must ask (p. 130-133) to determine the veracity of the source, and characteristics of a conspiracy one must consider (p. 137-139).

For example, some of the questions include: “Does the claimant make similar claims?”, “Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?”, “Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing one?” and “Do the claimants’ personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?”

Some of the characteristics include: agenticity (agents would need to be superhuman to pull it off), complexity (large number of things coming together perfectly), paranoia (indiscriminately suspicious of governmental or corporate agency) and falsifiability (rejection of alternative explanation or if it can’t be falsifiable, its unlikely to be true)

Shermer then uses this kit to evaluate claims involving the Kennedy Assassination and Birtherism.

Shermer also explores actual conspiracy theories, such as Operation Northwoods (p. 196), Gulf of Tonkin Incident (p. 201), Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment (p. 232), Project MKULTRA (p. 223) and NSA spying (p. 200). An entire chapter is also devoted to the deadliest conspiracy theory of all time: the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Sophie, Duchess of Hohenberg by “The Black Hand” which was the powder-keg for the start of World War I.

The final part of this book concludes by explaining how you can talk to conspiracy theorists and ensuring you can maintain a respectful and receptive dialog when it comes to rebutting claims using facts, logic and reason.

Finally, I’d like to conclude with some general observations that are not specifically contained to only one part of the book as well as my ideas for improving this book in a future updated version:

Throughout the book, Shermer is very clear that conspiratorial thinking is NOT a one-party issue and there isn’t a single persona that makes up a conspiracy theorist. He is also very clear that lack of educational achievement is a correlated with belief in conspiracy theories, high educational achievement does not preclude the belief in conspiracy theories.

As an example, when it comes to political belief, while QAnon, climate change denial, Sandy Hook false-flag and COVID-19 related conspiracies tend to be espoused by those on the political right, Shermer correctly notes that the political left is tends to be more likely to espouse conspiracy theories related to 9/11, GMOs, AIDS was invented, or Russian involvement in the 2016 election.

One thing that I did feel was missing from this book is the typically journey that conspiracy theorists fall into, the “rabbit hole” as Mick West described it in Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect.

A chapter exploring the life of a “recovered” conspiracy theorist would have been well worth including and would make a good supplemental chapter for the inevitable paperback version.

In conclusion, Conspiracy is well worth the read if you are looking for an approachable understanding of conspiratorial thinking without being dragged through the weeds with an overly academic presentation.
Profile Image for Ian Holden.
10 reviews
March 16, 2023
Most of the book is B/B- writing about what conspiracy theories are, how they fit into our culture, and how to communicate with people who hold irrational beliefs. The writing is fine, even if it has the cadence of a 15 year old who just discovered atheism. I was surprised to see that this wasn’t Shermer’s first book on conspiracies because it barely reaches past the knowledge that a well-rounded person with no experience on the subject would have. I feel like he saw the rise of Qanon and said “Let me put this so plainly that those morons will understand”, which just comes across as condescending.

I wish this had covered more about the social position of these conspiracies and how they seem to be used as social clubs for lonely people, but Shermer is convinced that it’s enough to write about how to dispute the factual claims of conspiracists, and they will act rationally.

The last section of the book should have been edited out. Shermer rants about free speech and implies that colleges are against it because one professor was uncomfortable saying a word that sounded too close to the n word. I had to reread several times because it made no sense to me (and it still doesn’t)
Profile Image for Myles Wolfe.
182 reviews15 followers
August 4, 2023
I really enjoyed this book. However, I disagree with the authors final musings on free speech. The argument that only free speech can counter hate speech seems like a very privileged argument. I doubt the author has an understanding of what being the target of hate speech feels like. I certainly don't. But if you were a member of a targeted group, wouldn't you want protection from discrimination (racism, misogeny, homophobia)? To say that we have to accept everything or nothing just feels like a lazy argument that a person would make because they don't truly want to wade into the weeds of the urgent problem with rising hate speech and right wing politics.
Profile Image for Michaela.
140 reviews
February 25, 2023
I REALLY enjoyed this book, even though it was a challenging one. I’ve always been fascinated by why people believe these “wild” conspiracy theories, especially in the age of COVID and Trump, and I got some answers from this book.

Not only does Shermer explain why people believe them, how they aren’t actually that new, how some big theories have been debunked, he also explains why this issue is important and how we can discuss/challenge our opinions when talking to someone who doesn’t agree.

I got this from my local library, but I am very tempted to buy myself a copy to keep!!
Profile Image for Natasha.
458 reviews3 followers
December 6, 2023
Fascinating content. We are evolutionarily designed to believe a rustle in the grass is a threat - to believe in the conspiracy is to survive, to not believe (might be) to die. I was unfamiliar with the major conspiracy theories he disproves in the book (9/11, Kennedy assassination, Obama birth story).
Profile Image for Cadence.
392 reviews4 followers
Shelved as 'dnf'
November 28, 2022
Dnf’d at 44%….

Couldn’t do it. Every single time there was a quote, the narrator (author) would say quote blah blah blah UNQUOTE. It was so incredibly irritating. Also the book wasn’t really my cup of nonfiction tea. Not enough narrative.
1,477 reviews3 followers
June 15, 2023
THE FAMED SKEPTIC LOOKS ANALYTICALLY AT VARIOUS ‘CONSPIRACIES’

Author Michael Shermer wrote in the Apologia to this 2022 book, “My primary approach in this book is integrative in nature---that is, amalgamating research from multiple lines of inquiry into a readable, coherent narrative for both professional researchers and general readers, with the aim of solving a single problem---namely, why people believe conspiracy theories, which ones are real, and what to do about them… allow me to briefly sketch my theoretical model of three overarching factors at work. They demonstrate … what I am calling the conspiracy effect: why smart people believe blatantly wrong things for apparently rational reasons: 1. ‘Proxy conspiracism’: Many conspiracy theories are proxies for a different type of truth---a deeper mythic, psychological, or lived-experience truth… 2. ‘Tribal conspiracism’: Many conspiracy theories harbor elements of other beliefs … long believed and held as core elements of political, religious, social, or tribal identity… 3. ‘Constructive conspiracism’: … historically speaking, enough of these theories represent actual conspiracies. Therefore, it pays to err on the side of belief … just in case.” (Pg. ix-xi)

He continues in the Prologue, “conspiracism has been part of the fabric of society for centuries and… is built into our nature as an evolved adaptation to detect external threats that take on the form of dangerous coalitions.” (Pg. 3) He asserts, “The problem of today’s conspiracism is… arguably more pressing than at any time in our history. We need a model to explain who believes in conspiracy theories, and why; what evolutionary, psychological, social, cultural, political, and economic conditions fuel them… and means to determine which conspiracy theories might be true… but also to undo false conspiracy theories, in order to remediate their deleterious effects on the fabric of trust that binds us together a pluralistic democracy.” (Pg. 17-18) Later, he adds, “A central theme of this book is that conspiracy theories often enough are true, so it is not unreasonable for us to be constructively conspiratorial about people and organizations with power, especially when trust in them is low.” (Pg. 221)

He also acknowledges, “I have to admit that in the course of reading thousands of books, essays, and documents purporting to reveal a true conspiracy---especially when watching films, both documentary and, allegedly, dramas like Oliver Stone’s ‘JFK’---I find myself emotionally absorbed, unlike any other field I have engaged in over a long career spanning a wide diversity of fringe and extraordinary claims.” (Pg. 55-56)

He recounts that for a court case, “I was tasked by the defense to put together a primer on belief, consisting of ten components that explain precisely how and why someone can come to believe a conspiracy theory… 1. The brain is a belief machine… to help us survive… 2. Beliefs are reinforced by authorities… 3. Beliefs are reinforced by peers (social proof)… 4. Beliefs are reinforced by liking and by the similarity of other beliefs… 5. Beliefs are reinforced by payoffs, success, and happiness… 6. Beliefs are reinforced by confirmation bias… 7. Beliefs are reinforced by optimism and over-optimism biases… 8. Beliefs are reinforced by self-justification bias… 9. Beliefs are reinforced by sunk-cost bias… 10. Beliefs are reinforced by an endowment effect.” (Pg. 111-118)

He proposes, “most scientists intuitively sense whether a claim is scientific or pseudoscientific… we need to translate such intuitions into a more formalized set of questions to ask when encountering a claim… that I call the ‘baloney detection kit’… 1. How reliable is the source of the claim”… 2. Does the claimant often make similar claims?... 3. Have the claims been verified by another source? … 4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?... 5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only confirming evidence been sought?... 6. Does the preponderance of evidence converge on the claimant’s conclusion, or on a different one?... 7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?... 8. Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomena, or is it strictly a process of denying the existing one?... 9. If the claimant has proffered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old one does?... 10. Do the claimant’s personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?” (Pg. 130-132)

He explains, “So why don’t scientists accept the residue of unexplained anomalies as evidence of justified true belief? The answer is … the principle of ‘proportionate evidence, where we allocate our beliefs according to the evidence in support of them. The common expression for this principle is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence… The assessment of a claim as being ordinary versus extraordinary is necessarily subjective, but it can be quantified along the lines of what the baloney detection kit… proposes.” (Pg. 134-135)

He looks in more detail at 9/11 conspiracy theories, and their rebuttals by ‘Protec Documentation Services, a company that documents the work of building demolition contractors’: “Claim #1: The collapse of the towers looked exactly like controlled demolitions. ANSWER: No, they did not… Actual implosion demolitions always start with the bottom floors. Photo evidence shows the lower floors of WTC 1 and 2 were intact until destroyed from above… Claim #3: Explosive charges are seen shooting our of windows … just prior to the collapse. ANSWER: Air and debris can be seen being violently ejected .. because of … rapid structural collapse of upper floors onto the lower floors, thereby pushing out smoke from the burning fires… Claim #6: Ground Zero debris … were quickly shipped overseas to prevent scrutiny… ANSWER: … The time frame … before the steel was shipped to China was normal. Claim #7: … WTC 7 was intentionally ‘pulled down’ with explosives. The building owner himself was quoted as saying he decided to ‘pull it.' ANSWER: Building owners do not have authority over emergency personal at a disaster scene. Demolition experts have never heard ‘pull it’ used to refer to an explosive demolition… Claim #8: Steel-framed buildings do not collapse due to fire. ANSWER: Many steel-framed buildings have done so.” (Pg. 146-149)

Shermer recounts how he asked a ‘documentary antagonist’ about Flight 77, “Do you mean to tell me… that not ONE of the thousands of conspirators needed to pull all this off is a whistle-blower who would go on TV or write a tell-all book?... Not one of these 9/11 insiders, witnesses to what would arguably be the greatest conspiracy and cover-up in the history of the United States, wants to go on CNN or 60 Minutes to reveal their secret? Not one of them wants to cash in on what would surely be one of the bestselling books of the year?” (Pg. 151-152)

In Chapter 6 [‘Real Conspiracies’] he admits, “there really are conspiracies, and sometimes they really ARE out to get you. As American writer and poet Delmore Schwartz noted, ‘Even paranoids have real enemies.’” (Pg. 189-190)

He also explains, “Over the decades, the [CIA] weas involved [in] many schemes to overthrow foreign leaders of countries not friendly toward the United States and American interests, including Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, Indonesia’s President Sukarno, Chile’s President Salvador Allende, and General Rene Schneider of Chile. Many of these conspiracies came to light in 1976 in the Senate Select Committee’s report on foreign and military intelligence… the United States has continued to be involved in regime change by overthrowing dictators, such as Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in 1986, Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic in 1999, and Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in 2003.” (Pg. 197)

The remainder of the book is devoted to ‘How to Talk to Conspiracy Theorists,’ ‘How to rebuild Trust in Truth,’ and the results of the Skeptic Research Center’s survey of ‘What People Believe About Conspiracy Theories and Why.’

I would have preferred that the book devote more space to critiquing specific conspiracy theories (e.g., 2020 ‘Election fraud’ claims) and much less space to presenting his own multipoint theories about ‘WHY.’ But, as with all of Shermer’s other books, this one will be ‘must reading’ for anyone skeptically studying such theories.
Profile Image for Orion Spencer.
37 reviews
April 7, 2023
Overall I found this book incredibly interesting and sometimes even helpful, but right at the end he completely buys into the current conservative moral panic about college campus censorship. This is especially ironic given that this is a book about following facts and not holding reactionary beliefs with little to support them. He even references a specific case of a professor supposedly being suspended, but when you look it up one of the first results clearly states that he actually was not suspended, he stepped down because he genuinely felt sorry for having hurt these students by accident and another professor was appointed to teach his class. Obviously students exercising their right to free speech by saying something hurt them is in no way a free speech violation and neither is the class being taught by another professor. Again this is all insanely ironic given the subject matter of the book. Many people have written on why this is not a real problem and has been entirely exaggerated by right wing media sources. Some actual research into this would have been nice. It doesn't discount all of the good and interesting information in this book but it does make me question the author's commitment to finding truth rather than parroting others beliefs with little reflection.
80 reviews1 follower
November 20, 2022
Michael Shermer has, for a number of years, been my "go to guy" for intelligent, science based knowledge. Why no conspiracy theories? I really don't know, I was born into it but somehow knew better. I did not do a dramatic removal from my childhood Bible Thumpin' experience. No, it took much of my 81 years to arrive at a place where I am comfortable without the fairy tale book of multiple and utterly indescribable discrepancies, (The Bible) while I moved toward science. One knows it is right, the other knows that it could be wrong, but those who engage in science never stop looking for the next step, be it reinforcement of their views or complete disagreement with those same views.
One fair warning to any potential reader. Mr. Shermer could have, for many of us, written a more "Readers Digest" version of this same material. He is so full of it, "IT" in this case means, a fullness of science and clear thinking that I sometimes wondered if I could have done with fewer fancy words and phrases, none were wrong, just mildly annoying after three to five chapters. Sometimes a genius becomes tedious. In this case, the problem is the reader, me, but the author could tone it down a bit should he choose to. This author needs no advice from me. I will read him more on his Skeptic Web Site ... an amazing difference of opinions come up therein ... but I will remain my somewhat uneducated self and keep trying to learn.
January 5, 2023
I find conspiracy theories fascinating, and the portion of this book that discusses individual theories and their supporters, as well as the logical flaws they make, I found well written and enjoyable. However, the portion of this book that discusses the definition of conspiracy, why conspiracy theories arise, etc. Is repetitive to the point that it feels as though the author doesn't trust the reader to remember what was said a few pages ago.

In addition, the end of the book takes a strong stance on free speech fundamentalism. While anyone can acknowledge the values of free speech, to say that it must always encompass harmful speech like racial slurs shows a distinct lack of care for those the slurs would be directed at. One can believe in free speech and acknowledge that some speech- like yelling fire in a crowded theater- is harmful and destructive to the point that it should not be allowed.

However, aside from a few snide jabs at politically correct college campuses, and the implication that both political parties are equally prone to irrational conspiracy theories (the only example given for democrats is 9/11 trutherism, which recent polls have shown to be now a mostly Republican belief), the book largely takes an unbiased and accurate approach, and could be a good resource for understanding the mind of a conspiracist.
Profile Image for Josiah Lybbert.
54 reviews
December 30, 2023
This is probably my favorite book on conspiracy belief that I’ve read yet. The author addresses the subject in three parts. In part 1 he talks about the psychology of conspiracy belief. He offers his own model, which I found quite insightful, and also does a good job of summing up a lot of the existing research on conspiracy belief. In part 2 he discusses some of the more famous conspiracy theories and offers some great skeptical perspectives on those. In part 3 he talks a little bit about how to talk with people who believe in conspiracy theories.
6 reviews
November 28, 2022
3+, pretty decent book. It was not as captivating and informative as I hoped, but if you're interested in conspiracies or skeptical thinking in general you probably came across most of the points Shermer makes somewhere.
1,203 reviews11 followers
December 27, 2022

[Imported automatically from my blog. Some formatting there may not have translated here.]

Michael Shermer seems like a totally nice guy. And yet there's something about his writing—it's not you, Michael, it's me—that seems to set my teeth on edge, and my brain to go into nit-picking mode.

This book, about conspiracies and the ardent believers of same, isn't bad at all; it's full of interesting facts, fun stories, good advice, and fact-based debunkings of wacky conspiracy theories (9/11, JFK). It falls significantly off in offering Shermer's effort at a Grand Unified Theory of conspiracy theorizing. But:

Nit One: Shermer's definition of "conspiracy" on page 23:

A conspiracy is two or more people, or a group, plotting or acting in secret to gain an advantage or harm others immorally or illegally.

A decent editor would have pointed out the redundancy in "two or more people, or a group". And the conspiracy is not the "group"; it's their plan. And does immorality or illegality really need to be involved? Conceivably, the conspirators could be hatching a scheme that they perceive to be in others' best interests! (Example: JournoList, the private forum where left-leaning journalists collaborated on the best talking points to advance their preferred political narratives. Nothing illegal or (even) immoral about that, and they probably all felt, in their heart of hearts, they were on the side of the angels.)

When I have serious issues with the very definition of a book's main topic…

Nit Two: On page 38, where Shermer is running through the history of conspiracy theories, one example provided is: "… and Senator Joseph McCarthy blacklisted writers perceived to be Communists in the 1950s."

Now, I could be wrong about this, but I've read a bit about McCarthy and that era, and I don't recall McCarthy himself blacklisting anyone, let alone "writers". The famous "Hollywood Ten" blacklist happened in 1947 (a bit shy of "the 1950s") imposed by film studio execs, based on the Ten's refusal to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Which of course McCarthy wasn't on.

McCarthy did a lot of bad stuff, including probably bogus claims that he had a list of known Commies in government.

(And (sure enough) there were.)

Nit Three: Shermer's "case study in conspiracism" (Chapter 5) is the Sovereign Citizen Movement. No doubt there's some Venn-diagram overlap between the sovereign citizens and actual conspiracy theorists. But sovereign citizenism as such is more accurately described as simply a wacky legal theory; conspiracism isn't necessarily involved.

Nit Four: Page 109: The Magnificent Seven is described as a movie where "a 'posse' of gunslinging citizens are [sic] recruited to hunt down a Mexican outlaw." Well, not exactly. The Seven were hired to defend a Mexican village against a marauding gang of bandits. Defense, not offense. How hard is this to get right?

Well, enough nits. Good stuff, besides what's previously mentioned: Shermer has a number of tips on how best to talk to conspiracists; he's had a lot of practice there. He reports on a Qualtrics poll he did measuring the level of belief in many theories of varying nuttiness. Amusingly, the poll included a couple theories that were entirely made up. Still, a significant number of respondents said they found those theories credible.

I think this either shows (a) how gullible some people are; or (b) how hard it is to conduct a poll when a lot of your respondents will either respond randomly or capriciously. (Like me: sometimes when faced with a long list of items to rate on a 0-10 scale, I just use consecutive π digits: 3, 1, 4, 1, 5, 9, 2, 6, 5, …)

And one of the highest levels of belief was in the "theory": "Covid-19 was developed in a Chinese lab, and Chinese officials have covered it up."

Dude, I rate that one "more likely than not".

To Shermer's credit, he admits the relative non-wackiness of that theory later on. I'm not sure of the timing of the poll versus the timing of revelations about sloppiness at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, gain-of-function research, and the actions of those "Chinese officials" (and ours) earnestly stonewalling investigations.

April 2, 2023

[Sarcasm warning]

This book is an outrage! I picked up this book expecting to learn the truth about a wide variety of conspiracies, and I did. The book provides that, but then Michael Shermer has the audacity to suggest that almost none of it is true!

Shermer wants us to believe that JFK was killed by a lone gunman, that 9/11 was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, that Barak Obama was born in Hawaii, and more!

Conspiracy tries to subdue all your fears. Shermer presents evidence and truth as if they’re facts and expects us to give up our quest for the answers our hearts want, but I see through it.
I’ve done some research, and Michael Shermer co-founded The Skeptics Society and Skeptic magazine, he’s been on The Joe Rogan Experience multiple times, he hosts a podcast named after himself. He should be on our side, skeptic of the official narrative, prepared to see the truth. He seems like one of us. But Michael Shermer is not what he seems.

Michael Shermer and his friends, maybe even Joe Rogan himself, are executing a plot to discredit and “disprove” everything. Michael Shermer has been spreading misinformation disguised, through nefarious means like peer review, the scientific method, objective facts and other such nonsense, as reality for decades.

He’s collaborated with woke entertainers like Joe Rogan, Penn & Teller and Stephen Hawking, line towing scientific novelists like Jared Diamond, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, and fast talking philosophers like Sam Harris, Dan Dennett, and Stephen Hawking. Don’t look it up, feel it in your heart. All people trying to hide the truth about the Freemasons, the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, the British royal family, reptilians, UFOs, ESP, Q, and symbols of American patriotism like the confederate flag. They want you to think the latter is a symbol of hatred, a symbol for people who were actively trying to tear this country apart, but we know it’s actually… something else?

Shermer and his like try to beguile us with fancy words like cognitive dissonance and beguile. Lure us into thinking we’re wrong about what we know by showing us logic and irrefutable proof. Well I’m here to refute! Michael Shermer is not an ally to conspiracists, as wild assumptions about his resume and no further research would suggest. He is our enemy!

SO!

Should you read Conspiracy: Why the Rational Believe the Irrational by Michael Shermer? It details several popular conspiracy theories and their rebuttals: the Kennedy assassination, 9/11 truthers, Obama birthers, and others. Shermer provides methods for spotting false conspiracies and for speaking to those who believe them, including friends and family. A handy skill. It’s a well written book for a time when conspiracy theories seem to be mainstream. I couldn’t recommend it more if it were written by a lizard person, and it was.

Profile Image for Socraticgadfly.
1,120 reviews367 followers
March 11, 2023
Horrible book, not on the conspiracy theories, which I don't need Shermer to tell me, but on him totally getting wrong the one actual conspiracy he discusses, which is why this is 1-starred on a grok.

Rather than there being JUST and ONLY an Austrian conspiracy against Serbia in 1914, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand instead traces directly through one "Apis," head of both Serbian military intelligence and the secret society named The Black Hand, and also directly or semi-directly through confederates of Apis in the nationalist organization Narodna Odbrana, to Serbian Prime Minister Pasic. All of this and more is documented by Christopher Clark in the excellent book "The Sleepwalkers," which Shermer ACTUALLY REFERENCES and then ignores for Tim Butcher's "The Trigger," which is
A. A piece of crap and
B. Only about 10-20 percent about lead assassin Gavrilo Princip and 80-90 percent directly or indirectly about Tim Butcher.

Shermer's right that this is arguably the world's deadliest conspiracy. He's dead wrong about where the conspiracy started.

==

The rest of the book, without this egregious ax-grinding, would probably be 3 stars, no more, so, even without this, it's not worth a read. It's a basic definition of conspiracy vs conspiracy theories, basic overview on why many people believe in conspiracy theories, and how to try to talk to them.

But, surely Shermer could have found something else to discuss as a true conspiracy. Rather, it appears that, following in Butcher's footsteps despite having read Clark's documenting the likely ties to the Serbian government, and despite mentioning the Black Hand, even in an overall superficial treatment (and even talking about an assassination conspiracy, though trying to limit it to just the Black Hand, if that), he thought he could use some intellectual judo to show an Austrian conspiracy.

In reality, despite Conrad having been pushing for pre-emptive war with Serbia for years, even after the assassination, the Dual Monarchy was divided on going to war. And, trying to treat its Byzantine turns in just a few pages will be a good way to get superficial treatment even if not wrong — which, of course, Shermer is. And, I can say that as having read "The Sleepwalkers" TWICE.
Profile Image for Jerry James.
118 reviews3 followers
March 10, 2023
I highly recommend it to anyone wanting to get a handle on the history, function, and treatment of conspiracy theories. 

It’s a deep dive into the psychology and strategies of how and why people rationalize the irrational. 

Some of it is pretty common sense, for instance we like to seek patterns and give meaning (even if it’s false meaning) to things we don’t understand in order to feel some sort of control. 

But some of it is also counterintuitive, like that conspiracy theories can be helpful.  We constantly seek the cost/benefits in our pattern-seeking for our survival.  Believing there’s a lion behind that rock when there isn’t one is a better error than not believing there’s a lion and finding out there is. 

In medicine especially, it is usually better to err on the side of caution and commit the false positive, (Type I) error. 

The book gives a great overview of these errors, and the last important chapters discuss how to identify conspiracy theories and constructively deal with people who believe them.  

This last part is the best section of the book and it’s exactly what you’d think, for instance - stick with facts and reality, don’t fight hate with hate, and vigilantly uphold universal reality. 

You can tell a lot about whether a conspiracy theory is constructive or not by watching who and what its believers attack when confronted. Hint: the nonconstructive conspiracy theorists (paranoid and ideological types) always attack free inquiry, free speech, and free press. 

Humility as the overarching virtue here - humility to admit we don’t know something instead of making up a story, and humility to admit when we are wrong. 

Humility is naturally built into the scientific method but is unfortunately seen as hostile by conspiracy theorists. The book lists ways to navigate that

Listen, we tend to love mythological life more than real life.  Employing humility we are better able to appreciate patterns while honoring reality. 

And since conspiracy theories in general are fast transforming into immature reactions to a mature world, we need to redirect those tantrums away from violence and toward healthy growth.


128 reviews3 followers
August 30, 2023
A decent overview of conspiracy thinking and a rundown of major conspiracies since the turn of the 20th century, with analysis. Johns Hopkins UP, please do better editing and proofreading! It’s okay to use an erudite vocabulary, but the rarer a word naturally is, the less often it should appear. In short: verisimilitude is a word that should appear once per book, not once per page in some sections.

The low score overall has to do with how hard this book flopped at the end. It veers off into race and gender politics that has little to do with conspiracies. When you say you’re a “free speech fundamentalist” and that hate speech should simply be countered with more free speech, buddy, you are ignoring a swath of history that shows that hate speech turns into physical violence awfully quickly. I’m sure the author faces angry letters and emails, but that is not the same as women and racialized people facing degrading hate speech and having real threats made against their safety for speaking their mind. The author has a tin ear on this topic.

Also, it’s simply wrong to call “woke race” and “woke gender” conspiracies. It makes no sense. You admitted that the US has a long history of institutional racism and misogyny, but then you claim without evidence that the civil rights movement and second wave feminism of the 60s solved both problems from a systematic perspective? Really? I wish that were true! So, then you say that if someone believes that any instance of racism or misogyny is more than just a case of single racist or misogynist and is instead reflective of society’s structure means that that person believes in a conspiracy theory about wokeism? This is an argument void of the lived reality of millions of people. Grade A gaslighting.
Profile Image for Chris Boutté.
Author 7 books204 followers
November 1, 2022
I’ve been waiting for this book for a long time, and I binged it within a day or two after it came out. Michael Shermer’s work is what introduced me to skepticism and how to debunk the nonsense that we’re surrounded with on a daily basis. I really enjoyed the first half to 3/4 of this book, but the second half was a little dull for me. But, I want to make clear that this is a fantastic book that everyone should definitely read. The only reason the latter parts of the book were dull for me is that I’m extremely familiar with Shermer’s work as well as the stories he covers to wrap up the book.

Shermer does an excellent job explaining the psychology of people who believe in conspiracies and various types of supernatural experiences. With as much as I’ve read of Shermer’s work, there was a ton of new stuff and fresh takes within this book. I totally understand why he uses a bunch of real stories to wrap up the book. It’s to show people how to apply what he teaches in the first part of the book to real life, which I think is an excellent teaching tool.

If you’re familiar with Shermer’s work and a lot of the most famous conspiracies, you should check out this book, but the last chapters may not be as entertaining. If you’re unfamiliar with his work, get this book because it’s one of the must-reads to better understand why people believe weird things.
187 reviews
January 16, 2023
I found this book hard to assess (some parts are ‘5’ & some are ‘1’). Probably it’s because of my expectation going in that the author was going to provide a methodology to convince conspiracy believers they are wrong (especially 2020 election deniers)
Right off the bat the author states that underlying conspiracy beliefs is the fact that numerous ones are in fact TRUE. ( 9/11, Lincoln assassination, Archduke Ferdinand assassination, etc.) This is a ‘5’ & immediately alters my perception on the subject.
Additional highlights are his psychological interpretations of human thinking, many of which I have seen in my acquaintances who are election deniers (anomaly hunters, government distrust, possession of ‘the secret’ info which creates feeling of power & overconfidence, confirmation bias, etc.)
My disappointment in the book arises from perception the author is guilty of some word padding, going on about various historical conspiracies to the point of tedium (there’s a whole detailed chapter on JFK murder). Additionally, there are way too many references to psychological studies for my taste.

In the end, there is no magic bullet & the author practically admits one cannot change a conspiracists mind but he does present insights that I found thought provoking
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Profile Image for Beth.
1,179 reviews145 followers
January 1, 2023
This, on the other hand, is a confused jumble of a book. It’s certainly more readable than a purely academic work and yet its structure is confusing: it’s stridently contemporary at its outset and then veers historical - but mostly to shed light on the present, which I’m not sure it does except in the most facile of ways. The most convincing and informative aspects come early and the second half of the book seems unfocused. The section debunking common claims of 9/11 conspiracy theory almost feels like it’s from another book, one whose purpose is to debunk conspiracy theories (I’d like to read that one, too) instead of to explore them - but it’s welcome nonetheless.

This book quotes a lot of academic work and also name-drops a lot, and I’m left feeling that it’s more of a summary of ideas than a conclusion about them - and an unfocused summary at that, one which bounces around as much as its cover artwork, and maybe as much as its subjects as well. I think this could have worked better as a beefy essay; it would make its points concisely, it would be less repetitive, it would provide some background without attempting to be impossibly comprehensive.
Profile Image for Chris Cox, a librarian.
117 reviews4 followers
January 4, 2024
I'm familiar with Shermer's writings and interviews, so I felt a little bogged down by his general setup as to why people believe so many conspiracy theories during the first half of this book. I realize this is a necessity for some, but for me the book picks up more in the second half when he gets into the specifics of why people believe things like the Obama birth certificate being faked (absurd), 9/11 truthers (Don't accept any of it either, though was interesting to look into) and the Kennedy assassination (I guess my own prejudices show here in that I'm not quite giving up on this one yet).

I really liked hearing about ACTUAL conspiracies, in particularly the chain of events that led to the assassination of the Archduke and the beginnings of World War I.

Shermer points out that many conspiracies today are even worse as they rely on hearsay with no corroborating evidence to back it up. But we must keep fighting the good fight, shouldn't we... At least that's what people are saying we should do ;)
Profile Image for Alan Fuller.
Author 6 books30 followers
March 26, 2024
The Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer, takes a look at conspiracy theories through the eyes of cognitive psychology. He divides conspiracy theories into three classes, proxy conspiracism, tribal conspiracism, and constructive conspiracism.

Research in cognitive psychology shows that memories are not accurate, can be easily manipulated by simple suggestions, and are influenced by emotions. This can contribute to conspiracy theories.

His remedy for conspiracy theories is to make a commitment to scientific naturalism and Enlightenment humanism.

“Scientific naturalism and Enlightenment humanism made the modern world.” p. 270

His suggestion for a cure is the same thing that made the modern world, yet today it is filled with conspiracy theories.

“No matter what belief system is in place—religious, political, economic, social, or conspiratorial—it shapes how we interpret information that comes through our senses and motivate us to reason our way into finding the world to be precisely the way we wish it to be.” p.313
Profile Image for Clint Coffey.
Author 1 book
March 3, 2024
An entertaining and informative book that treats it's subject fairly. Shermer helps us get inside the psychology of conspiracy thinking, and really helped me understand why smart people believe really dumb things, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. He spent a bit too much time, I think, delving into specific conspiracy theories (like the JFK murder) , debunking them with detailed arguments about minute details. This got a bit tiresome to be honest...but this is only a relatively small part of the overall book.
I got the audiobook version, and Shermer's narration is excellent, animated and engaging.
I thoroughly enjoyed this book and recommend it.
3 reviews
October 27, 2022
I haven't read the book, but I have had a quick glance through the Amazon preview and the index which showed that this book is pretty much worthless. Of course, Shermer is heavily dismissive of QAnon, which is probably QAnon's purpose. But QAnon's big brother, the just as ridiculous notion that Vladimir Putin installed Trump as a puppet president, has no interest to Shermer. Neither does the Jussie Smollet hoax, nor the Covington Catholic Hoax.

IMO you cannot possibly write about QAnon without also talking about Spygate.
Profile Image for Jorge.
1 review
January 5, 2023
A well-researched essay about a timely phenomenon which has deep roots in History.

Although I do take issue with some of Shermer's views on different topics, his writing is really compelling and relatable which connects with some of the interviews he has conducted in his podcast The Michael Shermer Show. I truly thank his insight and how he leads the way through different case examples on modern conspiracy theories and provides nifty advice in how to engage a constructive conversation with conspirational-minded individuals.

This book is totally worth of your time and reflection.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews

Can't find what you're looking for?

Get help and learn more about the design.