陰謀説 Wikipedia


Conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


For the 1997 film, see Conspiracy Theory (film)


A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot
by a covert
alliance rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence.


The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore
similar to an urban legend
, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively
to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors.


Most people who have their theory or speculation labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.


[ edit




The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for a conspiracy
claim. However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative
that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.


Many conspiracy theories are false, or lack enough verifiable evidence to be taken seriously, raising the intriguing question of what mechanisms might exist in popular culture that lead to their invention and subsequent uptake. In pursuit of answers to that question, conspiracy theory has been a topic of interest for sociologists, psychologists and experts in folklore since at least the 1960s, when the assassination
of US President John F. Kennedy
provoked an unprecedented level of speculation
. This academic interest has identified a set of familiar structural features by which membership of the genre may be established, and has presented a range of hypotheses on the basis of studying the genre.


Whether or not a particular conspiracy allegation may be impartially or neutrally labelled a conspiracy theory is subject to some controversy
. If legitimate uses of the label are admitted, they work by identifying structural features in the story in question which correspond to those features listed below.


See also conspiracy as a legal concept


[ edit




Allegations exhibiting several of the following features are candidates for classification as conspiracy theories. Confidence in such classification improves the more such features are exhibited:


  1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;


    Conceived in reaction to media
    reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic


  2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;


    Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.


  3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;


    Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.


  4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;


    Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the 'impossibility' that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.


  5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;


    May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, never to repent, to possess unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.


  6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive
    , not deductive


    Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.


  7. Appeals to 'common sense';


    Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.


  8. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies


    Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.


  9. Is produced and circulated by 'outsiders', often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;


    Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.


  10. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;


    At least some of the story's believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.


  11. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;


    Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.


  12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;


    When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.'


[ edit


Origins of conspiracy theories


Humans naturally respond to events or situations which have had an emotional impact upon them by trying to make sense of those events, typically in spiritual, moral, political, or scientific terms.


Events which seem to resist such interpretation?for example, because they are, in fact, unexplainable?may provoke the inquirer to look harder for a meaning, until one is reached that is capable of offering the inquirer the required emotional satisfaction. As sociological historian Holger Herwig found in studying German explanations of World War I

それらが実際unexplainable?mayであるので、調査者に必要な情緒的な充足を提供することができる1つが到達するまで、そのようなinterpretation?for例に抵抗するように見える出来事は意味にはより困難に見えるように調査者を刺激します。第一次世界大戦のドイツの説明の研究で見つかった社会学の歴史家Holger Herwigとして:

Those events that are most important are hardest to understand, because they attract the greatest attention from mythmakers and charlatans.


This normal process could be diverted by a number of influences. At the level of the individual, pressing psychological needs may influence the process, and certain of our universal mental tools may impose epistemic
'blind spots'. At the group or sociological level, historic factors may make the process of assigning satisfactory meanings more or less problematic.


[ edit


Psychological origins


When conspiracy theories combine logical fallacies with lack of evidence, the result is a worldview known as conspiracism
. Conspiracism is a worldview that sees major historic events and trends as the result of secret conspiracies. According to many psychologists
, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory is often a believer in other conspiracy theories.


Psychologists believe that the search for meaningfulness features largely in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories. That desire alone may be powerful enough to lead to the initial formulation of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias
and avoidance of cognitive dissonance
may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement
may equally play a part.


Evolutionary psychology
may also play a significant role. Paranoid tendencies are associated with an animal's ability to recognize danger. Higher animals attempt to construct mental models of the thought processes of both rivals and predators in order to read their hidden intentions and to predict their future behavior. Such an ability is extremely valuable in sensing and avoiding danger in an animal community. If this danger-sensing ability should begin making false predictions, or be triggered by benign evidence, or otherwise become pathological, the result is paranoid delusions. A conspiracy theorist sees danger everywhere, and may simply be the victim of a malfunction in a valuable and evolutionarily-old natural ability.


[ edit


Epistemic bias?


It is possible that certain basic human epistemic
biases are projected onto the material under scrutiny. According to one study humans apply a 'rule of thumb' by which we expect a significant event to have a significant cause. [1]
The study offered subjects four versions of events, in which a foreign president was (a) successfully assassinated, (b) wounded but survived, (c) survived with wounds but died of a heart attack at a later date, and (d) was unharmed. Subjects were significantly more likely to suspect conspiracy in the case of the 'major events'?in which the president died?than in the other cases, despite all other evidence available to them being equal.

ある基礎的な人間の知識のバイアスが調査の下の資料に投影されることはありえます。一つによれば、研究人間は、私たちが重要な出来事が重要な原因を持つことを期待する「経験法」を適用します。[1] 研究は、主題に出来事(外国の大統領はその中で成功裡に暗殺された(a)だった)の4つのバージョンを提供しました、(b)傷ついたが残存された、傷で残存された(c)、しかし後の日付に心臓発作で死に、無事だった((d))。主題は、共謀を疑う可能性が、著しくありそうでした「主なevents'?in、どれ、他の場合でのdied?than大統領、等しくて、それらに利用可能な他のすべての証拠にもかかわらず。

Another epistemic 'rule of thumb' that can be misapplied to a mystery involving other humans is cui bono
? (who stands to gain?). This sensitivity to the hidden motives of other people might be either an evolved or an encultured feature of human consciousness, but either way it appears to be universal. If the inquirer lacks access to the relevant facts of the case, or if there are structural interests rather than personal motives involved, this method of inquiry will tend to produce a falsely conspiratorial account of an impersonal event. The direct corollary of this epistemic bias in pre-scientific cultures is the tendency to imagine the world in terms of animism
. Inanimate objects or substances of significance to humans are fetishised
and supposed to harbor benign or malignant spirits.

他の人間を含むミステリーに誤用することができる、別の知識の「経験法」は、cui bonoです?(この人は増加するかもしれない?)。他の人々の秘密の動機へのこの感度はどちらかかもしれません、1つの、発展した、あるいは人間の意識のenculturedされた特徴、しかしそれが普遍的に見える一方の方法。調査者不足がその場合の適切な事実にアクセスする場合、あるいは含まれていた個人の動機ではなく構造の利益がある場合、質問のこの方法は客観的な出来事の偽って共謀のアカウントを生産する傾向があるでしょう。前科学的な文化中のこの知識のバイアスの直接の推論は、アニミズムでは世界を想像する傾向です。人間に重要な無生物あるいは物質は呪物として崇拝され、良性か有害な気分を保護することになっています。

[ edit


Clinical psychology


For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia
, denial
, schizophrenia
, Mean world syndrome


[ edit