Why are Trump supporters especially receptive to conspiracy theories ?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” - Voltaire.
56-60, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
TinyViolins · 31-35, M
Sorry for the long response, but a question like this deserves a deep dive into the phenomena.
These arguments typically gets framed as intellectual arguments, one of knowledge vs. ignorance, but I think that's only nominally true. A more fundamental reason, I believe, is the way these people's brains are wired.
There's a good amount of evidence, although the research is far from complete, that liberals and conservatives have neurological differences that alter the way they process information. In this case, conservative brains tend to have larger amygdalas than liberal or independent brains.
The amygdala is largely responsible for threat-assessment and deals with emotions like fear, anxiety, anger, and paranoia. It's no coincidence that a vast majority of conspiracy theories are rooted in these emotions, but it also sheds light on the way Trump approached politics.
We saw a lot of fear-mongering from Trump when he proposed things like extreme vetting of terrorist Muslims, building a wall to keep out Mexican drug-dealers and predators, there was the MS-13 caravans we had to worry about, the threat of China taking over America, the rise of socialism and radical leftism trying to destroy the country, etc. He preyed on and promoted these fears to an audience that was neurologically receptive to that kind of thinking.
Another important information-processing trait that is over-represented among conservatives is a low tolerance to ambiguity. What that means is that conservative-leaning people tend to prefer things in black-and-white simplicity. Nuance is something that is deemed unnecessary or even subversive.
You can look at religiosity and how conservatives are far more likely to accept that there is only one true god despite the dozens of religions out there. Or you can look at how they believe that life begins at conception, how there are only two genders, how privilege doesn't exist, how successful people worked hard, and so on and so forth. These are dogmatic positions that aren't really rooted in scientific or philosophical literature. It's an innate understanding of their world that gets regurgitated as a knee-jerk reaction to anything that involves cognitive complexity.
It's no secret that Trump took a lot of anti-scientific stances with regard to policy that embodied this mind-set. Climate, COVID, environmental deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, isolationist policies, etc.
But the final piece of the puzzle is the distrust of government. Given the corruption and inefficiencies present in significant sections of our legislative bodies, it's very natural for people to build resentment towards the government. But rather than approaching the matter on a case-by-case basis, the wiring of the conservative brain with it's penchant for distrust and simplification turns it into a case of the entire government being completely against the interest of the people.
Trump won a lot of support by appealing to this axiom by saying things like he was going to drain the swamp, that the media was the enemy of the people, and railing on career politicians like Hillary and Biden. Rather than taking up arms against specific trends or facets of an issue like every other politician would, he simply threw the baby out with the bathwater and condemned the entire thing.
That kind of unequivocal, blanket rejection of something we don't like isn't particular to the left or the right. A lot of people treat an entire system as if it were rotten to the core whenever they see a lack of meaningful results from it, but it is just rooted in different emotional appeals when it comes to which side of the political aisle you're arguing from.
A big part of the way these two branches intertwined has to do with the moral righteousness of good vs. evil. A lot of conservatives are devoutly religious, and people that are so ingrained in their faith tend to frame a lot of arguments along this dichotomy. People are framed as either entirely good or entirely bad, with little room for exploring the complexity in-between. It's no surprise then that a lot of conspiracy theories are narrated along this theme of good and evil.
The people resisting government influence think of themselves as righteous warriors fighting against tyranny or oppression. The government agents and agencies are thought of as controlling, conniving, and morally corrupt. Of course, the truth is never that simplistic, but in the mind of conspiracy theorists, there is no middle-ground. A lot of Trump supporters are even delusional enough to believe that he was appointed by God to cleanse the land of evil.
It's something so insane to the objective observer, but when seen through the enlarged amygdala of the angry and fearful defenders of freedom, it makes sense because it validates all of their feelings
These arguments typically gets framed as intellectual arguments, one of knowledge vs. ignorance, but I think that's only nominally true. A more fundamental reason, I believe, is the way these people's brains are wired.
There's a good amount of evidence, although the research is far from complete, that liberals and conservatives have neurological differences that alter the way they process information. In this case, conservative brains tend to have larger amygdalas than liberal or independent brains.
The amygdala is largely responsible for threat-assessment and deals with emotions like fear, anxiety, anger, and paranoia. It's no coincidence that a vast majority of conspiracy theories are rooted in these emotions, but it also sheds light on the way Trump approached politics.
We saw a lot of fear-mongering from Trump when he proposed things like extreme vetting of terrorist Muslims, building a wall to keep out Mexican drug-dealers and predators, there was the MS-13 caravans we had to worry about, the threat of China taking over America, the rise of socialism and radical leftism trying to destroy the country, etc. He preyed on and promoted these fears to an audience that was neurologically receptive to that kind of thinking.
Another important information-processing trait that is over-represented among conservatives is a low tolerance to ambiguity. What that means is that conservative-leaning people tend to prefer things in black-and-white simplicity. Nuance is something that is deemed unnecessary or even subversive.
You can look at religiosity and how conservatives are far more likely to accept that there is only one true god despite the dozens of religions out there. Or you can look at how they believe that life begins at conception, how there are only two genders, how privilege doesn't exist, how successful people worked hard, and so on and so forth. These are dogmatic positions that aren't really rooted in scientific or philosophical literature. It's an innate understanding of their world that gets regurgitated as a knee-jerk reaction to anything that involves cognitive complexity.
It's no secret that Trump took a lot of anti-scientific stances with regard to policy that embodied this mind-set. Climate, COVID, environmental deregulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, isolationist policies, etc.
But the final piece of the puzzle is the distrust of government. Given the corruption and inefficiencies present in significant sections of our legislative bodies, it's very natural for people to build resentment towards the government. But rather than approaching the matter on a case-by-case basis, the wiring of the conservative brain with it's penchant for distrust and simplification turns it into a case of the entire government being completely against the interest of the people.
Trump won a lot of support by appealing to this axiom by saying things like he was going to drain the swamp, that the media was the enemy of the people, and railing on career politicians like Hillary and Biden. Rather than taking up arms against specific trends or facets of an issue like every other politician would, he simply threw the baby out with the bathwater and condemned the entire thing.
That kind of unequivocal, blanket rejection of something we don't like isn't particular to the left or the right. A lot of people treat an entire system as if it were rotten to the core whenever they see a lack of meaningful results from it, but it is just rooted in different emotional appeals when it comes to which side of the political aisle you're arguing from.
A big part of the way these two branches intertwined has to do with the moral righteousness of good vs. evil. A lot of conservatives are devoutly religious, and people that are so ingrained in their faith tend to frame a lot of arguments along this dichotomy. People are framed as either entirely good or entirely bad, with little room for exploring the complexity in-between. It's no surprise then that a lot of conspiracy theories are narrated along this theme of good and evil.
The people resisting government influence think of themselves as righteous warriors fighting against tyranny or oppression. The government agents and agencies are thought of as controlling, conniving, and morally corrupt. Of course, the truth is never that simplistic, but in the mind of conspiracy theorists, there is no middle-ground. A lot of Trump supporters are even delusional enough to believe that he was appointed by God to cleanse the land of evil.
It's something so insane to the objective observer, but when seen through the enlarged amygdala of the angry and fearful defenders of freedom, it makes sense because it validates all of their feelings
RodionRomanovitch · 56-60, M
@TinyViolins Thanks for the considered reply. I think what makes the whole thing even more toxic (and what contributed to the violence at the Capitol) is when the white nationalists and the christian evangelicals are thrown together and inflamed in the way that they have been. Religious certainty and racial supremacy is a heady mix.
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
TinyViolins · 31-35, M
@RodionRomanovitch These are definitely two groups that struggle with superiority complexes, and that can easily breed the sense of entitlement that allowed people to believe they could take over the government. But I don't think it's fair to single out these two groups as the primary reasons for the violence at the capitol.
It's a complicated matter that to me really highlights the dynamics of a mob mentality. A lot of people are highly suggestible, so they become susceptible to deindividualize when part of a crowd. If there are explicit feelings of anger and victimization, which Trump and his vocal supporters that day in Washington helped to stoke, these types of people will soak up that message like a sponge and act on the pure emotion of the mob.
It's not even a premeditated decision in most cases, although there were definitely more than a few which had planned out acts of violence. A lot of the people in that building that day aren't wicked or violent or terrorists as they're being labeled. They're what is known in the political sphere as 'useful idiots'. People that are easily manipulable because they seek conformity and are motivated by idealism rather than principles.
You can throw morally-loaded propaganda their way and it will be treated as gospel because it's rewarding to think of yourself as a part of a righteous movement. White supremacists almost never call themselves white supremacists. They frame their positions in terms of protecting their race and preventing "white genocide". Christian Evangelicals believe that they are preserving the sanctity of marriage and saving babies. It's a type of mental gymnastics people do to make their beliefs consistent with the idea that they are fundamentally good people.
I don't want to demonize either of these groups because, while problematic, it doesn't address the elephant. People are becoming radicalized in large part because they don't trust other people; and the more we attack and ostracize them, the less likely they are to want to trust anyone else.
I think a big reason why Donald Trump became President in the first place is in large part thanks to rhetoric of the left that condescended to them, sought to silence their views, and refused to engage with them in good faith. When a politician comes along that acts as a giant middle finger to those that wronged them, they're going to invest a lot of faith and loyalty to a person like that. It's why Trump can continuously peddle blatant lies and use these people for his own benefit, because at the very least he makes them feel heard
It's a complicated matter that to me really highlights the dynamics of a mob mentality. A lot of people are highly suggestible, so they become susceptible to deindividualize when part of a crowd. If there are explicit feelings of anger and victimization, which Trump and his vocal supporters that day in Washington helped to stoke, these types of people will soak up that message like a sponge and act on the pure emotion of the mob.
It's not even a premeditated decision in most cases, although there were definitely more than a few which had planned out acts of violence. A lot of the people in that building that day aren't wicked or violent or terrorists as they're being labeled. They're what is known in the political sphere as 'useful idiots'. People that are easily manipulable because they seek conformity and are motivated by idealism rather than principles.
You can throw morally-loaded propaganda their way and it will be treated as gospel because it's rewarding to think of yourself as a part of a righteous movement. White supremacists almost never call themselves white supremacists. They frame their positions in terms of protecting their race and preventing "white genocide". Christian Evangelicals believe that they are preserving the sanctity of marriage and saving babies. It's a type of mental gymnastics people do to make their beliefs consistent with the idea that they are fundamentally good people.
I don't want to demonize either of these groups because, while problematic, it doesn't address the elephant. People are becoming radicalized in large part because they don't trust other people; and the more we attack and ostracize them, the less likely they are to want to trust anyone else.
I think a big reason why Donald Trump became President in the first place is in large part thanks to rhetoric of the left that condescended to them, sought to silence their views, and refused to engage with them in good faith. When a politician comes along that acts as a giant middle finger to those that wronged them, they're going to invest a lot of faith and loyalty to a person like that. It's why Trump can continuously peddle blatant lies and use these people for his own benefit, because at the very least he makes them feel heard