Why some people listen to politicians more than scientists
In the last few years, the politicians who challenged experts and scientists have fared very well. But exactly why many people have been so quick to turn their backs on science needs to be addressed. From the moon-not-existing to Jay-Z-as-a-time-traveling vampire, in the last decade, conspiracy theories (CTs) seem to have exploded in number. The Internet certainly plays some part in making information more accessible, but every action requires not just a means, but also a motivation.
In psychology, it’s said that humans are motivated to act for logical reasons. If the reason doesn’t appear logical, there is likely a secondary, unseen motivation at hand. For example, a climate change denier could be hoping to profit from the use of fossil fuels — either through their investments or by their associating with higher employment. Likewise, many people in the anti-vax camp find the movement attractive as it justifies avoiding a subjecting a newborn to a painful experience. The educators and bloggers involved also derive an income from the trend.
Now, immediately we see opportunities to reduce at least some of the motivating forces of these arguably dangerous movements. By creating pain-free needles or more flexible vaccination schedules, more parents could be convinced to vaccinate. But while the social scientists agree, these interventions would be helpful — they also believe there is another, stronger motivational force at work.
I want to believe or I want to belong?
This motivator shows itself in the co-morbidity of various CTs. For example, members of the Flat Earth Society — famous for having members “all around the world” — are more likely to also believe in chemi-trails and a faked-moon-landing than individuals who believe the earth to be spherical.
This means, once one CT belief is established a second and third will follow. Many politicians have come to see how this works. If a voter is willing to accept one dubious fact, they seem to be more inclined to accept and second and third.
I have my own theory on why this is — call me a conspiracy theorist if you must. Firstly, science very rarely gives definite answers. This is the nature of empirical science, to be truthful and transparent. Therefore, theories are “supported” and never “proved”.
But to someone not trained in science, this stance can be infuriating. They ask the question, “why?” and get back an essay when they really want to hear a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. But to get a yes/no answer you often need to work backward, like in Jeopardy, you need to formulate the question from the answer.
For politicians, who need easily repeatable sound bites, this creates a demand for sentences produced independently of the rules of science. This means, propagating information that is not scientifically backed is much easier to do than information that is. But is that any reason for the public to follow suit? No. So why do they? Because from the side of the individual there is that other secondary motivation.
I want to matter or I want to be involved?
In our society, science and learning are expensive commodities. Schooling costs money and not everyone has access to further education. This has created a vicious circle of elitism. This has created an ‘elite’ class. Aside from when used with the suffix of “athlete”, it’s hard to think of an example where the word “elite” is used positively. Elitism is the epitome of exclusion. So in a sense, we have created an elitist class largely associated with knowledge and science. Is it any wonder those who are refused entry to this class want to find another trusted source of knowledge?
Psychologists studying the role of CTs in our society and politics see a growing demand for an “alternative science”. Ordinary (non-elite) people want to be able to discuss ideas and use “evidence” (perhaps something unverifiable posted online rather than peer-reviewed research) in their arguments. And conspiracy theories allow them to do this. So when a politician fights scientific or expert opinion with a CT, individuals who can’t engage in discussions regarding international policy, can now feel involved and political.
Those people who remained uninterested and dormant in the world of politics for so long can now join in the discussion. This means, the same motivational forces, which make CT involvement attractive, are also being used to create engaged political voters.
For a country where only 54% of voting aged citizens turned out in 2016, and where 70% of degree educated citizens did vote, this is significant. It means there are still a huge number of voters out there who could be drawn into alternative political discussions to become engaged voters. The only question is, who’s going to address their motivations first?
