Jacqueline Hart Gibson, Peak to Peak. Conspiracy theories have existed in human societies since we could speak. Back in our tribal days, stories of the evil nature of neighboring tribes could justify raids or kidnappings. The motives of the source were not necessarily insidious. They may have been to adhere to tribal beliefs or protect their community from harm. The same pure intent is likely true of some who spread conspiracy theories today.

Gaslighting, a form of psychological abuse where a manipulator causes a person to question their own sanity and to believe lies over truth, is usually intentional. The abusive parent, boss or significant other is an intentional abuser. But the victims of abusers in interpersonal relationships often cause harm too; by doing the bidding of the abusers they believe. An abuser may use their “believers” to spread gossip about another target, while remaining anonymous and safe from consequences themselves. 

It’s this kind of second hand gaslighting that comes to mind when considering the tornado of contradictory information we exist in today. Closing our minds and blocking all new information though, seems like a dull way to exist. How do we stay open to new information without being sucked into another’s toxic agenda? 

Some conspiracies appear harmless, even amusing. It’s not like the flat-earthers are hurting anyone, right? We might think believing the earth isn’t round, the moon landing was faked, or Princess Diana was killed by the royal family, doesn’t effectively change our lives or anyone else’s. Yet, believing unproven theories can erode our critical thinking. Looking for and finding what we believe to be evidence proving the validity of false claims can also lead us down a scary path. A path where what isn’t understood is possibly an intentional plot to mislead us. We may find ourselves in a reality where we can trust no one. That’s a tagline for a TV show, not an effective worldview. We need a reliable course of action to test theories presented to us. 

Experts recommend we check the validity of the source. Validity is not determined by whether we agree or disagree with the opinion presented by the source. Instead, we use measures like; do other experts in the field confirm the source is reliable, would the source benefit from lying to the public, and can we regularly confirm the facts presented by this source. We want sources that offer correct information more often than a broken clock tells the right time. 

In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed to journalist Glenn Greenwald from The Guardian that the NSA was engaging in global mass surveillance with or without cause. Are Snowden’s assertions true? We can look at this critically, as the experts recommend, and decide for ourselves. 

Snowden’s claim is corroborated through court documents subpoenaing Verizon to turn over all telephone data to the NSA on a continuous basis, which is an overreach of judiciary and governmental power. Snowden’s whistleblowing forced him to abandon a lucrative career with the NSA and live as a fugitive in Russia. He will be jailed if he returns to the US, his home. Snowden has been asked to verify that aliens are visiting the earth and he has stated that he has no evidence to support that claim. He has stuck with the original story without embellishing or attaching new conspiracies to the original. 

The publication, The Guardian, is independently owned. Evidenced by equal criticism of both parties in print, The Guardian is not biased for or against either political party. The reporter, Greenwald, has made appearances on all of the competing cable news networks, MSNBC, CNN, and FOX as well as other independent news sources from the right and the left. It would be difficult to show Greenwald is biased towards left or right ideologies. Numerous mainstream outlets, from Fox News to The New York Times have verified and ran the story. 

Given this supporting evidence, it appears Snowden’s story as reported by The Guardian appears true. We can believe for now while leaving space for evidence to the contrary that may come up later.

In 2017 an anonymous user of the 4chan message board dropped a few posts under the name “Q,” an alias the user claimed was associated with their US security level Q clearance. The web of conspiracy theories under the alias are numerous. This is a red flag. There are more conspiracy theories than supporting evidence for any one conspiracy. 

One of the first conspiracies revealed by Q followers was that Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference was actually a cover, and Mueller was really investigating a global pedophilia ring. Q, according to Q followers, claimed Mueller would disclose the results of the alternative investigation at the congressional hearings. When Mueller was called he testified to the investigation regarding the 2016 election, only, effectively debunking the claims of Q supporters. 

Q supporters also claim Donald Trump is fighting a secret war against elite satanists in government, media and the corporate world. There is no evidence proving this and Donald Trump has never verified this statement. There is video evidence of Qanon supporters having been confronted with the lack of evidence to prove this conspiracy who stated, “Well, there’s no evidence to prove (Q’s claims) are not true.” If we were to think critically of this situation, a conspiracy without supporting or contradicting evidence is a floating statement of nothing, floating on a sea to nowhere. 

Although Q appears to be an anonymous informer who does not benefit personally from the conspiracy, and we don’t have evidence to conclude that is NOT true, there are some formerly unknown Youtubers who have profited financially from the Q conspiracy. To profit from one’s work and time is not a bias on its own. But in this case profit was accepted despite any corroboration that Q actually exists. There were no interviews with Q or supporting documentation for what Q claims. Q is essentially the creator of a game on a message board where Q drops cryptic messages, and like a scavenger hunt participants put clues together to create a conspiracy. Players then wait for proof to appear. There are no reports that the clues have ever led to concrete evidence. 

What has been proven is that when believers and disbelievers of a conspiracy scream at each other that both sides are sheep and both sides need to “wake up,” no one walks away fully informed. An aggressive approach is far more likely to result in the aggressor pushing the target into a defensive position further solidifying the belief the aggressor is trying to root out. 

If we are trying to convince a believer of a conspiracy, that the conspiracy is false we must begin from a place of empathy. We are trying to nudge the person away from dangerous information, not rub their nose in our rightness and their wrongness. Being right doesn’t change anyone’s mind, and flaunting it is universally annoying. Remember the goal is to help someone who is likely afraid, people are more likely to believe unsubstantiated large scale conspiracies when they are afraid. A global pandemic coupled with an economic and political meltdown would scare anyone. 

Question the conclusions the believer has formed about a conspiracy with love. Love is never condescending, so be mindful of your tone or forced facial expressions. It can be scary to lose a loved one or someone we admire to a rabbit hole of insanity. We should remind ourselves we are scared too, or we wouldn’t likely be bothering with the conversation.  Some good questions to start with might be “Where can I find the source for that conclusion, are there other sources besides the original who agree with that position, is it possible something else, offer another possible conclusion, could be true? Remember you are nudging, not ripping off a band aid. 

Whether we are digging into the background and supporting evidence of an issue for ourselves or someone else we must be aware of the signs that point to gaslighting. We don’t want to be gaslit. We don’t want to be a tool for a gaslighter. Expecting evidence before changing our beliefs is basic self care. It’s okay if we reserve agreement until we see the proof. We can insist anyone who seeks to change a mind bring receipts. We can be flexible in our beliefs as we choose to, without sacrificing intellectual boundaries. No one gets to hang out in our heads and make a mess for their own selfish gains. And not one of us has to be an unwitting gaslighter. 

(Originally published in the January 21, 2021, edition of The Mountain-Ear.)