What do you think about claims such as "Trump ruled the United States in 2020" or even "Trump ruled the executive branch of the United States in 2020? Both are quite simplistic statements. Trump didn't have the power to get the Southern District of New York which is within the executive branch to do what he wanted.
Most people overrate the power of the US president. Most people whether or not they believe in conspiracy theories have models of how power works that are not as complex as real-world interactions.
Some of these theories admittedly have proven to be grounded in real events, the most notable of those proven to be largely true are likely those regarding the affairs of clandestine agencies such as the CIA, NSA, KGB, and so on.
Intelligence agencies are not the only organizations that per-default operate in secret. The Mafia and other organized crime also operate in secret.
In Italy, the freemason lodge P2 had a lot of political power, and even after it was dissolved, one of its members, Berlusconi, became the most powerful man in Italy.
It's clear that no single individual 'rules', or can rule, the United States. Or Italy for that matter. All claims to the contrary are necessarily false. It may be a bit more difficult to demonstrate via a short series of socratic questioning but it should be possible.
Your example of SDNY vs the White House also demonstrates that no one individual has complete control over the executive branch of the US, at least in modern times.
Quite close to what I wrote, albeit with some variances depending on how they came to believe it in the first place. This is however only applicable to those who actually believe the premises and excluding those who only hold their views for signalling reasons.
This is true, although I don't think you'll get much interest about this because it's so obvious.
With four comments within the first few hours my post appears to have received more interest than the large majority of posts within recent years on LW. Especially since I posted it outside of normal waking hours in North America.
Well in this case neither meaning applies, since the claim that 'X rules the world' and also the claim that 'conspiracy theorists are independent enough from X to be credible' necessarily implies a lack of strong influence.
Therefore by virtue of taking the theorist seriously automatically excludes the possibility of X ruling the world, otherwise a contradiction arises.
do you have thoughts on how to communicate better with people who are operating at a respect deficit due to often making highly conspiracy-focused claims?
Sorry for the delayed response, your question left me a bit stumped.
If said person is a stranger with no mutual friends or acquaintances, then I believe Socratic questioning, as described in the post, is perhaps still the best approach, if simply due to the lack of better alternatives.
If you do share mutual friends or acquaintances, then it's a bit simpler, as there's an intermediary who can vouch for some amount of trustworthiness.
Everyone who's been on the internet for sometime has likely encountered odd theories regarding every sphere of human activity. The ones that attract the most adherents are characteristically concentrated in the political and economic spheres.
Some of these theories admittedly have proven to be grounded in real events, the most notable of those proven to be largely true are likely those regarding the affairs of clandestine agencies such as the CIA, NSA, KGB, and so on.
Some of the remaining theories may have a grain of truth to them, but mixed in with so much confabulation that it's not worth the effort to separate out the signal from noise.
Some types however, such as the ones requiring some type of global control, can be recognized as absurd in themselves due to the paradoxes that arise between their premises and alleged existence.
-
For example, the idea that X secretly rules the world. Where X can be the Illuminati, Jews, Aliens, etc...
There are elaborate ways of questioning the likelihood of these claims but thankfully there are straightforward questions, that when asked in the socratic style, usually lead to obvious absurdities if the claims are taken seriously. Thus forcing the claimant to accept absurd or unattractive premises, which they almost never do by-the-way, if they wish to continue free of contradiction.
Here's one possible chain of questioning:
Notice during the course of this hypothetical conversation that the initial claims are walked back bit by bit until a much more modest, and unimpressive, claim emerges. It goes from 'X rules the world!' to 'X has partial control over the world except for Y'
By the end, even the most charitable, self consistent, interpretation is that there's this secret organization X, that apparently is so competent as to rule the vast majority of mankind while successfully hiding themselves, yet is somehow too weak to advance upon the remainder, Y. So weak in fact that they let Y freely expose them and agitate for a counterattack.
(There's also the limited case in which 'X rules a specific area of the world except for Y', also known as countries.)
Needless to say, even the most charitable interpretation is not the most parsimonious or plausible explanation for the organization of present day human society.
(Interestingly, this type of deflation of claims is so common as to be often encountered in any sustained conversation that begins with a dramatic claim. Perhaps that's indicative of the human tendency to embellish, or fabricate, fabulous stories. )
Thus it can be said that theories of the type 'X rules the world' are in fact self-defeating due to their form. Because both the claimant and the listener are necessarily part of the world supposedly being ruled, supposedly smart enough to understand and do something about it, yet also unimportant enough to not be part of the ruling hierarchy or its subjects. A very unlikely combination.
I picked this specific example because it was the easiest to demonstrate the absurdities that arise when the claim is really interrogated. There are other types that are similarly self-defeating and which I leave to your imagination.