Recently, I took a break from preparing a class on conspiracy theories to play a word game and read about three Utah brothers trying to reinstate Donald Trump as president. I suddenly realized the interrelation of the three things.

The human brain does an amazing job of seeing patterns. Our brains are attuned to seeing threats and possibilities: the lion hiding in the bush to the berries on that bush. But this superpower comes at a cost. We look for meaning in random patterns and events and see patterns where none exist. Our predispositions inform the patterns we find. In fact, studies have shown that those better at pattern recognition find more patterns, including finding false conspiracies.

Our capacity to find patterns obviously has value. We also rationally believe our theories because we fear a potentially dangerous outcome. Treating that pattern in the bush as simply berries versus a lion could be a costly mistake. However, while our brains remain in the bush, our modern society offers opportunities to resist a knee-jerk reaction.

Your high IQ doesn’t help combat this knee-jerk tendency either. Other studies show that smarter people have greater conviction for their beliefs. Only nonintuitive, reflective, executive function thinking can keep this exaggerating tendency at bay. We all have this capability, but engaging in the practice takes time, effort and, frankly, pain. Our brains resist.

Our beliefs sit within a social context as well. Our egos may celebrate holding special knowledge unknown by our compatriots. Even more universally, particular beliefs act as markers for particular communities: our tribal loyalties that form our personal identities. Our beliefs often don’t even represent a fully formed thought but, instead, our approach to the world, our attitudes. Why question a belief — or, at least, outwardly question a belief even if we ourselves have a weak conviction for the idea — if it means becoming ostracized from our tribe?

It doesn’t help that real conspiracies have actually happened, which increases our normal level of paranoia. For example, people representing the U.S. have lied to the American people about the Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-Contra, weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and so forth.

Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence. I argue that we all need to take the time to recognize and act on the irrational. Our democracy, our lives, depends on it.

Fortunately, false conspiracy theories follow certain patterns that we can recognize. I’ll try to use the 2020 election as an example.

One, the sources of information for the theory have obvious self-serving purposes. The source in 2020: Donald Trump, who obviously wants his role of president reinstated.

Two, the theorists tend to only focus on evidence supporting the theory and ignore contrary evidence. Deniers completely ignore the evidence of a fair election.

Three, cherry-picked evidence that fills in incomplete information with conspiratorial thinking. A conspiratorial focus on a mathematically interesting pattern ignores our tendencies to see false patterns. Various districts might, in fact, count votes at different speeds.

Four, the false information fills in these holes but falls down on all the rest of the phenomenon or event. Election deniers ignore the elections where Republicans actually won.

Five, the conspiracy would require massive numbers of people conspiring in secret and doing extraordinary things to affect the outcome. A nationwide election fraud requiring huge numbers of both Republicans and Democrats as co-conspirators to elect a Democrat seems unlikely. Nobody has “come clean.”

Six, the conspiracy fits our predisposed outlook. The 2020 election only represents the latest election “anomaly.” Many Democrats claimed election fraud for elections in 2000, 2014 and 2016 when Democrats lost. Any surprises here? How do we react to a referee’s call going against our favorite team?

Claiming conspiracies where none exist creates fears based on false beliefs. All Americans should want their election system run fairly, regardless of the outcome.

Given the strength of conviction for any belief system and that 61% of Republicans believe that Joe Biden didn’t win fairly, will any of what I’ve talked about here convince anyone? In any column I’ve ever written, for that matter? I don’t know. And I likely won’t find out since I’m taking a hiatus from writing this monthly column.

I’ve enjoyed visiting with you each fourth Wednesday of the month. Thank you to the Standard-Examiner. Thanks to all of you for your comments. I’ve tried to remain curious, fair and open to changing my mind. I’ve tried to do similarly in life. I hope all of you do the same. Good luck. I know it isn’t always easy.

Dr. David Ferro is dean of the College of Engineering, Applied Science & Technology at Weber State University. Twitter: DavidFerro9

Newsletter