Sunstein, Cass, and Adrian Vermeule. "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures". The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol.17, No.2 (2009): 202-227.

Sunstein, Cass, and Adrian Vermeule. "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures". The Journal of Political Philosophy, Vol.17, No.2 (2009): 202-227.

• Generally, scholarly inquire on conspiracy theories either comes from philosophers questioning how to distinguish between conspiracy theories and regular theories, or from psychologists attempting to explain what causes people to believe in conspiracy theories despite evidence to the contrary (203).
• Most people who believe conspiracy theories are not mentally ill, but instead suffer from a 'crippled epistemology', meaning that they are accessing only a very small number of sources of information, most of which are giving them false and conspiratorial information. From the limited information they have access to, the conspiracy theory is a reasonable and rational belief (204).
• This situation is more common in autocratic or censorious societies where citizens have limited means of accessing information. Accordingly, conspiracy theories are more common in autocracies than democracies. General distrust of government conduct in autocracies also further these theories (204, 209-210).
• The authors posit that this crippled epistemology is also a source of other forms of violent extremism, which can be viewed as another harmful conspiracy theory dependent on crippled epistemology. This is also suggested as a factor for why violent extremism and terrorism are more common in autocracies (211-212).
• The authors define conspiracy theories as theories which assert that the conventional explanations for events are incorrect and the actual causes are the machinations of a powerful groups of people who have concealed their role in these events (205). Conspiracy theories can also be true, such as the Watergate scandal or the MKULTRA program (206), but the authors choose to focus on those theories which are clearly demonstrably false and are potentially harmful (206-207).
• Conspiracy theories tend to attribute complicity to most government actors and the news media, inculcating a deep suspicion of government news sources. This gives conspiracy theories a self-sealing effect, since all alternative perspectives can be ascribed to a grand conspiracy (207, 210, 218).
• "Karl Popper famously argued that conspiracy theories overlook the pervasive unintended consequences of political and social action; they assume that all consequences must have been intended by someone. Many social effects, [...] occur as a result of the acts and omissions of many people, none of whom intended to cause those effects. The appeal of some conspiracy theories, then, lies in the attribution of otherwise inexplicable events to intentional action" (208).
• Generally, human psychology dislikes the fact that important events can be the result of meaningless random chance. Our brain perfers simple cause-and-effect stories, making conspiracy theories more psychologically palatable (208).
• "Conspiracy theories that posit machinations by government officials typically overestimate the competence and discretion of officials and bureaucracies, who are assumed to be able to make and carry out sophisticated secret plans, despite abundant evidence that in open societies government action does not usually remain secret for very long" (208-209).
• Conspiracy theories generally emerged from the insane ramblings of an individual person, known as a 'conspiracy entrepreneur'. Oftentimes these people are genuine in their insane beliefs, but sometimes conspiracy theories are posited for political or economic aims by other actors [think about Hashd claims about US assistance to ISIS] (212).
• These conspiracy theories usually take hold in the early aftermath of an important event or in other situations were limited information is available to contradict the conspiracy theory. In cases with limited information and no direct knowledge of events, these conspiracy theories can sound reasonable (213).
• The success of conspiracy theories during the intial stage of their life is dependent on the believability of the claims, usually subjective and dependent on the prior beliefs of the public. For example, those with deep distrust of the government are more likely to belief claims that the CIA assassinated civil rights leaders (213).
• People are also subject to the psychological power of groupthink and social pressure, and are likely to adopt conspiratorial views when they believe that the majority of their group believe these things. This lack of dissent may then convince others to adopt the theory (214-215).
• Conversation between conspiratorial viewpoints also serves to psychologically reinforce these views. After discussing conspiracy theories with those who agree, both parties are generally more resolute in their opinions and less willing to countenance opposing views (216-217).
• The authors propose several possible government reactions to conspiracy theories: banning these theories through some means; taxing or fining those who promote these theories; mounting public information campaigns specifically targeting conspiracy theories; hiring trusted third-parties to provide arguments countering conspiracy theories; engaging with conspiracy theories in interpersonal dialogue. The authors advocate an infiltration of diehard conspiratorial groups for the purpose of supplying alternative perspectives and new information (218-219).
• When responding to conspiracy theories, governments have a choice to focus on dissuading the general public or trying to engage with diehard conspiracy theorists. The problem is that the latter are extremely difficult to convince; sometimes recruiting independent experts can help, but if it is discovered they are funded by the government, the entire plan can backfire and reinforce conspiratorial beliefs (223). Ultimately, government do have to engage with the diehard believers, because they are the ones who actually pose a threat of violence (224).
• The authors recommend the infiltration of conspiratorial groups by government agents, not to collect information for future prosecutions like COINTELPRO, but to introduce new sources of information and dissent into these groups with the goal of disbanding the conspiracy theory (224-225).
• This infiltration could either be covert, with government agents adopting false identities, or overt, with government agents announcing their affiliations and asking to participate anyway. The covert method may have better success overcome anti-government biases, but could also backfire if someone's identity is discovered. It could also occur through the internet on conspiratorial chatrooms and forums (225-226).
• Responding to conspiracy theories boosts their popularity and legitimacy for both true believers and the general population, on the assumption that the government would not respond unless it either believed that the theory had merit or that the belief was extremely widespread. By responding to multiple conspiracy theories simultaneously, the government can diminish this legitimating effect for particular conspiracy theories (219, 221-222).
• Some argue that the government does not need to engage with conspiracy theories at all, and that these theories are mostly harmless, some of even sort of funny or -- like belief in aliens -- somewhat convincing. The authors contend that the danger of terrorism posed by hardcore conspiracy theorists is still enough to warrent a response; recall, for example, the conspiracy theories which motivated the Oklahoma City bombing and other White Supremist terrorism (220).