Why are people willing to believe nonsense? Conspiracy theories, for instance. While these collections of absurd propositions have no inherent logic or basis in reality, some people really go for them. A case in point: the wackadoodle QAnon blather about adrenochrome. An actual chemist who knows what adrenochrome is refutes the looniness of the tale with facts. Dr. Joe Schwarcz of McGill University:
. . . the ludicrous QAnon claims that Hollywood celebrities and “liberal elite” politicians are kidnapping children to harvest their blood. QAnon is a not-so-fringe, baseless theory that a government agent, “Q,” is a source of continuous information about “deep state” secrets such as the existence of a global cabal of pedophiles who thirst for the blood of children. Why? The farcical QAnon rationale is that they are using the blood as a source of adrenochrome, a chemical that supposedly has psychedelic properties and also holds the promise of immortality.
. . . Not so! Adrenochrome can be readily synthesized and is available to researchers from chemical suppliers. No need for human sacrifice.
Facts and reality— where’s the fun in that?
Edgar Maddison Welch, a North Carolina man, swallowed the QAnon/adrenochrome nonsense hook, line, and sinker. He was arrested in Washington DC when he charged into a pizza joint and shot off his AR-15 style rifle, thinking he was going to save children from blood-thirsty pedophiles. What’s really incredible is that, after being arrested, tried, and sentenced to four years in prison, Welch still believed the internet conspiracy theory. In a conversation with the New York Times, Welch clung to his erroneous beliefs:
‘The intel on this wasn’t 100 percent,’ he said. . .
After recently having internet service installed at his house, he was ‘really able to look into [the QAnon claims about adrenochrome].’ He said that substantial evidence from a combination of sources had left him with the ‘impression something nefarious was happening.’ He said one article on the subject led to another and then another. He said he did not like the term fake news, believing it was meant to diminish stories outside the mainstream media, which he does not completely trust. . .
To understand the power of counterfeit realities promoted by conspiracy theories and propaganda, we must understand why humans are captivated by certain types of information.
Social scientists who study historical social and psychological development have proposed a theory to explain the allure of “PRIME” information (more on that later). They found that people pay more attention if information comes from a prestigious person within their group and the communication stimulates an emotional reaction; the more emotionally connected the listener is to the speaker/group, the more they reject information from out-group sources. This communication bias is a deeply rooted, behavioral adaptation that evolved over hundreds of thousands of years.
Humans survived and prospered over millennia because of social learning. They observed other humans and copied optimal behaviors (e.g., emulating skillful hunters); they inferred others’ goals and intentions (e.g., looking for cues indicating whether someone was an enemy or a friend); and they noticed that behavior was punished (e.g., when someone stole food) or praised (e.g., when someone found a clean water source and told others). Thus, through norms of cooperation and processes of social learning, human societies thrived in diverse environments. Survival methods and coping mechanisms became cognitive patterns embedded in brains and culture. Social learning was passed down through generations because it was functional and helped communities survive.
Human brains are amazing but they are not supercomputers. We don’t multitask well. Supercomputers can handle large blocks of data and make multiple calculations simultaneously. Our attention is selective; we look for cues and use them as shortcuts in decision-making. Over centuries, the social cues that helped humans make quick decisions for survival (and released flight-or-fight hormones) were retained; non-adaptive responses died out.
In their recent article, William J. Brady and his colleagues identified key aspects of social learning/communication bias that made it useful in the past—and allow it to serve more nefarious purposes in the present. They developed the PRIME model to help explain how communication bias operates:
Human beings pay more attention to communications IF
information comes from a high-ranking or popular person: The speaker is high-status, a celebrity, or someone held in high regard— PRESTIGE
information comes from someone within your tribe or identity group: The speaker is a member of one’s party, faction, or club—IN-GROUP
the communication includes judgmental statements: The speaker is saying something negative or judgmental about someone the listener is predisposed to dislike—MORALIZING
the communication arouses an emotional response: The speaker is saying something outrageous that arouses strong feelings in the listener and prepares them for action—EMOTIONAL
Selective attention to PRIME information was functional when humans lived in small groups, hunted and fished, and fought off wild animals. Ancient humans paid attention to PRIME communications because they enabled quick responses to danger (fight or flight), and encouraged cooperation and problem-solving. These social learning biases were functional. And yet, a functional content bias is still a bias.
Contemporary human societies are complex. We no longer live off the land in small, homogenous groups. With sophisticated technologies, modern nations do not rely on social learning for collective decision-making. We have science, we have institutions, and we have political systems and alliances. All of these types of organizations depend on the constant transmission of huge amounts of data. To be useful, the communications must be as unbiased as possible. Complex societies are not endangered by wild animals; they must protect themselves from bad actors who intend to disrupt vast, interconnected systems.
Social biases that were functional and psychologically healthy for millennia no longer serve their original purpose. Humans have developed—through education and scientific advances—rational means for making complex and collective decisions. Social learning is still relevant for creating solidarity and interpersonal networks, but a less biased process is required for increasingly heterogeneous communities. And yet . . . engrained modes of communication with social cues and biases persist. These traditional patterns can be hijacked by political or commercial actors for their particular ends. The deep-rootedness of PRIME social learning bias makes it difficult for rational and institutional premises to override this cognitive pattern.
Next week, I’ll explore how social media algorithms negatively influence human communication and interaction (“Algorithm, Your Silent Partner,” scheduled for April 11). The ill effects of social media platforms’ exploitation of human biases have been covered extensively in the press; we know, for example, that spending more time online can exacerbate anxiety and depression, especially for youth. But here’s the good news: Professor Brady and his team not only explain why bad things are happening but also how to fix them. There is a way forward!
To be continued . . .
And now . . . a flamboyance of flamingos
Related Grounded articles:
Who put the ‘Con’ in Conspirituality? (January 11, 2022)
Conspirituality, Revisited (August 15, 2023)
Keep scrolling down (below Notes) to reach the comments, share, and like buttons.
Dear Readers, could you please hit the “like” button? It helps improve the visibility of Grounded in search results. Thanks.
Follow me on social media:
Notes:
William J. Brady, Jackson, J. C., Lindstom, B., & Crocket, M. (2023, October). Algorithm-mediated social learning in online social networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2710, 947-960. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.008 (This journal is behind a paywall. Contact me if you want a copy of the article.)
Joe Schwarcz, “QAnon’s Adrenochrome Quackery”.
Further Reading:
William Audureau, “Why conspiracy theorists and the Kremlin echo each other's disinformation”.
Jared Holt, How Russian Disinformation goes from the Kremlin to QAnon to Fox News
Great article. It is hard to believe people believe the most ridiculous ideas. The lack of critical thinking skills really are becoming a serious problem in our country. What the hell happened? Looking forward to the next article.
For that guy, intelligence is pretty much 0 percent