Why Conspiracy Theories Can Feel True
Exploring the evidence and environment that make them sound credible.
In case you missed it: There’s an announcement at the end about what’s coming next for Card Catalog.
Maybe it starts with a link someone sends, or a documentary that autoplays after the one we meant to watch. Maybe it’s a thread that shows up in our feed at midnight when we’re still scrolling. The subject could be anything: the pharmaceutical industry burying research, the government hiding evidence about UFOs, a mass shooting that doesn’t add up, the financial system operating in ways the public was never meant to understand.
The specifics almost don’t matter, because the experience of encountering certain kinds of conspiracy content follows a remarkably consistent pattern. Not all conspiracy theories work this way, and some are easy to dismiss on contact. But the ones that spread farthest and hold on tightest tend to share a specific architecture: they mix documented, verifiable information with conclusions that are unprovable or unsupported, and that mixture is what makes them so difficult to evaluate.
At first, the claims track with things we can check. Congressional hearings and court documents that can be verified. Documented institutional failures covered by mainstream news outlets and sitting in public archives. The tone is measured, the sourcing looks solid, and the early arguments make the kind of sense that doesn’t require any leap of faith at all. We find ourselves nodding along, maybe even feeling a little surge of discovery, that satisfying click of puzzle pieces fitting together.
And then, at some point we can rarely pinpoint afterward, the ground shifts. The sourcing gets thinner and the connections get longer, and the claims start requiring us to accept things we can’t verify, built on the credibility earned by the things we could. The narrative becomes cleaner and more all-encompassing in its explanations, and the questions we’d normally ask (What’s the counterargument? What evidence would disprove this?) start to recede, because the framework has built enough momentum that questioning any part of it can feel like rejecting the parts we already agreed were true.
The boundary between “that’s a fair point” and “that’s a stretch” can be difficult to locate in the moment, especially when the early parts of the framework were well-sourced. Conspiracy content can leave behind a specific kind of ambiguity: the sense that some of what we encountered was solid, without a clear method for determining which parts were and which parts weren’t. That ambiguity is where information literacy becomes most relevant, because the skills for sorting verified claims from unverified conclusions are the same skills that apply to evaluating any information source in a complex environment.
What makes something a conspiracy theory
We tend to recognize conspiracy theories when we see them, but articulating what separates a conspiracy theory from a legitimate investigation or a proven fact requires more precision than a gut feeling can provide. A widely cited academic definition comes from philosopher Brian Keeley, who describes a conspiracy theory as a proposed explanation of events that attributes their cause to the secret actions of a small, powerful group. What makes something a conspiracy theory specifically is that the explanation is circulating, often with a framework of supporting evidence assembled around it, before the claims have been independently confirmed.
Conspiracy theories tend to be deeply social. They circulate through communities that build shared frameworks for interpreting events, creating networks of people who feel they have access to knowledge that the mainstream is missing or suppressing. This social dimension can also become isolating, because people outside the community may dismiss the theorist’s concerns entirely - which can push the theorist deeper into the only group that takes their questions seriously.
What makes the concept particularly slippery is that sometimes these proposed explanations turn out to be right. Powerful people do sometimes coordinate in secret, and the truth does sometimes get suppressed. Researchers have identified several structural features that show up consistently across conspiracy content and that distinguish conspiratorial frameworks from other forms of skepticism or investigation:
The theory ties together events or observations that appear unrelated on the surface and presents them as part of a single, coordinated pattern.
The mainstream or official explanation is framed not just as incomplete but as part of the concealment. The institutions providing the official account are cast as either complicit or compromised.
Counter-evidence doesn’t weaken the theory. Instead, it gets absorbed as further proof of the cover-up. The absence of evidence is treated as evidence of how well the secret is being kept.
The theory relies on the idea that a small group of actors is secretly orchestrating events that affect large populations, and that this orchestration is being deliberately hidden.
The difficulty is that these same patterns have also shown up in claims that were later confirmed as true. The structural features of a conspiracy theory and the structural features of an accurate accusation of institutional deception can look nearly identical before the evidence surfaces. In several well-known cases, people who made claims matching every feature on the list above were dismissed before the evidence proved them right:
MKUltra: Throughout the Cold War, rumors circulated that the CIA was conducting psychological experiments on unwitting subjects. These claims were dismissed for decades before declassified files and the 1977 Senate hearings confirmed that the CIA had run a covert mind-control program.
COINTELPRO: Civil rights activists and political organizers in the 1960s reported being surveilled, harassed, and infiltrated by government agents. Despite these documented accounts, the FBI denied the existence of any such program, and the claims were broadly dismissed by mainstream institutions until stolen FBI files and a subsequent congressional investigation confirmed that the bureau had run a systematic program to disrupt domestic political organizations.
The Tuskegee syphilis study: Long-held suspicions in Black communities about government medical experimentation were confirmed in 1972 when investigative journalism exposed a 40-year U.S. Public Health Service study in which Black men with syphilis were deliberately left untreated and misled about their care. Tuskegee remains one of the most cited reasons for institutional distrust in American healthcare.
The tobacco industry cover-up: Public suspicion that tobacco companies knew smoking caused cancer and were hiding the evidence circulated for years before internal documents released during litigation confirmed coordinated, decades-long campaigns to suppress and discredit the science.
NSA mass surveillance: Claims about the scope of government surveillance of citizens were widely dismissed before Edward Snowden provided documentation in 2013 confirming the extent of the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance programs.
In each of these cases, the institutions being accused actively denied the allegations, and the confirming evidence was classified, sealed, or otherwise inaccessible until it wasn’t. These cases gave conspiracy theories a foundation of precedent to draw on: institutions have coordinated in secret and denied it before, so the claim that they’re doing it again doesn’t sound unreasonable on its face. Each confirmed case reinforces the idea that conspiracy theories can be true, which lends plausibility to the category as a whole, even when any individual theory lacks supporting evidence. This functions like a shift in the Overton Window, a concept from political psychology: historical precedents act as proof of concept, moving claims that would otherwise sound extreme from the category of “impossible” into the category of “historically demonstrated to be possible.”
Why the confusion runs so deep
Some conspiracy theories are entirely fabricated, and those tend to fall apart quickly under scrutiny. But the ones that gain traction often contain verified, checkable information alongside conclusions that aren’t supported by the evidence. Once we’ve confirmed that some of the claims in a framework are true, something shifts in how we evaluate everything else alongside them.
When we verify that claim A is accurate and claim B checks out, claim C arrives carrying the credibility that A and B earned, even if C is a completely different kind of assertion with a completely different evidence base. A could be a documented historical event. B could be a verified piece of congressional testimony. C could be a speculative interpretation of what A and B mean when we put them together. But because C is sitting right next to A and B, and because A and B were solid, C inherits a sense of reliability it hasn’t earned on its own merits. In psychology, this is driven by the halo effect, where our positive evaluation of one part of a framework influences our perception of the rest, and what researchers call source credibility transfer: the trust earned by verifiable facts spills over and artificially shelters the unverified speculation sitting alongside them.
That slide from “these parts are verified” to “so the whole framework must be valid” is what makes this kind of conspiracy content so much harder to navigate than straightforward misinformation. The natural logic feels airtight: If these things are true, wouldn’t the rest of the story be true too? In formal logic, the assumption that a valid conclusion must follow from a set of true premises, when the conclusion doesn’t logically follow, is called a non sequitur. But verified facts don’t guarantee that the conclusion drawn from those facts is also correct, because the conclusion is an interpretation of the facts (and the interpretation can be wrong even when the facts are right). But that principle is much easier to understand in the abstract than to apply in the moment, because our brains process narrative coherence as a signal of accuracy. Psychologists call this the narrative fallacy: when a story hangs together well, we’re inclined to treat the coherence itself as evidence that the story is correct, even when the coherence comes from editorial choices about what to include and what to leave out.
Conspiracy content is fundamentally different from a simple lie. A lie can be caught. A framework built on documented evidence, with unproven conclusions woven in among proven facts, asks us to do something cognitively much harder: to hold two things at once. Some of this is true AND the conclusion doesn’t follow. The evidence is documented AND the interpretation is unsupported. Most information we encounter doesn’t ask us to do this kind of sorting. Conspiracy content demands it constantly.
And the confirmed conspiracies listed above deepen this confusion further. Each one functions as a domino: once we learn that the CIA did conduct secret mind-control experiments, or that tobacco companies did coordinate campaigns to suppress cancer research, the ground shifts under future dismissals. If that was true, what else could be true? The confirmation of one conspiracy doesn’t just validate that specific theory; it can widen the field of plausibility for theories that follow. The result can be an ever-widening circle of openness to conspiratorial explanations, where each confirmed precedent makes the next unconfirmed theory feel more plausible because the pattern of “they lied to us before” is documented and repeated. The challenge is that the pattern is documented without every new application of the pattern being supported by evidence, and holding those two things simultaneously is precisely the kind of cognitive work that conspiracy content makes difficult.
The proximity problem and the narrative fallacy aren’t the only cognitive tendencies at work. Information literacy as a discipline studies how people evaluate sources, weigh evidence, and reach conclusions, and the research has identified several specific ways that process can break down when the information environment is complex or deliberately constructed to persuade. The conspiracy frameworks that gain the most traction tend to engage multiple tendencies at once, which compounds their persuasive effect:
Confirmation bias in source evaluation. When we’ve already reached a conclusion, we evaluate supporting evidence generously and contradicting evidence harshly. Conspiracy frameworks take advantage of this by providing a pre-built conclusion and surrounding it with evidence pre-selected to confirm, so everything that contradicts the conclusion has already been filtered out before we ever encounter the framework.
Pattern completion. Our brains are wired to find structure, a cognitive tendency known as illusory pattern perception. When a handful of data points line up, we instinctively connect them into a pattern and assume the pattern is meaningful. But data points can always be linked if we’re selective about which ones we include, a logical error known as the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy: clustering random data points together to invent a pattern, then drawing a bullseye around them. The completeness of the pattern is an illusion generated by aggressive cherry-picking. A conspiracy framework that presents only the evidence supporting its conclusion can create a pattern that feels overwhelming precisely because everything contradicting it has been left out.
Narrative coherence registering as truth. Good research often produces unsatisfying answers full of uncertainty. The most compelling conspiracy theories produce clean narratives where every piece fits. Our brains can mistake narrative consistency for factual truth, registering that coherence as a sign of truth - even though tidiness in an explanation for a complex event is more often a sign that something has been edited out to make the pieces fit.
Source credibility confusion. Conspiracy thinking often elevates individual voices (the independent researcher, the whistleblower) over peer-reviewed, institutionally vetted sources, precisely because institutional sources have been wrong before and have lost public trust for documented reasons. Questioning institutions is a reasonable response to institutional failure. Replacing the entire evidence hierarchy with no hierarchy at all is where the response stops being productive.
These tendencies are universal, but they don’t activate with equal intensity in every situation. When someone is feeling secure and well-informed, the pull of a clean conspiracy narrative is easier to examine critically. When someone is anxious, uncertain, or feeling shut out of the institutions that are supposed to provide reliable information, these same tendencies can become significantly harder to counteract, and conspiracy frameworks can become significantly more appealing.
Why some of us are more susceptible than others
Information literacy provides consistent principles for evaluating information, but research shows that our ability to apply those principles can vary based on our emotional state and the conditions we’re operating in. What we’re feeling, what we’re experiencing, and what needs the information is serving all affect how rigorously we evaluate what we encounter. Research suggests that certain psychological and situational factors can make some people more receptive to conspiracy explanations than others. A major meta-analysis published in Psychological Bulletin, drawing on 170 studies, found that conspiracy belief tends to be driven by several interconnected motivations, including the need to understand and feel in control of our environment (especially when events feel random or threatening) and the need to maintain a positive sense of ourselves and the groups we belong to.
In practical terms, this means that people experiencing higher levels of anxiety, uncertainty, or a sense of powerlessness may be more drawn to conspiracy frameworks, not because they lack intelligence, but because conspiracy theories offer something that uncertainty doesn’t: a clear explanation for why things are the way they are and who is responsible. Research in cognitive psychology has found that people with a stronger tendency to detect patterns in random data (like finding order in a random sequence of coin flips) are also more likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs. The drive to find structure is deeply embedded in human cognition, and conspiracy theories provide structure in situations where the evidence-based explanation is messy, incomplete, or simply unavailable.
Feelings of disenfranchisement play a role too. Surveys have consistently found that people who feel their side in politics is losing, or that they’ve been left behind by economic or social changes, are more open to explanations that name a specific group or force as responsible for their circumstances. A conspiracy theory can provide comfort by naming a specific cause and making the world feel more controllable: if these people weren’t doing this, things would be better. That framing is more psychologically manageable than the alternative, which is that complex systems produce outcomes that no single group controls and that bad things sometimes happen without anyone orchestrating them.
None of this means that susceptibility is a fixed trait or that believing a conspiracy theory is a sign of a psychological deficit. The research consistently emphasizes that these are normal human tendencies that become more pronounced under specific conditions: a chaotic information environment, eroded institutional trust, economic anxiety, and social isolation.
How the information environment compounds all of this
The cognitive tendencies described above (confirmation bias, pattern completion, narrative coherence, source credibility confusion) have always been part of human thinking. What’s changed is the information environment in which they operate. The skills required to evaluate information effectively have always been specialized, but the environment has shifted to make those skills more necessary than ever while simultaneously making them harder to practice.
Conspiracy content circulates more visibly now than at any point in recent history, even though research suggests that overall levels of conspiracy belief have remained remarkably stable over time. A 2022 study published in PLOS ONE examined belief in 46 conspiracy theories across data spanning decades and found no systematic increase in conspiracism. What’s changed is the volume and velocity of conspiracy content, not the underlying susceptibility, and that distinction points directly to the environment itself.
The current information landscape has several features that interact to make conspiracy content more effective than it would be in a healthier ecosystem:
Institutional trust has eroded, often for documented reasons.
Public trust in government, media, and corporations has declined significantly over the past several decades, as major polling organizations have consistently tracked. And institutions have often earned that erosion through their own documented failures: suppressed research, misleading public statements, regulatory capture, and a long track record of prioritizing institutional interests over public transparency. When the institutions that are supposed to serve as reliable sources of information have a credible track record of deception, the entire foundation of “trust the experts” weakens, and conspiracy frameworks step into the vacuum with alternative explanations that feel more credible precisely because they don’t ask us to trust the same institutions that have let us down before.
Algorithms amplify the most compelling version of any claim, not the most accurate.
Social media platforms and content recommendation systems are engineered to maximize engagement. Content that provokes strong emotional responses (outrage, fear, the thrill of hidden knowledge, moral certainty) gets amplified over content that is measured, nuanced, and carefully sourced. This means the most emotionally potent version of a conspiracy theory reaches more people than the boring, careful debunking of that same theory. The information environment actively promotes conspiracy content over the kind of evidence-based analysis that would serve as a counterweight.
Primary sources are inaccessible to most of us.
Government databases, court filings, academic research papers, and regulatory records are the raw material of evidence-based analysis, and they’re largely locked behind paywalls or formatted in specialized language that requires professional training to interpret. When primary sources are this inaccessible, secondhand interpretation becomes the version that circulates. And when secondhand interpretation is all we have access to, we’re dependent on the interpreter’s framing, biases, and editorial choices, whether that interpreter is a journalist, a content creator, or the architect of a conspiracy framework.
Traditional gatekeepers have lost persuasive authority.
Newsrooms, universities, and scientific publishers have been credibly shown to have their own biases, financial pressures, and editorial blind spots. This doesn’t mean their output is unreliable, but it does mean that the argument “experts say so” carries less automatic weight than it once did. When gatekeeping institutions can’t reliably be trusted to be neutral, the space for alternative narratives widens, and conspiracy frameworks can fill exactly that kind of space.
The cumulative effect of these forces is an information environment where conspiracy thinking can become a predictable response to institutional failure and information chaos. When institutional sources have a documented track record of deception, when algorithms surface the most emotionally charged version of every story, when primary evidence is locked away behind paywalls and jargon, and when the gatekeepers themselves have been caught with their own biases on display, the reasonable question becomes: what can we trust?
Conspiracy theories can spread because they step into that vacuum and function as a compass through the disarray. In a landscape where every official source feels suspect and the information environment feels chaotic and unnavigable, conspiracy content does something that institutional sources often fail to do: it acknowledges the distrust. It says, in effect, “you’re right to feel like you’re being misled.”
That acknowledgment, that validation of a feeling many people carry based on lived experience, is extraordinarily powerful. People share conspiracy content not because they’ve abandoned critical thinking but because, in an environment where nothing feels reliable, the conspiracy framework at least acknowledges that the official story has holes. The framework’s alternative explanation may also be wrong, but it earns trust by starting from a place that feels true: something is broken, and the people in charge aren’t telling us the whole story. A conspiracy theory can offer something that hedged, cautious institutional communication rarely does: clarity, even if that clarity is false.
Evaluating the claims
Information literacy as a discipline has been mapping these dynamics for decades. Evaluating conspiracy content draws on the same information literacy skills we’d use to evaluate any claim, applied under conditions that make those skills unusually hard to deploy.
The first question to ask about any claim within a conspiracy framework: does this reference something specific that can be independently checked? If the claim cites a particular event, document, study, or data point, it’s testable. If it describes a diffuse, unfalsifiable pattern (”a secret group is controlling everything”), it falls outside the reach of evidence-based evaluation.
For testable claims, the same tools we’d use for any factual assertion apply, starting with the most efficient step and moving deeper as needed:
Check whether someone has already done the work. Fact-checking organizations employ researchers who trace claims back to their original sources. A few starting points by region:
International: AP Fact Check, Reuters Fact Check, and AFP Fact Check operate across multiple countries and languages.
North America: Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org
Africa: Africa Check (South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal)
South Asia: BOOM (India)
Southeast Asia: Rappler (Philippines)
Latin America: Chequeado (Argentina)
Global directory: The International Fact-Checking Network maintains a searchable directory of verified fact-checking organizations worldwide, which is the fastest way to find a credible fact-checker in any country.
Find and read the original source. When a theory cites a study, hearing, or document, locate the original rather than relying on the theory’s characterization. These databases can help:
Academic research: Google Scholar indexes peer-reviewed research globally.
North America: Congress.gov (US congressional records), PACER (US federal court documents), FOIA.gov (US Freedom of Information Act releases), Open Government Portal (Canada)
Europe: Parliament.uk and GOV.UK (UK), EUR-Lex (EU legislation and court rulings)
Asia-Pacific: Right to Information Act portal (India), National Archives of Australia
Global directory: SearchSystems.net maintains an international directory of public records databases across 70+ countries. Over 130 countries have some form of freedom of information law.
Evaluate the source and compare it to the claim. When a conspiracy theory cites a study, a few questions can reveal how much weight that study should carry:
Who funded the research? A study funded by an industry group with a financial stake in the outcome has a built-in conflict of interest that independent research does not.
How large was the sample? Studies with small samples are more likely to produce results that don’t hold up when tested on larger populations.
Is the journal peer-reviewed? Peer-reviewed journals send submissions to independent experts in the field who evaluate whether the methodology is sound before the study gets published. Research published without that review process hasn’t been vetted by anyone outside the authors’ own team.
Have independent researchers replicated the findings? A single study is a starting point, but a finding confirmed across multiple independent research groups carries significantly more weight.
Does the theory accurately represent what the source says? A documented hearing or study could be cited, but the theory’s interpretation may not match the transcript or the findings. Reading the source directly often reveals a gap between what was said and what the theory claims was said.
Check the broader coverage. A claim that’s being independently reported by multiple unrelated outlets carries more weight than one circulating only within a single ecosystem. Ground News aggregates local and international coverage of the same story from multiple perspectives, making that distinction easier to see. For evaluating the outlets themselves, Media Bias/Fact Check rates over 10,000 sources globally on political bias and factual reliability, and NewsGuard provides credibility ratings for over 35,000 sources across North America, Europe, and Australasia.
For claims that can’t be tested, no amount of research will produce a definitive answer. A claim like “a secret cabal controls the global economy” can’t be verified or disproven by any available evidence. When we encounter claims like these, we can be clear with ourselves that accepting them is a choice based on belief rather than evidence, and we can evaluate the rest of the conspiracy theory’s claims independently rather than letting the unverifiable parts carry the whole narrative.
Seeing the architecture
The information environment we’re navigating produces more questions than credible answers. Institutional trust continues to erode and primary sources remain behind paywalls and specialized language, while algorithmic systems keep surfacing the most emotionally charged version of every story. As long as these conditions persist, conspiracy frameworks will continue to step in with explanations that feel coherent, even when the evidence behind them is incomplete or nonexistent.
Conspiracy theories gain their persuasive power from being evaluated as a whole. When we accept or reject an entire theory based on how the complete narrative makes us feel, we’re responding to how the theory is constructed rather than the evidence behind it. The shift that information literacy offers is the ability to evaluate individual claims within a conspiracy theory independently, which often reveals that a theory’s persuasive power comes from its narrative architecture rather than the strength of what it’s presenting.
Evaluating claims individually rather than accepting or rejecting entire conspiracy theories at once is a skill that sharpens with use. Each time we practice separating what's documented from what's been built around it, the structure of conspiracy content becomes easier to read. What once felt like a seamless, convincing narrative starts to reveal where the evidence stops and the speculation begins. From there, we get to decide for ourselves what to do with what we find inside it.
A few readers have asked how to support the work outside of a subscription, so here’s another option. If something here has resonated with you or been helpful, this is one more way to show appreciation. Thank you for reading, always.
You might also like:
What “Do Your Own Research” Actually Means: A step-by-step methodology for evaluating any claim and exploring any subject.
The Hierarchy of Sources: A Cheat Sheet: A guide to evaluating information sources in the AI age.
Steel-Manning Can Be More Useful Than Fact-Checking: How engaging with the strongest version of an opposing argument builds a deeper defense than verification alone. A practical guide with a downloadable worksheet.
Special announcement!
I’ve been building something I’m excited to share. On June 23, the Card Catalog Classroom opens!
The Classroom modules are the heart of the project. Every teachable article you’ve read here will become a structured lesson you can move through, with prompts and exercises a standalone piece can’t carry. This will extend both the actionability and the usefulness of what we discuss in the articles. Future recorded workshops will live there too.
Alongside the lessons is the Reference Collection: a browsable directory of every archive, database, history, and tip I’ve ever pointed to in a Note. Instead of scrolling through my feed to find that one thing I mentioned, you’ll be able to search the entire collection in a more organized and accessible way. Every new Note on those topics folds in automatically, so the collection keeps growing as we go. I firmly believe that good information is findable information, and this is how I’m putting that into practice.
One thing to mention: Substack does not yet natively host things like courses or directories, so these paid subscriber benefits will be hosted on Circle. Substack stays exactly where it is for the free articles and Notes, but Circle gives me the structure to organize everything properly. And when the time comes to open up an information village, Circle is where that will live too.
Paid subscription pricing is also shifting when the Classroom launches. Right now it’s $8 a month/$80 a year, and those rates will move to $10 monthly/$100 annual. Anyone who becomes a paid subscriber before June 23 will be grandfathered in at the current rate of $8 monthly/$80 annual, permanently. Even if there’s another increase down the line, you’ll always be locked in at what you signed up at. It’s how I want to say thank you to readers who’ve been here since the beginning!
Nothing in the current paid tier is going away. The existing benefits (AI Briefings, Librarian Hotline, Research Packets, Founding Member Report) will continue to be published on Substack as they always have, and they’ll also be featured and findable in the Circle library along with everything else. And all the new services for paid subscribers (the Classroom modules and the Reference Collection) are going to live in Circle, organized in a way that’s far easier to use, learn from, and reference. A dedicated email is coming soon with the full breakdown of what to expect - more coming soon. ☺️
One thing I didn't appreciate about conspiracy theories is that from a survival perspective, it makes more sense to believe or pretend to believe, say, the Earth is flat and keep your community of friends than to say that the Earth is round and then lose your community.
I found this video extremely helpful: https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/how-do-conspiracy-theories-work-explainer-653052/
Excellent as always. (I think I'll fall over in a dead faint if I ever encounter a post from you that doesn't hit me that way.)
I notice that there's a similar psychological dynamic at work in evaluating -- and accepting or doubting/rejecting -- AI outputs. It's all packaged so competently that the spackled-over holes in the AI's knowledge become invisible. The irony of course is that improved communication media and automation is supposed to make our lives *easier*; actually, though, it becomes ever more difficult to decide what to believe -- so difficult that we must fall back on shortcuts (like accepting without verifying), as long as the contextual details feel "safe."