High conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Or in other words, you can't deprogram someone from a cult from within the cult.
This is a very important “of course”.
Conspiracy theories are reliant on bad argumentation…therefore people who struggle in that area are less inclined to identify the flaws in the theories.
This sounds similar to standardized tests like the LSAT
There's a whole plethora of them, ranging in difficulty, appropriate age and the amount of critical thinking they measure.
In fact any test given to a group of people can be considered a standardized test. But very few of them measure any sort of critical thinking, or even reading comprehension.
https://www.audubon.org/news/are-birds-actually-government-i...
It takes slightly more than a casual interest to draw the correct conclusion that WTC7 fell from uncontrolled office fires. In this case, reputable scientists and engineers at NIST did the analysis work for us.
One wouldn't be faulted for casually examining a collapse video of WTC7 and preliminarily concluding that the tower fell from some type of controlled demolition. Of course, further examination of the video negates this conclusion.
WTC7's collapse could be a project for a critical thinking skills class for high school students.
Because it never occurred to them, I suspect. It would only have occurred to them if they were checking the conspiracy hypothesis with reality, trying to poke holes in the claim. That's the very opposite of a conspiracy theorist who already has the conclusion and is now attempting to back-justify it.
We all have our cognitive dissonances, but perhaps the hallmark of "conspiracy theory" thought is that it persists despite whatever degree of dissonance it has with the rest of reality (even reality as acknowledged by the believer). Probably because it never gets subjected to such "integration testing" and so exists in its own self-contained universe, free of all the other implied consequences, if it were true. Pointing out such inconsistencies won't do any good. Because such inconsistencies are never seen as actual flaws in their hypothesis (which of course, is correct). At best, you simply don't understand and your argument is seen as a giant fallacy. At worst, well... you're probably in on it, anyway.