Editor's Pick

When the world feels unpredictable, people seek answers. For most, this is done by scrolling through Tik Toks or Instagram Reels or discussing with online communities, probably late at night (don’t worry, we’ve all been there). Unfortunately, these are methods that, despite their clear and often visual explanations, often lack any professional evidence or credibility. Surprisingly, this isn’t a recent phenomenon and has actually been happening since the prehistoric era over 100,000 years ago. Of course, the use of social media has only become an influence since its conception in the mid 2000s, but before that, explanations would be passed on via radio shows, magazines or even just by word of mouth. (Although it is important to note that social media has drastically increased the rate by which this occurs.)  It is in times of desperation, such as economic crises, government disorder or pandemics (times of unpredictability) that conspiracy theories arise and perhaps even flourish.  

This leads us to a few questions:  

• Why are Conspiracy theories more appealing in times of uncertainty? 

• What social factors make people more likely to believe them?  

• How have these spread so far and quickly?   

So, as any decent article-writer would, I did some research and constructed a few reasons as to why conspiracy thinking spikes when society feels unstable. Thus, I present to you the 4D’s (I know, creative, right?) 

1. DESPERATION FOR MEANING: 

Unlike any other species on Earth, humans have a unique desire to understand how the world, and things within it, work(s). This can be through technicalities and science, fiction and media (films, books, songs and poems) or even the child-like curiosity most of us ignore past the age of 10. Questions such as ‘Why is the sky blue’ or (perhaps a bit more philosophical) ‘What is the meaning of life’ famously demonstrate this innate yearning for meaning. Even things as simple as ‘what’s the point of this’ highlights this idea. Let’s look at a well-known conspiracy theory to see how this provides a sense of meaning (and consequently gratification) for the believer. The New World Order is the belief that a secret, yet powerful elitist group (The Illuminati) is working to establish a totalitarian world-government. Believers observe synthetic evidence in the unpredictable world, for example, globalisation, economic integration and international institutions (like the UN), and construct an explanation for why they exist. These are often unscientific, unproven, and extremely controversial. For instance, believers would argue that all of the synthetic evidence listed above are ways of the illuminati removing national independence, making it easier for them to maintain power and control over the world. This proves how desperation for meaning in times where meaning may not be apparent could be a metaphoric ‘hot-spot’ for conspiracy theories.  

2. DISTRUST IN INSTITUTIONS:  

Now more than ever (due to the development of social media and the harsh ‘cancel culture’ that coincides with it) an institution’s reputation is at the forefront of their priorities. This can lead to them withholding information (or in certain cases, lying) to the public. A factor that may lead to the distrust of institutions is the economic inequality between the general population (predominantly proletariat/ working class) and these businesses or social constructs (predominantly bourgeoisie/ ruling class). This lack of relatability can ignite a sense of suspicion for the consumer, which may be a driving cause of conspiracy theories. A clear example of this in action is the belief that the Moon Landing is a hoax (which a shocking 9% of the population truly believe). This conspiracy theory is the belief that NASA and the US Government faked the most celebrated event in US history; when man first landed on the moon. This belief requires significant distrust in institutions (possibly due to economic differences) because: it rejects the ‘official truth’ presented by NASA, it assumes widespread corruption since over 400,000+ people would have lied about working on this project (engineers, scientists, management etc) and it doubts that NASA actually has the ability or competence to pull something like this off. These theories gained popularity in the 70’s, a time when the US Government had little public trust due to scandals like Watergate or the Pentagon Papers. This could have also influenced these views.  It is also vital to note that the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has only increased this distrust in modern times and has caused the public to view the world and its contents more critically, perhaps leading to more conspiracy theories and theorists. 

3. DIGITAL ISOLATION/ FRAGMENTED COMMUNITIES:  

When was the last time you went for a cuppa over your neighbor's house? When was the last time you attended an event in your local community centre? It has probably been years, right? This is no coincidence and actually has been a global trend over the last 20 years. This phenomenon is a result of digital isolation and is formally known as 'The Paradox of Connectivity’. Despite increased online interaction, people are experiencing higher levels of loneliness, anxiety and social disconnection, ultimately making society as a whole (and individuals within it) more hostile, selfish and distrusting. The only/ main form of social interaction that people are experiencing these days are online, whether this be via endless doomscrolling or watching YouTube videos etc. It would be absurd for me not to mention the ‘Echo Chamber effect’ here, since this is arguably the main culprit behind question number 3; ‘How do conspiracy theories spread so far and quickly?’ The Echo Chamber effect’ is the idea that social media algorithms are designed and coded to maximise engagement, not accuracy. Thus, it is likely that controversial opinions or ‘fake news’ ends up on your feed, because it is more likely to get a higher user engagement (comments, likes etc) than ‘a day in my life’ video for instance. Furthermore, memes travel faster and are simpler than detailed nuances, consolidating a false idea in the viewer's mind that begins to develop with the more they see. The COVID-19 Pandemic was an excellent example of a time where people were spending more time online (out of public necessity), and as expected, it was a time where conspiracy theories began to grow. During this time, various theories were made that suggest that the virus was artificially created, that 5G towers spread it, or that it was a method for social control. These were derived from the uncertainty of the situation and were perpetuated via social media (which was successful due to digital isolation). Think back to 2020, none of us knew how long we would be constrained to our houses, or what damage this virus would ultimately cause. Hence, conspiracy theories were formed and often thrived.  

4. DERIVED IDENTITY, BELONGING AND KNOWLEDGE: 

Conspiracy theories provide something very valuable to its believers: a sense of belonging. They can create powerful communities of like-minded individuals, which can feel vital in an uncertain society. Believers often describe their experience as being part of a group that “sees the truth” in a world of blindness. For some, this may act as a superiority to others (a hypothetical ‘social reward’ for possessing ‘secret knowledge’) which can often act as a slippery slope to narcissistic behaviour, whether as a group or alone. However, this sense of identity can quickly become addictive, especially if one feels powerless or insignificant in their offline lives. An extraordinary example of this is one I’m sure we have all heard of; the ‘earth is flat’ conspiracy theory. This is a theory that suggests that the earth has a flat disc shape, in contrast to a globe. An online community on messaging app Discord entitled ‘The Official Flat Earth Discord Server’ has roughly 13,700-14,800+ members as of January 2026. Although it is difficult to determine how many of these are active participants on the server, for those who are (whom I can only assume are the majority) this is a sense of belonging and even wisdom that acts as a ‘known’ in a world which holds so much ‘unknown’. This is an example of social cohesion, a concept where shared beliefs and values bind people together. Because of this, the conspiracy theory becomes not only a belief of an individual, rather an identity also (hence why those who believe the ‘earth is flat’ conspiracy theory are referred to as ‘Flat Earthers’). 

Brent Lee, 43, is a Bristol-based ex-conspiracy theorist. For 15 years of his life, he was a firm believer of a conspiracy theory that claims that every atrocity from 9-11 to mass shootings were a result of a sadistic elitist group. Interestingly, he commented on a BBC interview that these beliefs weren’t as a result of his childhood or socio-situation. He stated that “I felt happy, I had a big circle of friends through music, nothing had happened- there was no catalyst”. This proves that although social vulnerability can increase the likelihood of believing conspiracy theories, nobody is immune.  He broadcasted these beliefs on platforms such as Facebook and MySpace (popular social media at the time), which caused tension between him and his friends. Over time, the majority of his friendships were derived from online communities that shared his view (“that was my community for quite a few years”) rather than in-person connections (digital isolation). This is a common trend with conspiracy believers. It also affected his life in practical ways; he didn’t: have a career, take out a mortgage or have children because of his focus on this belief, and he has later regretted not doing so when he had the chance to. It became his identity. You may be wondering, as I was at this point, what changed his mind? In 2012, there was a mass-shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut, one that killed 26 people (20 of which were young children). On his website, Alex Jones heavily promoted the idea that it was a hoax by the government in the hopes of making American gun laws stricter. This disputed Lee’s perspective on the matter and slowly got him to re-evaluate his foundations of thinking. After 6 years of doing so, he came to the conclusion that he was previously mistaken and decided to leave his online ‘truther’ communities. Since then, he has attended numerous interviews reflecting on why he believed these theories, and he concluded that the main reason was to find meaning. He stated, “I felt there must be a reason why this world isn't fair, there must be a reason why these things are happening and (conspiracy theories) give an answer as to why”. Dr. Daniel Jolley, a social psychologist, analysed these answers and came to his own conclusions about Lee’s case. Not only did he comment that it's “pretty rare” for Brent to change his world view alone (suggesting that most believers are believers for life without a third party), but also recognised the hardship he must have gone through to do so; “Conspiracy beliefs are so hard-wired and they become such a part of your identity that changing that identity becomes really difficult”. This hardship is emphasised further in unstable societies, since once one disproves their initial belief, they are left without an explanation, thus, perhaps vulnerable.  

It is without question that an increase in conspiracy believers have real-world consequences. It can: create a higher distrust in institutions society relies on, fragment families and familial relationships and deepen political divides leading to higher conflict. This weakens our community and society and can act as a signal for the breaks in our communities it has already led to. However, it is not too late. Naturally, this isn’t an easy fix, but (in fear of being cliché) Rome wasn’t built in a day. Listed below are some researched solutions that have great promise in tackling this issue: 

• Strengthening community bonds: increases in-person belonging and identity thus lowering the need to seek these online.  

• More clarity from institutions: builds trust and relatability with the public, less likely to be critical and create alternate theories about them revolving around an event. 

• Open and safe conversations: not having to worry about ‘getting cancelled’ allows people to discuss different perspectives about an issue, leading the individual to make a more informed (and often more accurate) decision.  

To conclude, 'Conspiracy Theories' aren’t just weird stories circulating the media for attention or engagement. Often, it is a result of social desperation and an innate need for explanation. Understanding why these form and thrive in unstable environments is the first step to addressing and eventually debunking them globally, which is crucial for a happy and healthy society.  

We are always being told to think outside the box. All the best and the brightest got their ideas by thinking outside the box after all. And yet we’re never quite told what the box is. Is it just the collection of established knowledge? In which case doesn’t that mean that astrologers (or more dangerously anti-vaxers) are thinking outside the box when they challenge that which everyone else believes in? Or is the box something more metaphysical, some kind of internal barrier which inhibits our imagination or our curiosity? In short, over the course of this article I want to work out what exactly this box is and maybe take it down a peg or two whilst I’m at it.

And yet, now maybe this is just me, but I’ve always felt this puzzle (and puzzles like it) are kind of… well a cheat. Let me explain: I think what has always bothered me about this puzzle is that whilst the rule ‘you can’t leave the confines of the dots’ is not explicitly stated, it’s sort of implicitly implied, just like it’s implied that the puzzle takes place on a flat surface and not, say, a cylinder. I can’t argue that this puzzle doesn’t require a sort of creative genius, it certainly does, but I can wonder if this genius is something to be commended. To be extremely melodramatic, but it isn’t this questioning of unspoken rules what leads to white collar crimes like tax evasion and fraud. After all, no one said I couldn’t set up my company in Vanuatu…

But enough of that, I’m just being facetious to prove a point, so let’s get back to that box of ours. The OED defines thinking outside the box as ‘to think creatively or in an unconventional manner,’ Merriam-Webster defines it as ‘to explore ideas that are creative and unusual and that are not limited or controlled by rules or tradition.’ Both quite positive I believe, but I still can’t shake that feeling that outside the box isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. So I looked into it, and discovered that lo and behold, questioning the truths that everyone else believes can often end badly. Citation: Galileo. Galileo Galilei, for anyone who doesn't know, was a 16th century scientist and general genius who had many revolutionary ideas about physics. However things ended badly for Galileo when he was arrested for heresy for arguing the earth orbited the sun, and spent the last nine years of his life under house arrest, demonstrating clearly that thinking outside the box comes with a price. But even I can recognize the weakness in my argument: Galileo was a genius and has been validated many times over. Even if he suffered for it his research was a major step in the right direction for science, and a big positive for thinking outside the box. 

Perhaps a better example to prove my case would be Franz Anton Mesmer. He lived around a hundred years later in the 17th century and wanted to find an explanation for hypnotism. By thinking outside the box he came up with Animal Magnetism - the belief that invisible fluids inside the body influence behavior but can be controlled with magnetic objects and hypnotism. His theory became popular for a while, but was soon discredited by a team of scientists commissioned by King Louis XVI of France. You see, Animal Magnetism was quite simply, entirely wrong. So as useful as thinking outside the box may or may not be, it can definitely lead to error. 

Another aspect to consider are the times when thinking out the box simply isn’t appropriate. Indeed one needs only to think about it for a minute or so to come up with a million examples. Thinking outside the box is unlikely to be helpful if you are: a bus driver, a builder, a data enterer, a cleaner, a security guard (the list goes on). Even something as taxing as doctoring does not require (much) thinking outside of the box, after all no one wants to be operated on by a maverick surgeon. For better or worse society often functions on individuals all acting predictably, and thinking outside the box is far from predictable.

But what has science got to say about it all? Well one of the first psychologists to investigate creativity was a man called J. P. Guileford, who tested a bunch of participants using our old friend the 9-dot puzzle. Predictably only 20% of his participants managed to complete the puzzle leading Guileford to theorise that creativity requires one to step outside the box and question all unseen boundaries in their life. However two teams of psychologists, Clarke Burnham with Kenneth Davis, and Joseph Alba with Robert Weisberg, were not quite convinced. They repeated the study and found that even when participants were told that to solve the puzzle they would have to leave the dots, it had a statistically insignificant effect on how many people successfully solved it. This would suggest that creativity cannot be forced by any particular mindset. 

‘But hang on,’ you argue, ‘you haven’t proven anything about whether thinking outside the box is actually ineffective or not. All you’ve managed to do is show that just telling someone to think outside the box doesn’t help their creativity.’ Yeah, you’ve got me there. See, the truth is, as much as I tried to find some credible sources who would slag off thinking outside the box, I came back with literally nothing. I went down so many rabbit holes (you think that bit on Galileo was a bit random, you should see all the stuff I didn’t include) but found absolutely zip. 

If anything I found the opposite; I was overrun with evidence of how useful thinking outside the box is. Put simply: by thinking outside the box, you can recognise the unseen assumptions that hold you back, allowing you to think more creatively; to be more successful; to solve problems easier; the list goes on. So I’m afraid as much as I wanted a juicy surprise, the truth is that thinking outside the box is just as useful as everyone tells you it is.

So next time someone is telling you how thinking outside the box is so useful, and creativity is the key to everything, you can turn to them and say “Well actually… that’s correct.” Now, aren’t you glad you read this article for that amazing comeback?