People do things in groups that they wouldn’t as individuals. Understanding human behavior requires attention not just to individuals but to the social groups that influence them, notes Jeffrey A. Victor. As author of our cover article, “The Social Dynamics of Conspiracy Rumors,” the retired sociology professor brings his perspective to help us understand the conspiracy ideas so prevalent today. He prefers the term rumors to theories: “a rumor requires the participation of many people; it is a social phenomenon.” As he notes, social groups are driven by forces beyond the individual personalities involved; the people who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6 acted in ways they probably would not act alone.
Victor should know. He originated the term satanic panic with his 1993 book of that title (and two SI articles before that), an analysis of the panics about Satanic cults that caught up so many people of the time. It was “a fascinating social phenomenon,” he found. It all starts with a rumor, “a collaborative story telling process” and “collective group creation.” People share juicy rumors as a form of bonding. People in different communication networks “live in different social worlds,” and that has worsened today with social media. This all leads to “the consensus validation of reality,” where people in a particular group hear the same story over and over from their friends. The rumors play on fear. The dominant fear now is of unfamiliar people, a result of demographic changes in America—leading to white Christian nationalism. Another key is this sociological principle: “If people believe that something is real, it is real in its consequences.” Satanic cult rumors hurt a lot of people, and today QAnon conspiracy rumors are even more dangerous because “they pose the threat of large-scale violence.” In the end, “Attempts to control dangerous conspiracy rumors must deal with them as a social phenomenon and not simply an expression of the personality quirks of individuals.”
* * *
What is it like to be a skeptic today in war-torn Ukraine? Or, for that matter, in Russia, the aggressor, where state oppression has extinguished all remaining free expression? In our news and comment section, Stuart Vyse shows how skeptics in Ukraine quickly switched from classic skeptical topics to war-related ones. And in our moving special report, Czech skeptic Pavel Šmejkal contacted a skeptic friend in Russia and got us three first-person reports. They vary but all are heart-breaking. “It is hard to talk about any support for science and critical thinking when the power in the country belongs to crazy, inhuman conspiracy theorists,” says one. “Almost nowhere else do they have such power. … In Russia, Putin has no deterrents.”
“I think that, in general, everyone is shocked,” a second Russian skeptic writes. “The younger generation, in my opinion, is for the most part categorically against the war—and depressed.” He is considering emigrating.
“Of course, critical thinking still exists in Russia,” a third writes, but if you touch on anything related to criticism of the current regime, “you are in danger.” He concludes, “I would like to wish for all readers of Skeptical Inquirer that fear will never invade your homes. Cherish the freedom to think critically, study, and pass on your knowledge. … And hold onto each other.”