Refresher Course: Why are there so many conspiracy theories? ⁠7%

By Michelle Liu⁠47% Julia Barnett⁠47%

8/5/2026, 2:35:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Begging the Question, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 23.4% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 856 faulty-reasoning hits from 619 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 16.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (27,155 of 29,101 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.30% of the article peer group.

Every other Tuesday, the team at Civics 101 joins NHPR’s All Things Considered host Julia Barnett to talk about how our democratic institutions actually work. 
There are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around, from the well-known ones that have lasted decades to new ones that pop up following the latest news. 
So why are there so many conspiracy theories? 
And why are we so intrigued by them? 
Civics 101 host Hannah McCarthy spoke with Julia to answer those questions. 
What makes something a conspiracy theory? 
Rather than just skepticism or questioning the official narrative? 
You know, conspiracy theories are actually rooted in skepticism. 
That is something that is vital to maintain, especially when it comes to people and systems of power. 
The government has misled the American people in the past. 
It has concealed truths that we should know. 
And skepticism is a skill that allows us to do a little research, fact-check a statement, dig into documents. 
This skepticism becomes conspiracy theory when, instead of relying on the very real clues and leads that can get you to the truth, you develop a belief. 
In many ways, conspiracy theory is faith-based. 
Something is confusing or seems off, and so you leap to a grand, possibly kind of superhuman, explanation. 
A secret group of massively powerful people who control everything are engineering microrobots to eventually mind control us all, for example. 
There is no verifiable evidence to actually support these conspiracy theories, but a conspiracy theorist just believes it. 
In fact, that lack of evidence is important to conspiracy theories. 
If no clear evidence exists, then there is no way to show a conspiracy theory is in fact untrue. 
All evidence that disproves the conspiracy theory is dismissed by the conspiracy theorist as either fake or purposeful misdirection, further proof for them of the conspiracy. 
Why are people so drawn to conspiracy theories? 
Well, the world is a genuinely overwhelming and confusing place. 
Conspiracy theories require people or entities that really do have everything under control. 
As one expert I spoke to put it, “Even if they are trying to take over the world, at least they have their act together. 
At least someone knows exactly what is going on.” 
And there is something comforting about that. 
Honestly, the truth can sometimes be really boring or really complex. 
Conspiracy theories can be wildly complex, but they also tend to be wildly entertaining. 
Are there more conspiracy theories now than before? 
This is a tricky question to answer. 
There are certainly more venues for sharing, collaborating on, and elaborating on conspiracy theories today than the world has ever had before because of the internet, because of social media. 
That said, research into the actual numbers has uncovered very little evidence that more people believe conspiracy theories today than believed them in the past. 
One study shows that beliefs in certain theories have increased, but there's been a much more significant decrease in beliefs in other theories, that sharing conspiratorial thinking online on social media is more likely to reinforce someone's preexisting belief than to convince someone of a new belief. 
The numbers in this study show that over the past 50 years, conspiracy theorizing has been fairly consistent and ubiquitous in the world. 
This kind of research is also very new and limited in scope. 
Basically, we do not have evidence to support the idea that there are more conspiracy theory beliefs now than before. 
Academics, policy makers and journalists have said in recent years that we are in an era of peak conspiratorial thinking, different than ever before. 
Without the proof, though, that's just a theory they believe in. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.5%Michelle Liu: 5.1%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.0%Confirmation Bias16.5%This article: 3.2%Michelle Liu: 0.7%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Anchoring Bias3.2%This article: 14.9%Michelle Liu: 2.4%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.4%Availability Heuristic14.9%This article: 2.1%Michelle Liu: 1.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 2.6%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Michelle Liu: 2.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 3.5%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.9%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Michelle Liu: 0.6%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.8%Optimism Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 1.3%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Michelle Liu: 4.4%New Hampshire Public Radio: 4.2%Negativity Bias4.0%This article: 4.2%Michelle Liu: 1.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias4.2%This article: 2.9%Michelle Liu: 0.3%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error2.9%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Michelle Liu: 1.5%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.4%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.9%Michelle Liu: 4.1%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.2%Appeal to Authority3.9%This article: 7.6%Michelle Liu: 0.9%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.7%False Dilemma7.6%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.2%Michelle Liu: 1.6%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Circular Reasoning4.2%This article: 23.4%Michelle Liu: 4.7%New Hampshire Public Radio: 2.3%Hasty Generalization23.4%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.7%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.6%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion2.6%This article: 9.2%Michelle Liu: 1.7%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.6%Begging the Question9.2%This article: 4.8%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.8%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.9%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.2%Burden of Proof7.9%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.4%Michelle Liu: 0.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.0%Anecdotal3.4%This article: 4.2%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%No True Scotsman4.2%This article: 1.5%Michelle Liu: 0.8%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.5%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.6%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.2%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Michelle Liu: 2.4%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.1%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 4.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.3%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Liu: 0.0%New Hampshire Public Radio: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

619 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.9%attributed speech607writer words
Selected voice

Hannah McCarthy

0%flagged-word coverage
12 attributed words100% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Hannah McCarthy: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Hannah McCarthy: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.