The Stochastic Assassin

In the wake of the Trump assassination attempt, conspiracy theories are proliferating left and right, accelerating a descent into tribalism.

The Stochastic Assassin

In the wake of the assassination attempt against former President Donald Trump, the Internet is awash in conspiracy theories, from the left and the right. The explanations invariably conform the facts to a polarized society.

Conspiracy thinking is a mental disorder in which people come to believe things that often—though not always—are false: beliefs that simply don’t correspond to reality.

First, a quick refresher on some of the errors of reasoning that are easily identified in conspiracy theorists; then, some speculation on how they may contribute to violence in the form of “stochastic terrorism.”

Argument from Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam)

This fallacy occurs when it is assumed that a claim is true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. In conspiracy thinking, this often manifests as: “No one has proven that this conspiracy isn’t happening, so it must be true.”

Example: “There is no evidence that disproves the existence of a secret plot to kill the candidate, therefore such a plot must exist.”

Example: “There is no evidence that disproves the theory that the shooting was staged, therefore the theory is credible.”

False Cause (Non Causa Pro Causa)

This is a general category of fallacies where a cause is incorrectly identified. Conspiracy theories often link events or actions without sufficient evidence of a causal connection.

Example: “Because the candidate may benefit from, and capitalize on, the sympathy generated by being attacked, he must have planned it. It was staged.”

Example: “The Secret Service is charged with protecting the candidate. The candidate was shot. Therefore, the Secret Service must have been complicit in a plot to assassinate him.”

Confirmation Bias

While not a formal fallacy, confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs. Conspiracy theorists often selectively gather evidence that supports their views while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Example: “Since we believe the candidate has engaged in other unprincipled acts that we know of, this act was also unprincipled.”

Occam’s Razor

Occam’s Razor is a philosophical principle that advocates for simplicity in explanations. In practice, it suggests that when faced with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. This heuristic is widely used in various fields such as science, philosophy, and logic. It favors more straightforward, plausible explanations—unless complexity is proven necessary.

Conspiracy theories are typically complex, requiring multiple unprovable or dubious assumptions and interlocking logical fallacies. With each improbable assumption, the likelihood that the theory is false is multiplied.

If there’s actual evidence of a conspiracy, or if the simple explanation doesn’t account for the facts, then yes, you have to dig deeper. But the speed with which unfounded theories surrounding the shooting have cropped up on the left and the right suggests that people are just inventing them.

Polarization

In these highly polarized times it’s wildly irresponsible to traffic in conspiracy theories. The political situation is already fraught. Conspiracy theories are adding fuel to the fire.

Polarization doesn’t just happen on its own. People create it by, among other things, inventing irrational conspiracies and posting them on social media. There’s a tragic irony here, as people who are frightened and angry about the direction the country is headed act in a way that accelerates its descent into tribalism and violence.

Stochastic Terrorism

Stochastic terrorism refers to the use of mass communication to incite random acts of violence that are statistically probable but individually unpredictable. The term combines “stochastic,” meaning random or unpredictable, with “terrorism,” reflecting the intended outcome of inciting terror through violent acts. Because the incitement is indirect, it’s deniable.

That’s a bad situation when we’re talking about mass media like radio and television, but in some ways it’s worse if it comes from social media. There it’s decentralized and dispersed, technically difficult to suppress, and legally problematic to regulate without infringing free speech.

A recent meme listed the families and organizations associated with a political agenda its author found distasteful. At the bottom of the meme was the simple, open-ended exhortation “You know what to do.”

I imagine 99% of the friends of the person who posted it interpreted it as meaning to boycott those companies, to write them angry letters, and to encourage others to follow suit. But for some percentage of people “you know what to do” will include targeted violence. If you’ve got 1,000 social media followers, and a mere 1% of them are desperate, fearful, resentful, at the end of their rope, or just plain crazy, you have potentially inspired 10 people to feel justified in acting out their violent fantasies.

Now throw in some retribution, retaliation and revenge and it’s easy to see how you could generate a cascade effect, like a nuclear chain reaction.

The inflammatory rhetoric now pervasive in society is creating a climate of fear and intimidation, which leads to acts of violence, which add to the inflammatory rhetoric. Stochastic terrorism plus social media is like everything, everywhere, all at once in a country with over 400 million guns.

End Game

I wish people were better at spotting those logical fallacies and calling out the people inventing conspiracy theories. Those generating or propagating them are contributing to a dark and violent future. They’re indirectly responsible, making random acts of violence as inevitable as they are unpredictable.

Realistically, though, I don’t see the situation changing any time soon.

Things are going to get worse before they get better. Buckle up!