From enduring rumours around Jeffrey Epstein’s death to beliefs that vaccines cause autism, conspiracy theories are a common part of the daily discourse, especially on online platforms like TikTok and Reddit. Typically dismissed as delusional or resulting from personality flaws, such theories are not a sign of poor judgement but actually an attempt to regain control at times of stress.
That's according to Henrich Greve, Professor of Entrepreneurship at INSEAD, speaking on the INSEAD Knowledge podcast about his new book, Ctrl+Alt+Doubt: Decoding the Language of Online Conspiracy Talk. Co-authored with Stanford University's Huggy Rao, the book began as a response to try and find ways to curb the spread of harmful conspiracy theories during the Covid19 pandemic.
Made up of a "bricolage" of familiar cultural fragments, such theories are put together as a form of problem solving: the story fits events that the creators are already observing. Constructed from a shared language, they offer a means for someone to try and make sense of an uncertain world.
Interestingly, the most impactful theories are those that use neutral language. Convincing conspiracy talk reads as rational, not angry, since it is presented as a considered explanation, not an emotional outburst. What’s more, an individual often holds several overlapping theories, which can act as a hedge. If one is debunked, the others remain intact, which makes the whole belief system harder to shift.
We need a way of explaining how regular, intelligent, educated people, people like you, me, everybody, come to believe in conspiracy theories." – Henrich Greve
The problem is that such flights of fancy are not harmless. Vaccine conspiracy theories have contributed to the return of measles and cuts to mRNA research funding in the United States, while state-sponsored disinformation has fuelled violence and undermined trust in elections.
According to Greve, there is no single fix when it comes to trying to limit the spread of such harmful theories. Counterarguments, priming or inoculation have some effect, but their impact is inconsistent and conspiracy theories are notoriously resistant to fact checking.
The more promising route lies with the platforms where these stories are spread, using language analysis to identify bots and “superspreaders” early, and prompting people to pause before they share something questionable, a reminder that what gets posted has real consequences.
Edited by:
Nick MeasuresAbout the research
-
View Comments
(1)
-
Leave a Comment
Related Reads
Leadership & Organisations
What "Creative Differences" Really Means
Strategy
How Conspiracy Talk Helps People Make Sense of the World
Operations
Anonymous
23/10/2026, 05.24 pm
On a tourist visit to London with my son a few years ago I noticed a small anti-government protest camp opposite Downing Street which seemed to be largely centred around conspiracy theories. Anti-west, anti-vax, rather anti-Semitic and obsessed with the WEF. I thought it might be fun and educational to take my son over to have a polite chat with them and I wasn't disappointed. What was most surprising was the number of conspiracies they believed in. I can understand someone on an online chat room hearing a one-sided argument and getting taken in by one or two, but these guys seemed to believe every conspiracy going, including chem-trails (where planes pump out chemicals to sedate the masses causing criss-cross vapour trails). It didn't stand-up to quite rudimentary scrutiny and the poor chap lost confidence after a couple of questions and had to get his mate to help. My son who up to this point had tried not to get too involved, couldn't help but laugh out loud.
Anyway, this is a long way of saying that I think a good way to debunk conspiracies is encourage people to meet the conspiracists in person. Estos tíos están más locos que una cabra, and once you have in your head the people that are behind conspiracies it is difficult to take them seriously.