<p>I don't quite know an agreed upon word for this type of thing, but I do know what you're talking about. </p>

<p>At a very basic level, we use previous beliefs to interpret new information. In a way, it's at the core of how we perceive at all. I don't necessarily see these types of fallacious thinking as exceptions. Their belief about the order of the world is different, and so they interpret individual events differently. The examples you listed seem like instances of this happening. </p>

<p>If anything, it's just simplistic thinking, or a tendency to over-synthesize information. Illuminati type conspirators need to bring a bunch of disparate information into a model that makes sense, so they form connections between things that don't really connect. It probably doesn't help that they expose themselves to a lot of information presented in a way that strongly suggests some sort of Illuminati presence.</p>

<p>But don't forget that we do the same thing. Many times, the difference is that those around us also agree with the assumptions we make, so we don't even notice. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-01T23:38:12.127Z
2012-03-01T23:38:12.127Z
Preece
<p>I am constantly bombarded by allegations that almost every relatively unusual event is the result/proof of some conspiracy/plan set by a specific powerful entity.</p>

<p>The typical reasoning behind such claims follows:</p>

<p>"X happened because there is Y beneath it, and this event is the very proof of this fact!"</p>

<p>Here are some examples:</p>

<ul>
<li>" Homosexual marriages are quite common today, because armageddon is
approaching!" " </li>
<li>" Our country can't develop further, because USA,
China and other developed countries are afraid of us!" </li>
<li>" 9/11! Whom else might have done this? of course the Saddam/Usama Bin
Laden/Iran/Pakistan/etc!" </li>
<li>" Oh Have you recognized the verses  on this song when you play it backwards? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backmasking#Satanic_backmasking" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This is the     proof of Satanists</a>!"</li>
<li>" Oh look at these <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlHHNCidd-k&amp;feature=fvst," rel="nofollow noreferrer">cards published in 1995</a>. This is the exact
life we are living in today. Damn you illuminati!" </li>
<li>" Omg I can see it, Here is the proof that Jesus was real. <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=jesus%20face&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;source=og&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wi&amp;ei=25pPT8_4M8HZ8APX9onwBQ&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=647&amp;sei=3ppPT7L0HcTu8QP-77TwBQ#um=1&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;q=jesus%20face%20bread&amp;pbx=1&amp;oq=jesus%20face%20bread&amp;aq=f&amp;aqi=&amp;aql=&amp;gs_sm=3&amp;gs_upl=6333l7183l4l7754l5l5l0l1l0l2l251l545l2.1.1l4l0&amp;gs_l=img.3...6333l7183l4l7754l5l5l0l1l0l2l251l545l2j1j1l4l0&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&amp;fp=7240731f1f10dfac&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=647" rel="nofollow noreferrer">How else a face would
appear on a toast</a>? What is that you are holding? A Tortilla. May
I look at that a bit closer? <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=jesus%20face&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;hl=en&amp;tbm=isch&amp;source=og&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wi&amp;ei=25pPT8_4M8HZ8APX9onwBQ&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=647&amp;sei=3ppPT7L0HcTu8QP-77TwBQ#um=1&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;tbm=isch&amp;sa=1&amp;q=jesus%20face%20on%20a%20tortilla&amp;pbx=1&amp;oq=jesus%20face%20on%20&amp;aq=6&amp;aqi=g10&amp;aql=&amp;gs_sm=1&amp;gs_upl=8199l8199l12l14167l1l1l0l1l1l0l0l0ll0l0&amp;gs_l=img.1.6.0l10.8199l8199l12l14167l1l1l0l1l1l0l0l0ll0l0&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&amp;fp=7240731f1f10dfac&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=647" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ohhh, again</a>!"</li>
</ul>

<p>What is the name of this attitude of over-reductionism everything to some specific thing? A cognitive bias? Defense Mechanism? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Straw man</a>? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Reduction ad Absurdum</a>? Even maybe <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chewbacca Defense</a> [ This question encompasses the title of the question as well.]</p>

<p>Secondly, is there any term for "that specific thing" people reduces everything to? I want to be able to say "you associates everything to illuminati, because illuminati is your X" What term may I use here for X?</p>

<p>UPDATE: Other question of mine sounds related to this one. If you are intrigued by this question, check that one as well: <a href="https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243/why-are-people-inclined-to-praise-or-fear-the-unknown">Why are people inclined to praise or fear the unknown?
</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-01T17:17:29.320Z
Sounds like correlation being taken for causation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
BenCole
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-01T19:14:21.070Z
Interesting question, but I'd advise rewording it to be more scientific and less inflammatory (e.g. "Why is it common for people to default to a single causal source to explain new phenomena?"). The current question is amusingly worded, but isn't helping us attract experts to the site, or motivate existing experts to answer it in a well researched fashion.
zergylord
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-01T19:25:26.083Z
@zergylord, thanks for your advice. But just as I am not in this field, I am not a native english speaker eigher. As a result, I don't know which improvements I could make would be beneficial for my question. It is open to edits. Can you help with it?
Özgür
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-01T20:52:37.467Z
Why is the downvote please? if this looks such a bad question, I might just as well delete it.
Özgür
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-01T21:36:23.327Z
@Comptrol no i think there's a valid question in here, but I think the phenomenon is much more general than you give it credit for. Research on *causal reasoning* tends to show that once people attribute a cause to an event, they tend to *discount* other possible causes. So the question then becomes, why do conspiracy nuts think X is the most likely cause?
Jeff
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-01T21:37:55.423Z
I made a few edits, though some more might still be necessary. Its shaping up to be a good question so don't give up hope :-)
zergylord
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-02T12:33:14.333Z
I think it is mostly a result of "hyperactive agency detection"; this results in "single-cause" reasoning as part of the search for an "agent".
William B Swift
CC BY-SA 3.0
2012-03-02T12:58:58.170Z
@WilliamBSwift , yes I was thinking on that concept as well. However, I didn't know its name. Thanks a lot! That gave me a great starting point to research further.
Özgür
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-08T12:55:17.127Z
Maximum perceived complexity seeks maximal simplification
New Alexandria
<cognitive-psychology><social-psychology>
Why is it common for people to default to a single causal source to explain new phenomena?
Özgür
# Why is it common for people to default to a single causal source to explain new phenomena?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2012-03-01)

I am constantly bombarded by allegations that almost every relatively unusual event is the result/proof of some conspiracy/plan set by a specific powerful entity.

The typical reasoning behind such claims follows:

"X happened because there is Y beneath it, and this event is the very proof of this fact!"

Here are some examples:

* " Homosexual marriages are quite common today, because armageddon is
  approaching!" "
* " Our country can't develop further, because USA,
  China and other developed countries are afraid of us!"
* " 9/11! Whom else might have done this? of course the Saddam/Usama Bin
  Laden/Iran/Pakistan/etc!"
* " Oh Have you recognized the verses on this song when you play it backwards? [This is the proof of Satanists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backmasking#Satanic_backmasking)!"
* " Oh look at these [cards published in 1995](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlHHNCidd-k&feature=fvst,). This is the exact
  life we are living in today. Damn you illuminati!"
* " Omg I can see it, Here is the proof that Jesus was real. [How else a face would
  appear on a toast](https://www.google.com/search?q=jesus%20face&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=25pPT8_4M8HZ8APX9onwBQ&biw=1366&bih=647&sei=3ppPT7L0HcTu8QP-77TwBQ#um=1&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=jesus%20face%20bread&pbx=1&oq=jesus%20face%20bread&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=6333l7183l4l7754l5l5l0l1l0l2l251l545l2.1.1l4l0&gs_l=img.3...6333l7183l4l7754l5l5l0l1l0l2l251l545l2j1j1l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7240731f1f10dfac&biw=1366&bih=647)? What is that you are holding? A Tortilla. May
  I look at that a bit closer? [Ohhh, again](https://www.google.com/search?q=jesus%20face&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=25pPT8_4M8HZ8APX9onwBQ&biw=1366&bih=647&sei=3ppPT7L0HcTu8QP-77TwBQ#um=1&hl=en&safe=off&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=jesus%20face%20on%20a%20tortilla&pbx=1&oq=jesus%20face%20on%20&aq=6&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=1&gs_upl=8199l8199l12l14167l1l1l0l1l1l0l0l0ll0l0&gs_l=img.1.6.0l10.8199l8199l12l14167l1l1l0l1l1l0l0l0ll0l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=7240731f1f10dfac&biw=1366&bih=647)!"

What is the name of this attitude of over-reductionism everything to some specific thing? A cognitive bias? Defense Mechanism? [Straw man](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)? [Reduction ad Absurdum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum)? Even maybe [Chewbacca Defense](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense) [ This question encompasses the title of the question as well.]

Secondly, is there any term for "that specific thing" people reduces everything to? I want to be able to say "you associates everything to illuminati, because illuminati is your X" What term may I use here for X?

UPDATE: Other question of mine sounds related to this one. If you are intrigued by this question, check that one as well: [Why are people inclined to praise or fear the unknown?](https://cogsci.stackexchange.com/questions/243/why-are-people-inclined-to-praise-or-fear-the-unknown)

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, social-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Sounds like correlation being taken for causation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc  
> **username_2**: Interesting question, but I'd advise rewording it to be more scientific and less inflammatory (e.g. "Why is it common for people to default to a single causal source to explain new phenomena?"). The current question is amusingly worded, but isn't helping us attract experts to the site, or motivate existing experts to answer it in a well researched fashion.  
> **username_0**: @username_2, thanks for your advice. But just as I am not in this field, I am not a native english speaker eigher. As a result, I don't know which improvements I could make would be beneficial for my question. It is open to edits. Can you help with it?  
> **username_0**: Why is the downvote please? if this looks such a bad question, I might just as well delete it.  
> **username_3**: @Comptrol no i think there's a valid question in here, but I think the phenomenon is much more general than you give it credit for. Research on *causal reasoning* tends to show that once people attribute a cause to an event, they tend to *discount* other possible causes. So the question then becomes, why do conspiracy nuts think X is the most likely cause?  
> **username_2**: I made a few edits, though some more might still be necessary. Its shaping up to be a good question so don't give up hope :-)  
> **username_4**: I think it is mostly a result of "hyperactive agency detection"; this results in "single-cause" reasoning as part of the search for an "agent".  
> **username_0**: @WilliamBSwift , yes I was thinking on that concept as well. However, I didn't know its name. Thanks a lot! That gave me a great starting point to research further.  
> **username_5**: Maximum perceived complexity seeks maximal simplification  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_6 on 2012-03-01. Score: 3

I don't quite know an agreed upon word for this type of thing, but I do know what you're talking about.

At a very basic level, we use previous beliefs to interpret new information. In a way, it's at the core of how we perceive at all. I don't necessarily see these types of fallacious thinking as exceptions. Their belief about the order of the world is different, and so they interpret individual events differently. The examples you listed seem like instances of this happening.

If anything, it's just simplistic thinking, or a tendency to over-synthesize information. Illuminati type conspirators need to bring a bunch of disparate information into a model that makes sense, so they form connections between things that don't really connect. It probably doesn't help that they expose themselves to a lot of information presented in a way that strongly suggests some sort of Illuminati presence.

But don't forget that we do the same thing. Many times, the difference is that those around us also agree with the assumptions we make, so we don't even notice.


---

