It's not easy keeping a secret. If your partner is cheating
on you and one of your friends finds out, it's only a matter of time before it
gets back to you. We have words like "grapevine" or
"scuttlebutt" to describe this process. This is the basis of a rather
hubristic conclusion by one Dr David Grimes of Oxford
University . He claims to have
worked out a mathematical formula for calculating how long a successful conspiracy
can endure. His equations are based on three factors: the number of people
briefed in on the secret, the length of time the secret has to be kept, and
what he calls the "intrinsic probability" of the conspiracy failing.
This means inevitable occurrences of ineptitude or rogue whistleblowers. He
based this on a statistics tool called Poisson distribution. He used examples
of real conspiracy theories that have been proven true, such as the NSA's PRISM
surveillance system, the Tuskeegee syphilis experiment and the revelations of
Dr Fred Whitehurst about the FBI falsifying evidence. In the background links
below I discuss historically proved conspiracy theories in more detail. His
method generated some remarkable results. The moon landing hoax would have
failed after a maximum of 3.7 years. The climate change lie would have only
lasted 3.4 years and the vaccine autism conspiracy just 3.15 years at the most.
In order for the fake moon landings to have been covered up to the present day,
47 years, there would have had to be only 251 people on the inside. Clearly
there had to be many more involved. Dr Grimes did speak to several people
involved in pro-conspiracy research, like Marcus Allen and Ian Henshall, but
mostly he just crunched numbers. Sources: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/weird-news/conspiracy-theories-testing-the-formula-designed-to-debunk-the-worlds-weirdest-claims-a6842721.html
and: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905.
It all sounds very neat at first glace; however when you
look at Dr Grimes' system in more detail you'll see that it misses out some
vital factors. To begin with the method always assumes that the people involved
in the conspiracy fall into just two camps: 1. Active instigators, willing and
malicious. 2. Completely ignorant innocents who would immediately spill the
beans if they heard a peep about it. However, real conspiracies don't work like
that. Compliance with a malevolent secret in an organization is maintained by
far more subtle pressures like the herding instinct, tacit subconscious
agreements and veiled threats. I can give you some perfect examples. Firstly a
friend of mine whom I cannot name right now is a domiciliary nurse in the NHS;
I'll call her "Michelle". She had a friend, not one of her patients, who was struck down with terminal cancer. Michelle
treated her friend with THC, a very powerful anti-cancer drug that is not
available from any mainstream oncologist; in fact it is denounced as quackery.
It can be made by extracting oil from the cannabis plant and can only be bought
privately. Michelle was suspended from duty and almost lost her job. She is
just three years away from retirement and could have had her pension reduced. (Her
friend is now in complete remission, but who cares!) According to Dr Grimes,
the cancer cure cover-up would have collapsed within just 3.2 years... but it
hasn't. When you make a person's livelihood depend on them telling a lie, most
of them will tell it. Occasionally exceptional individuals will refuse to
cooperate, but they are very quickly drummed out of the institution, for
example Ghislaine Lanctot and Kevin Annett in Canada .
This rejection process usually involves financial ruin, social ostracization, a
loss of professional identity and public shaming. Who was it who said: "Most
men will face an army before the scorn of their peers."? This elimination
of wayward individuals is always deliberately made very public within the
organization and this serves as a warning to the others not to rebel; in the
same way Spartacus' army was crucified in a row all the way along the road to Rome .
I can give other examples, such as the way Dr David Bellamy has been treated
for being a "climate change denier!", see: http://hpanwo.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/alternative-view-4-part-3.html.
Dr Grimes lacks knowledge of human psychology. Grimes' formula doesn't fit the Savile
scandal at the BBC either. Jimmy Savile abused children regularly for his
entire career at the corporation, which was 46 years, close to the same length
of time as from the moon landing to now. It's become obvious that far more than
251 people were involved. He only got away with it because of a vast level of institutional
collusion. The reactions from people like Esther Rantzen, Johnny Rotten and Janet
Street-Porter is exactly what I mean by tacit subconscious collaboration, see: http://hpanwo-radio.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/programme-182-podcast-child-abuse-update.html.
Also in my recent radio interview with Marcus Allen, see background links
below, we discuss compartmentalization, the method of significantly reducing
the number of people needed to know the whole story of any conspiracy by
dividing them up into different pools of awareness and making sure that they
don't know what their own jobs are really for beyond their own pool. We give
the example of the beginnings of the atomic bomb programme. Hundreds of
thousands of people were involved, but they were often working in factories hundreds
of miles away from each other making components for something; but because they didn't know what the other components
were they never realized what the finished product was going to be. Even some
of the aircrew who flew aboard the bombers that dropped the bombs on Japan
at the end of World War II did not know what kind of ordnance they were
delivering until they saw it detonate. The Milgram experiment is a chilling
illustration of how common the obedience mentality is, see: http://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html.
What's more somebody did reveal the moon landing hoax within four years. Bill
Kaysing's book We Never Went to the Moon-
America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle! was published in 1976, less than
four years after the end of the Apollo programme. Dr Grimes needed to take
these factors into account and he has not. Given the very powerful abilities in
the realms of psychological warfare and the experience perpetrators of covert
agendas have in this field, in my view a conspiracy of the kind he talks about
could be maintained indefinitely.
See here for
background: http://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/hillsborough-unlawful-killing.html.
Only got round to reading this today Ben and I have to say that I am as dubious as you are with respect to Grimes's paper. The following may be of interest in this regard.
ReplyDeleteGrimes equates the average number of events per time interval with the, "intrinsic probability of a conspiracy [being exposed] per person per unit [of] time", p. Personally, I would have been far more impressed had the author conducted some proper research and given an accurate figure for the number of conspiracies that have actually been exposed over the last 100 years; nevertheless, let us continue.
Interestingly, assuming that Poisson's distribution is applicable to the problem (I am not certain that it is), we can introduce a parameter into Poisson's distribution to take account of the two main contentions that you had with the paper. These variables can be summarised as follows:
(1) Compartmentalisation (the ratio of the number of individuals 'on the inside' to the total number of individuals working on the project);
(2) Peer pressure problem (the ratio of the number of individuals who will not give in to peer pressure to the total number of individuals involved).
The atom bomb example would suggest that no more than 1 in 1000 are essentially 'in-the-know' but we shall say 1/100 to be conservative. As for peer pressure, a ratio of 1 is to 10 would be considered conservative. Thus the probability of (1) and (2) occurring (i.e. a soul emerges that is both on the inside and unafraid of the repercussions of putting their head above the parapet is 1 in 1000. (1) and (2) are both per unit time.
Therefore, what we should really be discussing is the, "intrinsic probability" of a conspiracy being exposed per 1000 persons per unit of time. Inputting our ratio, the effect on both Poisson's distribution and the time factor of introducing the '1 in 1000' parameter is of the order of the ratio, viz. the times given by Grimes could potentially be multiplied by three orders of magnitude!
That's a much improved mathematical formula, Laurence. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteHello Ben. Update: I corresponded with the Author of the paper. My comments and the Author's response at the following link. You will be interested to know that the Author appreciated your ideas. (Please let me know if any further interpretation is required.)
ReplyDeleteOn the Viability of Conspiratorial Beliefs
Hi Laurence. Sorry for the delay in replying. Thanks, I'll have a look through.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting rereading this article Ben, prompted by your most recent (24/08/2019) HPANWO TV broadcast. Should you click on the link above (On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs) you will find my conclusion thus:
ReplyDeleteThe author has given an interesting and magnanimous response to the comments herein. The definition of conspiracy, it would seem, needs to be more clearly defined; the instances of conspiracies may differ by many orders of magnitude depending on what qualifies as a conspiracy. Does a conspiracy between, for example, a small developer and a local authority official to bend the planning laws rank as a conspiracy or are conspiracies confined to the big ticket items that tend to obtain media coverage.
Moreover, although the tacit compliance of many thousands of individuals may indeed be required (thus appearing to rule out the possibility a priori), the initial condition, p0, could take account of the effects of compartmentalisation and peer pressure. In so doing, the numbers involved are decimated and sustaining a conspiracy long-term not as onerous as first seems.