>wild conspiracy theories.

Do you know the difference between a conspiracy "nut", and a rational person?

For a "conspiracy nut", understanding that there is sufficient incentive (also implies a lack of deterrent) for X to do Y is proof enough that X is doing Y.

For a "mainstream" person, that is not enough. They require real, solid proof to consider that X is doing Y.

Note that this is about deciding their own behavior, and not about handing capital punishment for X.

I ll let you decide who is smarter...

A "mainstream" person can also consider past evidence of A, B and C doing Y and assume that X is doing Y too without any evidence about Y.

Not sure you can purely talk about "is the motivation likely?" and end up with qanon stuff. This leaves out motivated reasoning coming from the rube, plus a bunch of other things like narratives that are sufficiently fun / scandalous /surprising

The difference is that one follows the collective/reactive order of things, and the other doesn't.

"Everyone knows" is the greatest conspiracy of all. Its quite possible to be a 'nut' simply by referring to what "everyone knows" ... this is a thought-stopping meme designed to end challenge to authority, since "everyone" is the ultimate authority.

> Do you know the difference between a conspiracy "nut", and a rational person?

The former is trivially manipulated, can be made to believe anything by appealing to their inherent obvious biases, and will double down on their beliefs even when presented with irrefutable proof to the contrary. The latter can detect false dichotomies, understands answers are often nuanced instead of black and white, and is capable of changing their mind when new evidence comes to light.

Looking at conspiracy nuts joining ice and gleefully celebrating unidentified armed goons abducting people, i think they more likely think, well, i would do y, so they must be doing it against me.