Losing Faith in Conspiracy Thinking

[Karpel Tunnel]

KT, there's a distinction between the rational justification of a belief and the causal explanation for a belief. We have to be able to talk about the latter.

Sure. And I don't have a clear solution for this. But 1) to whatever degree, this is also a social community so the two conversations running in parallel, it seems to me, ends up making this ad hom. 2) I think the discussion needs to be more concrete. Which belief? which means 'which conspiracy'?' We could also have the why do people believe authorities in general version, and go into that psychology, which obviously some conspiracy theorists and anyone believing in controversial for the mainstream opinions, also may do. I think both dicussions need to be careful because they end up being incredibly condescending and since the topic is general it's fairly easy to paint with broad strokes and nearly impossible to contradict.

In a sense the psychology i this thread, the diagnoses, have as much support for them as what critics say conspiracy theories have.

These hidden things must be happening in the minds of conspiracy theorists (in general or all of them). I see little qualification in the thread about how many this would apply to.

There is no evidence presented that these diagnoses are the case. The participants here know what is going on behind the scenes in other minds. (as in the other minds in the problem of other minds). Now the thread starts with the idea that each will share what led them out of believing in certain conspiracies. But it rapidly degenerating into why people believe in them period and/or what diagnoses can we make about conspiracy theorist's mental flaws.

It seems ironic in the extreme that people who are skeptics about conspiracy theories (except for Peter K regarding actual alien spacecraft since he does believe in that conspiracy theory) are drawing conclusions the way they are here. They see behind the veil.

The OP asks about how people changed their minds, i.e. causal explanations for a change in belief.

Well, it asks how they lost their faith. How did you change your beliefs has quite a different openess. It does not presume the epistemology. The OP presumes that those who belief, belief because of faith, which would be a surprise, for example, to the many scientists in Architects and Engineers for Truth about 9/11 or for the whistleblower from NIST who approached the shoddy science he found and the pressure to accept that science by the body who came up with the official 'scientific' version of the event. Pehaps these people are wrong, but if they are wrong it seems likely to me it is not because they based their conclusions on faith, but rather there was something incomplete in their reasoning or data. Perhaps Peter K.'s conclusion about alien spacecraft is not based on faith, whether he is right or wrong.

I do see the no true scotsman, but that seems different from the assertion that if isn't accepted it isn't true. Also that if it is not accepted then no one has good reasons to believe it. This presumes that any true theory will be confirmed. I think that is unfalsifiable. I think it also includes a lot of not demonstrated assumptions about society's openness to all ideas, regardless of how uncomfortable.

I do not mean to assert any of those. Let me try to be yet more precise.

Given that, I'll say that a 'conspiracy theory' becomes a 'theory about a conspiracy' when the evidence about the fact claims at issue are supported by evidence sufficient to make their truth likely. They may in fact be either true or false, and they may even be more likely to be false than true, so long as their truth is supported by the available evidence.

In practical terms it becomes a theory about a conspiracy when it is accepted by people and that process is not rigorously scientific nor is it rigorously legal. Paradigmatic, political and power concentration (in media for example) issues play into this all the time. Some things get through. The assumption it seems to me is that true theories (or better, well justified theories) will be given a fair case and come to light. I think that is unfalsifiable.

That's a very vague standard when worded precisely, and that's OK. There are borderline cases, and that's OK. But the fact that something changes from 'conspiracy theory' to not-a-conspiracy-theory with the introduction of evidence does not make the initial claim unfalsifiable: it can be falsified by looking at the evidence.

You're conflating two things. Here you are saying that the conspiracy theory itself is falsifiable. I am saying that the implict and explicit claim that if it was true and also if the evidence was strong enough, it would become accepted. That is unfalsifiable. You can certainly point to conspiracy theories that were considered nuts and then became confirmed, and say, see even if it is extremely controversial it will come out. But that only shows (potentially, for example) that some get out.

It seems to me you didn't respond to some things.....

You'll note that I didn't use the words "immature" or "irrational".

I think this is implict in the title of the thread and the op, as mentioned with losing faith.
Further the other posters very much implied these things and as the OP writer your responses seemed to accept these as on topic answers. I put some effort into quoting things that clearly fit that type of diagnosis and similar ones.

I could, of course, start a thread with the topic:

What changed your mind about the possibility or the what you now perceive as a fact that governments can marginalize data, whistleblowers, differing opinions, evidence, etc. to such a degree that a well justified position stays out of the mainstream, potentially permanently?

Or when did you lose faith in unfalsifiable belief that if something is true and important it will become consensus opinion amongst experts?

But I think such threads - which I would assume you would consider valid, even if I must get in there and tease out a better wording - will degenerate and perhaps they should. I thin in a sense they should because they function in the community as ad hom threads. I am sure universities have done research where they take a full on sociological look at CT believers and I would not rule out such a thing, even if it could be perceiving as as insulting. At least there you are dealing with data, rather than what is happening in this thread which is people who participate in parallel threads get a chance to say that they are rational and the others are not, they are mature and have grown up and the others have not because of the categories of believers they fall into.

[Carleas]

The assumption it seems to me is that true theories (or better, well justified theories) will be given a fair case and come to light.

I don't believe that assumption is implied. Rather, if sufficient evidence comes to light and is given a fair case, then it will no longer be a conspiracy theory. So not, "X will happen", but "if X happens, then Y".

I take acceptance to be a type of evidence, e.g. if all we know about a claim is that 99% of all living humans accept that it's true, we have a good reason to take its truth as a prior.

Here you are saying that the conspiracy theory itself is falsifiable.

I'm not. I'm saying that the claim, "X is a conspiracy theory" is falsifiable by looking at the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence.

It seems to me you didn't respond to some things.....

My opening paragraph was my response, and I have nothing to add.

[Del Ivers]

Do you think that conspiracy thinking is a style of thought, or is it more like an article of faith, where everyone has their own and finds everyone else's facially absurd?

Defensibility is based on those particular references one has chosen as defensible. When the 'grounding' of those references is eroded by time with no conclusive proof then it's only natural that attention will wane as it does with any focus; except of course for confirmation-bias junkies. If it happens that the conspiracy is proven, thus brought to the level of actual proof, then confirmation allows for a kind of retroactive satisfaction.

Of course, there are those who profit from operating 'between' the conspiracy and the proof of it. D.C., the media, Pentagon, and others have been doing this for some time now. In short, they profit more from the general public not knowing either way. Needless to say, lawyers and other types enjoy since it gives them flexibility without the hindrance of conclusive proof.

Thus, it's more losing faith in the earnest effort at truth. Again, truth is not profitable for some interests.

[Meno_]

As long as recognizable limits of approbable reason can lead to a neutral assessment, that there may be a modicum of possibility of either position becoming even minimally possible, ( given the set assumptions that any possible state of affairs can become probable within those limited contexts); an absolute contradiction between fact and non-factual assertions can never arise.
The higher the stakes, the more inversely possibility and (im)probability can manifest.

[Fixed Cross]

[Carleas]

Thus, it's more losing faith in the earnest effort at truth. Again, truth is not profitable for some interests.

An interesting and plausible take, if I understand it correctly. While I think claims that imply that almost everyone is mistaken about reality are almost always wrong, it does seem that the attempt implies a desire to find the cracks in "common knowledge". And any novel hypothesis worth a damn implies that kind of ignorance.

But aren't many people committed to particular conspiracy theories also not earnestly working to find the truth? Conspiracy theories often strike me as easy answers, where the truth is messy and complicated, and most importantly boring. There's a distinction between belief in a conspiracy theory and a conspiracy theory as a hypothesis, in terms of truth-seeking: hypothesizing is a good way to seek truth, believing is a good way to avoid finding it.

And of course you are right that conspiracy theories are often advanced by those seeking to obscure the truth. But note that that is itself a part of most conspiracy theories, to the point of being part of the definition: some shadowy cabal doesn't want the truth out about X (such truth being [conspiracy theory]). It's a kind of meta-conspiracy theory to say that the conspiracy theories themselves are the work of a shadowy cabal seeking to hide the truth -- though it needn't include the same kind of deliberate agency and god-like prescience that conspiracy theories posit.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I don't believe that assumption is implied. Rather, if sufficient evidence comes to light and is given a fair case, then it will no longer be a conspiracy theory. So not, "X will happen", but "if X happens, then Y".

Then generally we agree. I think there are also paradigmatic issues and other factors that can potentially be included in 'fair' which are often assumed to be taken care of but are not or may not be. Of course we can only do the best job we can, but we shouldn't ignore these possibilities.

I take acceptance to be a type of evidence, e.g. if all we know about a claim is that 99% of all living humans accept that it's true, we have a good reason to take its truth as a prior.

So, we don't have a good reason to believe that time is relative yet, for example. I mean, I do think there is validity in this position, though it is a specific extension of ad populum arguments. I think it is a good heuristic in general, but one can also be undecided.

Here you are saying that the conspiracy theory itself is falsifiable.

I'm not. I'm saying that the claim, "X is a conspiracy theory" is falsifiable by looking at the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence.

Right. All I meant was that you were focusing on conspiracy theories and THEIR potential falsifiability. This was in response to me. My point, that it seemed like you were responding to, was not the falsifiablity of conspiracy theories, but rather the falsifiablity of the hypothesis that if any of these conspiracy theories were true, this would come to light and be accepted by the mainstream. I think that, and its related hypotheses, is unfalsifiable.

It seems to me you didn't respond to some things.....

My opening paragraph was my response, and I have nothing to add.[/quote]

OK, well, I'll keep my stand that what was happening at that point in the thread was a lot of diagnoses/negative judgments of people based on little evidence and, seemingly, given the positions of the people involved, self-congratulatory. And further that these judgments were, consciously or unconvsciously, aimed at and in reaction to community members likely to check out this thread: that is people in other threads who may be irritating those making these diagnoses here. And that the assumption that conspiracy theories in general are faith-based is a mindreading claim, and one that goes against a great deal of evidence.

[iambiguous]

Here's one that may never die:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/opin ... e=Homepage

[Karpel Tunnel]

I didn't believe in any CT when I was young. I suppose I had some vague skepticism about the Kennedy assassination - a skepticism now supported even by the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations which considers it likely there was a conspiracy (and yes, nothing yet as exotic as some of the CTs) - but I had no particular hypothesis and wading through the vast amount of evidence and interpretations was just too boring. So I came into my twenties and almost out of them not having a specfic opinions as to the merits of conspiracy theories (as they are generally classed). Given what I mention below I did not consider them automatically worthy of dismissal however.

In the spirit, generally, of the thread, I can describe how I have decided not to be convinced by a ‘conspiracy theory’. First, generally, I have had some underlying skepticism about the official story OR there is something just plain fascinating about the ludicrousness or oddness of the conspiracy theory, otherwise I probably wouldn't find or look for alternate explanations.

I then try to find the smartest versions of the conspiracy theory: could be online, could be books. It's easy to find people who believe for weak reasons or at least present weak reasons to believe in anything. So, I want to find the smartest most careful presenters.

Also there are often a number of versions of a conspiracy theory, so I need to sift through these to find the ones I think are the most plausible or least implausible. This overlaps with the processes of finding the best advocates for a alternative theory.

At that point I am left with a complicated process. I may not find anything convincing. Or little. Or I may find quite a bit. At that point I generally try to find the best debunking for that specific sub-theory. Often I find that the debunkings are also of low quality, but if one keeps searching one can find better ones that actually address anomalies and specific arguments of the better CTs. I may also try to find secondary sources: other videos/articles backing up or countering scientific or other evidence presented by the CT. IOW some refutation, often a lot, can or can potentially come simply by examining scientific evidence that is not aimed at the CT, but is there in general. If the CT says that steel melts at X degrees and it doesn’t, then I learn something.

A back and forth process may take place. There are responses to debunkings, there are always other advocates who may counter assertions in debunkings. At any point I may find I just haven’t found enough to go on.

Those CTs that fail to convince me (including, for example, not being able to counter debunking) fail to convince me.
I decide some are not true, or extremely unlikely to be true or not yet demonstrated. Sometimes I end up thinking that both the official story and the CT seem implausible or have significant holes. (and my feelings and thoughts about official theories play a role here. Sometimes these seem very fishy to me, so my agnosticism is much stronger. I haven’t taken on the CT, but I haven’t ruled out that CT or some of them or that something is wrong with the official story.

Some of these I will go back to as more evidence or ‘evidence’ comes in over time.

I can lose faith or stop believing in an official story without taking on a CT.

As a tangent: one of the reasons I am likely much more open to CTs than other people is when I was young I found out that a consensus of experts can be wrong. It impacted my family and it took years of research to really get a grasp on how experts, supposedly basing their position on science, can be wrong and the mainstream does not realize this.

Once I realized that, I realized that other such phenomena might be the case.

And, then, the earlier in this described post can lead to me accepting a CT or accepting that the official theory does not hold.

[Fixed Cross]

[Karpel Tunnel]

Here's one that may never die:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/23/opin ... e=Homepage

This part of the article, and thus the entire implication of the article, is confused.
The people who have been concerned about globalization have been concerned about things like reduction in democracy, reduction in local control, centralization of power, increased control of our lives via corporations, experts and governments. The Corona crisis is, in fact, hopefully temporarily, continuing that process at an accelerated rate. And it has increased talk of cashless societies (and with the stated intention of governments being able to block people from purchasing things), corona ids - that will also lock one out of things - the internet of things (hence the need for 5G - Very few people in the West need more speed, they can watch a film in real time without even downloading it - which will mean that everything we do is monitoried and information sold based on our every movement (again I recommend the Rise of Surveillance Capitalism) - and even biometric inserts in our bodies. Gates is treated as an expert widely in this new era and has control of a great deal of the health media (including things like the BBC's health media) his donations to the WHO (only and barely outdone by the USA) and as a supposed philanthropist has made, according to himself, a 20-1 return on his charity in the health field. Yet he is repeatedly treated as both a philanthropist and a health expert and no one challenges the conflicts in interest between his vast investments in health media, how his charities end up helping the business end of his foundation, and how his investments in health research affects the solutions sought in ways that benefit his investments. REmember this is the guy who changed an anarchist communal software problem solving community into a purely capitalism one WHILE benefiting from the creations of that very community he despised. Much of this may not come to pass, but these developments are precisely the direction the anti-globalists have been concerned about. And Gates is hardly the only voice in favor of these things: Fauci, health experts in general, and government spokespeople.

Alberta has just passed a bill that means that politicians can pass laws without even explaining why. Many countries are passing laws that bypass rights to privacy in relation to law enforcement and the government in general.

Even if there is no conspiracy in any part of this, this crisis is being seen as an opportunity - by those who want control and a panopticon society - to make changes that would be hard in other circumstances. We can just assume they will relinquish these powers, but since people like Gates - who calls this Pandemic 1 - and Fauci - who talk about second waves and upcoming next pandemics are preparing the governments for a new war - there was the war on drugs, then the war on terrorism, now we have the war on viruses and people who do not do as they are told in relation to viruses - also without end, just like those other two.

And while many individuals gather to complain about this, in general the mainstream media does not consider for a second the possible problems with the current radical shift in power and centralization of power.

Law enforcement seems more entitled than ever, which combined with lockdown poverty will lead to more and more unrest. I don't know where the MSM and the average person gets their faith that this in turn will not also lead to more and more justification for greater law enforcemtn powers and greater reduction in rights.

9/11 led to permanent changes in government power.
The drug war has led to permanent changes in government power.
Some more general concern about the changes in power happening now should be de rigeur in democratic societies.
But anyone mentioning these concerns is labelled not just crazy anymore, but dangerous. And censorship is rampant.

[Del Ivers]

Carleas

Late response since I don't visit ILP as often as I did along with all that is going on.

"But aren't many people committed to particular conspiracy theories also not earnestly working to find the truth?"_Carleas

The simple answer to that is the need to confirm bias, and that in turn to be some kind of validation that the 'correct' path is being chosen. Of course, these feed off each other and thus the cycle continues creating its own 'environment' regardless if it sides up with other environments. A quick and loose example of this is the government saying that there are no UFOs confirms that UFOs exist. At that point anything and everything that doesn't fit the bias/validity premise is rejected. For those who ascribe to that, the 'commitment' is complete and the question of truth is almost irrelevant. I say 'almost' because in case a conspiracy is exploded and proven across the board to be false, there would be an exit to escape full-on criticism from whichever quarter.

"It's a kind of meta-conspiracy theory to say that the conspiracy theories themselves are the work of a shadowy cabal seeking to hide the truth"_Carleas

That's where the complicated answer comes in. As witnesses of existence, we as human beings will always entertain some idea of what's above, beyond, hidden, etc. If it were not for that focus then existence would be a psychologically 2D rather than 3D experience. We equate said focus with 'aliveness', with the sense of existential immediacy and potentials. In that premise then it is not only 'shadowy cabals' but speculation can reach to extents such as for example noted in the Urantia Book in its description of entities and realms that have over-control of the entirety of existence. That book among many others is an example of 'possible' explanations which are then made plausible or even conclusive by individuals who desire such confirmation for whatever reasons.

Note what is going on right now in society and government and what you are basically seeing is a battle for particular 'confirmations' of truth. But again, if the truths presented are not 'existentially profitable' in the larger sense or the local sense, i.e., temporal, immediate, etc., then they are respectively rejected. Shadowy manipulators have nothing to do with that, it is the self-manipulation of one's own existential paradigm as they have come to understand it. Now, think of millions, billions, of those individuals seeking confirmation and you've got a situation that seems impossible to 'coordinate'. The only option then available is what can be termed an 'existentially centrist' one. So, no surprise that throughout history the aim of civilizations has been to find a middle-ground where all can progress in some collective balance. Please note I say, 'aim', because it is always an aiming in progress. History is littered with civilizations whose aiming went awry.

As for hypothesis and belief? Yes, at first as introductions but eventually - whether in terms of moments or millennia - the tension becomes too much and one or the other prevails or both implode to be replaced by the aforementioned focus on beyond, etc.

Now you can see where 'profitability' takes on a very different meaning.

..................................

meno

"..neutral assessment.."_meno

Thus the 'existential centrism'.

Now, absolute contradiction can arise, but that paradigm would be way out of our own existential paradigms and thus of no use to us.

.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Carleas

Late response since I don't visit ILP as often as I did along with all that is going on.

"But aren't many people committed to particular conspiracy theories also not earnestly working to find the truth?"_Carleas

The simple answer to that is the need to confirm bias, and that in turn to be some kind of validation that the 'correct' path is being chosen. Of course, these feed off each other and thus the cycle continues creating its own 'environment' regardless if it sides up with other environments. A quick and loose example of this is the government saying that there are no UFOs confirms that UFOs exist.

Some of 'them' are like this, some are not. As you say, a simple assessment. Confirmation bias and other cognitive avoidance patterns exist in those who believe official stories that do not make sense. Not all, but some.

Even the generalizations about conspiracy theorists is a kind of calming packaging.

[Carleas]

Then generally we agree.

Yes. I think our disagreements are largely about language rather than belief (though we have some disagreement there as well.

So, we don't have a good reason to believe that time is relative yet, for example.

Acceptance is one kind of evidence, it's not the only or best evidence. And there will be well-established things that aren't accepted. Another way to say it is that other people's beliefs should have an effect on our Bayesian priors, but that those priors can be overcome with other evidence.

My point, that it seemed like you were responding to, was not the falsifiablity of conspiracy theories, but rather the falsifiablity of the hypothesis that if any of these conspiracy theories were true, this would come to light and be accepted by the mainstream. I think that, and its related hypotheses, is unfalsifiable.

On this too we agree.

To your description of how you look at a conspiracy theory, it sounds a lot like mine and that isn't surprising. While you're clearly more open minded than I am to a lot of them, I basically take the same approach. I look for things that many people believe that are 'well, actually' wrong, and conspiracy theories promise that type of knowledge. Add to that my love of science fiction, and my related eagerness to suspend disbelief, and I end up looking for the best statement of a conspiracy theory, the best refutations, the refutations of the refutations, etc.

When I say losing faith, perhaps I should have said "losing credence", because I don't mean that conspiracy theories are necessarily more faith-based than accepted narratives. And 'conversion' away from conspiracy thinking doesn't seem to resemble literal conversions away from religion very much.

one of the reasons I am likely much more open to CTs than other people is when I was young I found out that a consensus of experts can be wrong.

This is something that I did not sufficiently appreciate until 2016. I 'knew' it, but I didn't fully bake it into my worldview until then. It's been an adventure re-calibrating; I've felt a bit like the guy in Butterfly Effect who experiences brain damage as he forcefully updates a whole swath of history.

But again, if the truths presented are not 'existentially profitable' in the larger sense or the local sense, i.e., temporal, immediate, etc., then they are respectively rejected.

This is among my greatest fears: that truth, such as it is accessible to humans, is merely whatever is most useful to believe, and not related at all to the more noble idea of an objective reality independent from what we want to be true.

And yet, this basically has to be how it works.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Acceptance is one kind of evidence, it's not the only or best evidence. And there will be well-established things that aren't accepted. Another way to say it is that other people's beliefs should have an effect on our Bayesian priors, but that those priors can be overcome with other evidence.

Or likely, what experts think is evidence. And there's a rub. I mean most of us go along with experts on a number of things. They think there is sufficient, free from bias evidence or are at least saying that. They think that it is unlikely that paradigmatic biases or the funding of the research is not affecting the quality of the research. Sometimes we may decide to go against experts. Or go against some experts when there is no consensus.

Or, and here's where I likely come in more, when I think a minority of experts is more likely to be correct despite what the majority thinks. This last can be arrived at due to a number of factors: 1) the majority position seems wrong to me and I trust my own expertise enough to judge this directly; 2) the majority position is, I think, effectively demolished by the minority positions 3) I see paradigmatic or power bias involved in the majority position 4) I see a history of bias/misjudgment on the part of the majority position. 5) The research used by the majority is tainted by who carried out the research or investigation 6) I see evidence the majority does not even mention, documentable or even, for example, filmed evidence that is systematically ignored. 7) the people who made the majority decision have a majority of dissenters (this happened with 9/11 where a majority of the commission said they were blocked from getting important information.)

There's probably other possible factors.

I may often reject the majority position, but be unsure of which or any of the minority positions is likely or possible.

When I say losing faith, perhaps I should have said "losing credence", because I don't mean that conspiracy theories are necessarily more faith-based than accepted narratives. And 'conversion' away from conspiracy thinking doesn't seem to resemble literal conversions away from religion very much.

OK.

This is among my greatest fears: that truth, such as it is accessible to humans, is merely whatever is most useful to believe, and not related at all to the more noble idea of an objective reality independent from what we want to be true.

The word 'useful' here is important. It could mean that you believe something that repeatedly fails to work in practical terms, but you are happier anyway or more resilient. It could also mean or include the bare fact, I would say, that in some sense we cannot tell if we have reached ultimate reality, or so it seems, we can only be pragmatic. In a sense science works from the idea that truth is merely what is most useful to believe, here with use as something like predicts outcomes of certain causes/situations/changes.

IOW there are two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive there. There may well be an objective reality indendent from what we want to be true AND we still kinda have to work with what is useful. What works, until something better comes along or until working with that model/rule leads to more problems than dropping it.

There's another possibility which is that objective reality is flexible, but might have some rules and/or meta-rules.

And yet, this basically has to be how it works.

Given our in situ embeddedness and limitations.

(I do realize you were responding to del ivers in this last part)

[Del Ivers]

A quick question here:

"And yet, this basically has to be how it works."_Carleas

"Given our in situ embeddedness and limitations."_Karpel Tunnel

Is there a workable solution to this on our (humankind's) part, meaning our part in this existential time and space? Or is it something so hard-wired that only evolution and it's characteristically slow approach can address?

Personally, I think it's the latter but I have to admit that I often wonder if it's more that not all are created temporally efficacious; apples and oranges on a different scale.

[Ecmandu]

A quick question here:

"And yet, this basically has to be how it works."_Carleas

"Given our in situ embeddedness and limitations."_Karpel Tunnel

Is there a workable solution to this on our (humankind's) part, meaning our part in this existential time and space? Or is it something so hard-wired that only evolution and it's characteristically slow approach can address?

Personally, I think it's the latter but I have to admit that I often wonder if it's more that not all are created temporally efficacious; apples and oranges on a different scale.

We are pattern seeking animals with strong evolutionary ties. If someone has lots of anxiety, one if the first things they think about (evolution) is ingestion (maybe it’s my food or water). This is basic instinct. We also (as a basic instinct) look outwards for machinations of people. This is all natural.

Almost everyone misses the big point: nobody wants their consent violated. Consent violators and people who try to never violate consent are just rats in a cage and they can’t see that all their problems are only subset problems... the superset is consent violation (containing all those categories)

Once they see the category, they are awake. They’re no longer in the cage.