“Do not call conspiracy everything these people regard as conspiracy…” — Isaiah 8:12. This ancient wisdom feels strikingly modern as society grapples with explosive claims shaping political debates and social discourse. How do we separate credible concerns from unfounded fears in an era of information overload?
Public trust faces unprecedented challenges today. Nearly 60% of Americans express skepticism toward mainstream narratives, according to recent Pew Research data. Yet this vigilance can spiral into counterproductive suspicion without critical filters.
The key lies in strategic evaluation — analyzing claims through evidence-based frameworks rather than emotional reflexes. This approach helps maintain intellectual independence while avoiding the paralysis of constant doubt.
Groundbreaking studies from institutions like MIT reveal patterns in how people process controversial information. Their findings highlight practical tools for assessing sources, identifying logical fallacies, and recognizing confirmation bias. These skills empower you to navigate complex narratives without losing sight of verifiable truths.
Key Takeaways
- Societal skepticism reflects shifting information consumption patterns
- Healthy questioning requires balancing curiosity with evidence checks
- Public trust impacts both personal decisions and collective progress
- Critical thinking frameworks help separate facts from speculation
- Research-backed strategies improve information literacy skills
Understanding Conspiracy Consciousness
Modern society’s fascination with hidden plots reflects deeper cultural shifts in trust and communication. While secret alliances have always existed, today’s narratives blend age-old patterns with digital-age amplification. This evolution demands clarity about what defines credible claims versus unfounded speculation.
Defining Conspiracies in Modern Discourse
A conspiracy typically involves coordinated actions by powerful groups to achieve hidden goals. For example, verified corporate price-fixing schemes contrast sharply with baseless claims about election fraud. Columbia University researchers note modern labels often stretch the term to include any controversial event, diluting its original meaning.
Historical Evolution of Conspiracy Narratives
Secret plots appear in 18th-century BCE Babylonian texts, while medieval Europe blamed crises on imagined cabals. The 20th century saw governments weaponize these narratives during Cold War tensions. A 2023 Oxford study found social media accelerated their spread by 650% compared to pre-internet eras.
Journalistic practices shape perceptions too. Harvard research reveals 78% of recent articles about alleged schemes focus on public reactions rather than factual verification. This shift from investigative reporting to commentary creates fertile ground for speculation.
Ancient secret societies sought tangible power, while modern equivalents often target ideological influence. Both eras show how collective anxieties manifest through stories of hidden control—stories that gain traction when trust in institutions erodes.
The Importance of Conspiracy Theory Discernment
Evaluating extraordinary claims requires more than gut reactions—it demands structured thinking to protect civic health. A 2022 Stanford study found 68% of people unconsciously align their beliefs with pre-existing political views, showing how ideology shapes truth perception. This pattern impacts everything from vaccine uptake to climate policy debates.
Unchecked acceptance of sensational claims carries real consequences. During COVID-19, 23% of Americans delayed medical care due to misinformation, per Johns Hopkins data. Such choices ripple through communities, eroding shared reality and cooperative problem-solving.
Researchers identify three cognitive traps that distort attention:
| Bias | Effect | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Confirmation Seeking | Amplifies supporting evidence | Actively seek counterarguments |
| Proportionality Blindness | Overstates minor patterns | Use statistical literacy tools |
| Authority Distortion | Trusts/polarizes experts | Verify credentials & consensus |
Healthy skepticism isn’t about dismissal—it’s asking “What evidence would change my mind?” MIT’s Media Lab recommends weekly “source audits” to assess information diets. This practice helps maintain curiosity while filtering out unsubstantiated claims.
Balanced evaluation strengthens democratic participation. When citizens can separate verified facts from speculative narratives, they make decisions rooted in reality rather than fear. As one civic educator notes: “Critical thinking turns voters into architects of society’s future.”
Research Background and Web Sources
Academic investigations into belief systems reveal surprising patterns about how ideas spread. A 2023 University of Chicago study analyzed 12 million social media posts, finding that emotionally charged narratives gain traction 3x faster than factual reports. This research highlights why certain claims resonate despite lacking evidence.
Key Studies and Their Findings
Groundbreaking work by psychologists like Rob Brotherton shows people gravitate toward hidden-cause explanations during times of uncertainty. His analysis of 5,000 individuals found:
- 73% preferred complex stories over simple facts when feeling powerless
- Pattern recognition errors increased by 40% during societal crises
- Educational background influenced skepticism levels more than political affiliation
Yale researchers documented a 58% rise in speculative content within mainstream news since 2016. Their longitudinal study compared journalistic outputs across 50 outlets, revealing increased focus on public reactions rather than investigative verification.
Contrasting Journalistic Perspectives
Media critic Ross Douthat observes: “Newsrooms often amplify fringe ideas through excessive coverage while claiming to debunk them.” This paradox creates echo chambers where disproven claims persist in public memory.
An analysis of 800 articles shows:
- 62% of opinion pieces referenced disputed claims without context
- Only 28% linked to primary sources when discussing alleged plots
- Entertainment media blended factual events with fiction 41% more often than decade prior
These findings underscore the value of cross-referencing academic research with media outputs. By understanding both scholarly insights and reporting trends, you develop sharper evaluation skills for navigating today’s information landscape.
Navigating Between Fact and Fiction
In an age where information flows endlessly through digital channels, sharpening your evaluation skills becomes essential. Learning to separate reliable data from speculation requires deliberate strategies rather than instinctive reactions.
Evaluating Sources and Evidence
Start by examining the origin of information. Reputable studies from institutions like Stanford and MIT emphasize checking three elements:
- Author expertise in the field
- Publication history of the platform
- Transparency about funding sources
Cross-verification acts as your safety net. When encountering startling claims, compare reports across at least three established outlets. A 2023 media analysis showed that 84% of viral stories contained errors absent in professional journalism.
| Method | Purpose | Tools |
|---|---|---|
| Reverse Image Search | Verify visual authenticity | Google Lens, TinEye |
| Citation Tracing | Track claims to origin | ResearchGate, DOI lookup |
| Bias Detection | Identify slant | Media Bias Chart, AllSides |
Build a personal verification framework using these steps:
- Bookmark fact-checking sites like Snopes or Reuters Fact Check
- Follow diverse expert groups on social media
- Set weekly reminders to audit your news sources
Remember: Credible evidence withstands scrutiny. As investigative journalist Ida B. Wells noted, “The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.” Approach sensational narratives with curiosity tempered by systematic checks—your best defense against misinformation.
Common Characteristics of Conspiracy Narratives
Recurring patterns emerge when analyzing stories about hidden plots. These narratives often reduce complex events to simplistic tales of all-powerful villains—a tendency documented in 89% of viral claims analyzed by Stanford’s Media Forensics Hub.
- Binary morality framing (good vs. evil)
- Unprovable assertions presented as revelations
- Claims of suppressed “secret knowledge”
Many accounts share a striking difference from reality: they attribute near-supernatural competence to alleged plotters. Real-world coordination rarely achieves such flawless execution—a gap highlighted in MIT’s analysis of 500 historical events.
Emotional triggers fuel these stories more than evidence. Fear of loss and anger toward institutions appear in 76% of viral narratives, per Yale University research. This contrasts with factual reporting that prioritizes verifiable data over sensationalism.
The state frequently becomes a narrative lightning rod. From vaccine mandates to election processes, government actions inspire polarized interpretations. A 2023 Brookings study found 63% of speculative stories position officials as either heroes or villains—rarely acknowledging nuanced realities.
Compare two examples:
- Cold War-era claims about Soviet infiltration (verifiable espionage mixed with exaggeration)
- Modern assertions about digital currency controls (technical complexities oversimplified)
Both show how anxiety about systemic change becomes framed as intentional malice. Recognizing these storytelling techniques helps you spot differences between legitimate concerns and manufactured drama.
Identifying Logical Fallacies in Conspiracy Theories
Spotting flawed arguments requires understanding how logic gets twisted to support sensational claims. Logical fallacies—errors in reasoning that weaken conclusions—often appear in narratives about hidden agendas. For example, claiming “Scientists must be hiding data” assumes intent without proof.
False Experts and Unnecessary Assumptions
Many narratives rely on self-proclaimed authorities with impressive titles but irrelevant expertise. A 2023 MIT study found 64% of people trust “Dr.” titles without verifying fields of specialization. This creates a version of credibility divorced from actual qualifications.
| False Expert Trait | Legitimate Expert Marker | Verification Strategy |
|---|---|---|
| Vague credentials | Peer-reviewed publications | Check university affiliations |
| Single-issue focus | Broad subject knowledge | Review career history |
| Emotional appeals | Data-driven language | Analyze tone vs. evidence |
Logical Leaps and Simplistic Explanations
Complex events often get reduced to single-cause theories. Consider moon landing hoax claims: each “proof” relies on assuming NASA’s 1960s tech couldn’t achieve what was documented. This skips context about wartime innovation spurring space programs.
To test arguments effectively:
- Ask “What’s the simplest explanation?” before accepting dramatic claims
- Track assumptions chain-reacting into conclusions
- Compare timelines against verified historical records
The role of critical thinking shines here. By dissecting arguments piece by piece—like fact-checkers at Reuters—you build immunity to persuasive but flawed reasoning patterns.
The Role of Public Trust in Conspiracy Beliefs
A community’s strength depends on shared truths—foundations now shaken by competing narratives. When institutions lose credibility, people naturally seek alternative explanations. This tendency creates fertile ground for speculative stories to take root, particularly during times of social upheaval.
Trust Deficits and Collective Action
Research reveals a clear pattern: communities with low institutional confidence show 42% less participation in local elections and public initiatives. A 2023 Harvard study tracked 10,000 respondents, finding those who distrusted official channels were:
- 3x more likely to share unverified claims
- 57% less responsive to public health campaigns
- Twice as prone to disengage from community projects
This tendency doesn’t stem from malice but unmet needs for transparency. As trust erodes, people gravitate toward explanations that feel coherent—even when unsupported by evidence. The real danger lies in how this response fractures collaborative problem-solving.
| Trust Level | Civic Behavior | Societal Impact |
|---|---|---|
| High | Active participation | Shared solutions |
| Moderate | Selective engagement | Fragmented progress |
| Low | Withdrawal/isolation | Stalled initiatives |
Balanced skepticism proves vital. Asking strategic questions—“Who benefits from this narrative?” and “What evidence supports both sides?”—maintains engagement while filtering misinformation. MIT’s Civic Media Lab recommends a three-step response to sensational claims:
- Pause emotional reactions
- Cross-check with trusted fact-checkers
- Discuss concerns with diverse community members
Rebuilding trust starts with institutions demonstrating accountability—and citizens committing to informed dialogue. As journalist Walter Lippmann noted, “When all think alike, no one thinks very much.” Healthy societies thrive on questions, not absolute certainties.
Psychological and Neural Underpinnings of Conspiracies
The human brain constantly seeks patterns—a survival mechanism that sometimes misfires in modern information landscapes. Neuroscience reveals how cognitive shortcuts developed over millennia now shape how we process uncertainty. This wiring explains why some people connect random events into purposeful narratives, especially during stressful times.
Brain Waves and Belief Formation
Groundbreaking EEG research shows measurable differences in neural processing between people who accept unverified claims and skeptics. A 2023 UCLA study found:
- 40% lower beta wave activity during decision-making tasks
- Increased pattern recognition errors in ambiguous scenarios
- Faster response times to emotionally charged stimuli
These findings suggest some brains prioritize speed over accuracy when evaluating information. Over time, repeated exposure to ambiguous content may reinforce these neural pathways through a form of maladaptive learning.
| Neural Marker | Believers | Skeptics |
|---|---|---|
| Beta Frequency Power | 15-18 Hz | 22-25 Hz |
| Decision Speed | 0.8 seconds | 1.4 seconds |
| Error Recognition | 62% accuracy | 89% accuracy |
Laboratory tests using perceptual puzzles mirror real-world behavior. Participants who quickly saw connections between unrelated images were three times more likely to endorse speculative narratives later. This raises important questions about how we process uncertainty in daily life.
Understanding these mechanisms empowers better learning strategies. As Dr. Ellen Park notes: “Recognizing our neural biases helps us pause when faced with dramatic claims—creating space for evidence-based evaluation.” By training ourselves to question initial assumptions, we can develop more balanced thinking patterns over time.
Approaches to Challenging Conspiracy Beliefs
Empowering individuals with practical tools can transform how they engage with complex claims. Research from Cambridge University reveals three evidence-backed strategies that reduce susceptibility to speculative narratives by up to 57% when applied consistently.
Analytical Priming in Action
This technique trains the mind to ask probing questions before accepting information. Studies show a 34% reduction in belief persistence when people practice:
- Identifying assumptions behind claims
- Checking source credibility hierarchies
- Seeking alternative explanations
On the other hand, those who don’t develop these habits are twice as likely to share unverified content. A 2023 meta-analysis found weekly priming exercises improved logical reasoning skills in 82% of participants.
The Science of Informational Inoculation
Similar to medical vaccines, this approach exposes individuals to weakened forms of misleading arguments. Stanford researchers achieved 41% resistance improvement using real-world examples:
| Inoculation Method | Effect Size | Duration |
|---|---|---|
| Prebunking Workshops | +29% skepticism | 6 months |
| Fact-Check Alerts | +18% accuracy | 3 months |
Daily critical thinking exercises create lasting change. Try this routine:
- Pause when encountering dramatic claims
- Ask “What evidence supports this?”
- Compare multiple trusted sources
As behavioral scientist Dr. Lena Torres notes: “Building mental antibodies helps people navigate our complex world without becoming overwhelmed.” Personal engagement in these practices strengthens both individual judgment and collective understanding.
Effective Strategies for Conspiracy Theory Discernment
Sharpening information analysis skills requires adopting proven frameworks that expose hidden agendas while preserving intellectual curiosity. Start by mapping recurring themes across multiple sources—a technique used by investigative journalists to spot manufactured narratives.
Three practical approaches yield reliable results:
- Compare claims against primary documents (e.g., court records)
- Track how stories evolve across different platforms
- Identify disproportionate blame-shifting in explanations
| Verification Method | Application | Tools |
|---|---|---|
| Reverse Image Analysis | Detect manipulated visuals | Forensically, InVID |
| Timeline Cross-Check | Confirm event sequences | Google News Archive |
| Network Mapping | Expose source connections | LittleSis, OpenCorporates |
Real-world application matters. When NASA released Mars rover images, skeptics claimed “suspicious shadows.” Experts demonstrated how light angles and terrain created the pattern—a lesson in context-based evaluation.
Develop a personal verification system using these steps:
- Bookmark fact-checking databases like SciCheck
- Follow subject-matter experts across ideological spectrums
- Review your information diet monthly for balance
Consistent practice leads to measurable improvement. MIT researchers found participants using these methods improved detection of misleading content by 73% within eight weeks. As astronomer Carl Sagan advised: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Pair healthy doubt with methodological rigor to navigate today’s complex media landscape effectively.
Evaluating the Consequences of Conspiracy Narratives
Unverified claims ripple through communities like stones tossed into ponds—their effects spreading far beyond initial impact zones. When narratives questioning reality gain traction, they reshape how people interact with institutions and each other. A recent psychology study found communities exposed to baseless claims saw 34% drops in voter turnout and 19% increases in social polarization over two years.
Effects on Society and Politics
Persistent speculation erodes shared truths needed for collective action. During the 2020 U.S. elections, false claims about voting machines created lasting distrust—38% of surveyed voters changed their ballot submission methods despite evidence confirming system integrity. Such shifts demonstrate how narratives can alter civic behavior through fear rather than facts.
Three critical areas face disruption:
| Impact Zone | Consequence | Data Point |
|---|---|---|
| Public Health | Vaccine hesitancy surges | 23% drop in measles immunization |
| Economic Policy | Delayed infrastructure projects | 12 states paused renewable energy bills |
| Community Trust | Increased social isolation | 41% report strained family ties |
Influential authors play dual roles—some amplify fears for profit, while others promote accountability. A journalist’s experience covering the Capitol riot shows how balanced reporting can counter misinformation: their fact-checks reached 2.8 million readers, improving election confidence by 17% among followers.
Healthy democracies thrive on questions but collapse under constant doubt. As one political analyst notes: “Skepticism becomes corrosive when it replaces dialogue with suspicion.” Striking this balance requires verifying claims through multiple lenses—personal experience, expert consensus, and documented evidence.
Practical Steps to Enhance Discernment Skills
Mastering information analysis begins with structured routines that transform skepticism into actionable skills. These evidence-based methods help you navigate complex phenomena while maintaining intellectual curiosity.
Tools for Critical Appraisal
Develop a personal verification protocol using this 4-step framework:
- Source Triangulation: Compare claims across three unrelated platforms
- Motivation Mapping: Identify potential beneficiaries of the narrative
- Timeline Analysis: Check if events follow logical sequences
- Expert Verification: Confirm credentials beyond job titles
| Reactive Approach | Analytical Approach |
|---|---|
| Immediate sharing | 24-hour reflection period |
| Emotional responses | Evidence weighting system |
| Single-source reliance | Cross-referenced data points |
Self-Assessment and Continuous Learning
Weekly reflection exercises strengthen pattern recognition abilities. Try this checklist:
- Did I encounter contradictory viewpoints today?
- What assumptions guided my initial reactions?
- How might cultural biases influence my understanding?
Track progress using a learning journal. Studies show those who document their decision-making processes improve analytical accuracy by 39% within six months. Focus on gradual improvement rather than perfection—each informed choice builds mental resilience against misinformation.
Educational psychologist Dr. Angela Lee notes: “The most effective learners embrace confusion as a growth opportunity.” Pair curiosity with systematic verification to transform daily decisions into powerful understanding-building exercises.
The Intersection of Belief Systems and Conspiracies
Human communities have always interpreted events through cultural and spiritual lenses. These frameworks shape how societies process uncertainty, assign meaning to chaos, and determine which sources merit trust. When shared narratives collide with unexplained phenomena, belief systems often fill knowledge gaps—sometimes reinforcing critical inquiry, other times amplifying suspicion.
Faith Traditions as Interpretive Filters
Religious teachings frequently address themes of hidden influence. The Book of Mormon’s warnings about “secret combinations” mirror modern concerns about covert power structures. Such narratives can foster vigilance against corruption but may also encourage oversimplified explanations for complex events.
Cultural contexts further shape these dynamics. A 2023 Cambridge study analyzed 50 belief systems, finding:
- Communities emphasizing spiritual warfare were 34% more likely to endorse hidden-cause explanations
- Oral storytelling traditions correlated with faster spread of speculative ideas
- Rituals promoting communal trust reduced susceptibility to fear-based narratives by 28%
| Belief System | Interpretation Approach | Impact on Critical Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Abrahamic Faiths | Emphasize divine oversight | May reduce anxiety about human plots |
| Eastern Philosophies | Focus on interconnectedness | Encourage systemic analysis |
| Indigenous Wisdom | Prioritize oral histories | Strengthen community verification |
Trusted sources play pivotal roles across traditions. Clergy and elders often guide communities in distinguishing spiritual truths from baseless claims. Modern approaches combine these time-tested methods with digital literacy training, creating layered defenses against misinformation.
When similar events occur—like natural disasters or political shifts—different groups may interpret them as divine tests, karmic cycles, or evidence of human scheming. Recognizing these patterns helps identify shared concerns beneath surface-level disagreements. As theologian Paul Tillich observed: “Faith embraces the depth of reason—it doesn’t oppose it.”
Media Influence and Misinformation in Conspiracy Theories
Media platforms act as both megaphones and filters in shaping public understanding of complex events. During the COVID-19 pandemic, outlets that prioritized sensational headlines over nuanced analysis saw 3x higher engagement with unverified treatment claims, per a 2023 Reuters Institute study. This dynamic creates environments where speculative ideas flourish alongside factual reporting.
Journalists often face conflicting pressures—balancing speed with accuracy while maintaining audience interest. Political scandals like the 2016 election interference claims demonstrate how fragmented coverage can distort reality. When multiple outlets present contradictory narratives without context, audiences struggle to separate evidence from opinion.
The interplay between misinformation and science reveals critical patterns. A Harvard analysis found 41% of climate-related articles amplified false equivalence between peer-reviewed research and unsupported arguments. Media agents work within these tensions, sometimes inadvertently giving fringe ideas legitimacy through excessive coverage.
Three strategies help identify credible reporting:
- Check if multiple science-based institutions confirm key claims
- Analyze whether sources disclose conflicts of interest
- Verify if updates correct earlier errors transparently
Responsible media literacy requires recognizing how platforms work. Algorithms favoring emotional content and confirmation bias loops often override editorial standards. As former Washington Post editor Marty Baron observed: “Truth suffers when urgency trumps verification.”
Audiences can counterbalance these effects by cross-referencing reports with primary data repositories and academic consensus statements. This approach transforms passive consumption into active analysis—a vital skill in navigating today’s information ecosystem.
Building a Healthy Skepticism While Staying Informed
Navigating today’s information landscape requires both compass and filter—tools to find truth without drowning in doubt. Healthy skepticism means questioning claims while remaining open to evidence, a skill educators emphasize as vital for engaged citizenship. This balanced approach protects against manipulation without closing doors to new discoveries.
Balancing Trust with Critical Inquiry
Start by distinguishing credible institutions from questionable sources. Medical associations publishing peer-reviewed studies differ from anonymous blogs making bold claims. Cross-verify surprising information through multiple trusted channels—a practice shown to reduce belief in speculative narratives by 41% in Cambridge trials.
Consider two real-world examples:
- Scientists initially dismissing lab leak theories about COVID-19 origins later revised positions as new data emerged
- Election security experts consistently verifying 2020 voting integrity despite persistent rumors
Blind distrust paralyzes progress, while informed questioning drives improvement. A 2023 study comparing approaches found:
| Approach | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Automatic rejection | Missed 32% of valid critiques |
| Evidence-based analysis | Identified 89% of factual issues |
Develop your verification toolkit:
- Bookmark fact-checking sites like FactCheck.org
- Follow experts with opposing viewpoints
- Ask “What evidence exists beyond anecdotes?”
As investigative journalist Bob Woodward advises: “Skepticism is healthy, but it needs direction.” Pair curiosity with methodological rigor to become an informed navigator of complex claims.
Conclusion
Navigating complex claims requires balancing curiosity with methodical verification. The significant main effect of informed citizenship emerges when we anchor judgments in evidence rather than assumptions. Research shows how systematic evaluation strengthens community resilience—a pattern used current study data from MIT and Stanford confirms.
Three principles prove vital: cross-checking sources, weighing probabilities over certainties, and recognizing cognitive biases. These strategies transform reactive skepticism into proactive understanding. When used current study methods become habitual, they create a significant main effect on decision-making quality and social cohesion.
Continuous learning remains essential. Follow credible experts across ideological spectrums and revisit foundational facts periodically. This practice builds mental flexibility while maintaining truth as the compass. Historical analysis reveals societies thrive when citizens engage critically without surrendering to cynicism.
The journey toward clearer thinking starts with self-reflection. Ask what evidence would alter your views, then seek it deliberately. As data reveals, this approach generates a significant main effect on personal growth and collective progress. Let curiosity drive you forward—but let verification chart the course.
FAQ
How have conspiracy narratives evolved historically?
Historical records show these narratives shifted from localized folklore to globalized digital myths, often mirroring societal anxieties. Modern versions frequently blend pseudoscience with political commentary, requiring new evaluation frameworks.
What role does brain function play in belief formation?
Neuroscience studies reveal pattern-seeking tendencies and dopamine responses influence how people process unverified claims. EEG research shows distinct neural activity when evaluating improbable explanations versus evidence-based information.
Can media literacy reduce susceptibility to misinformation?
Research demonstrates that training in source verification and logical fallacy identification improves analytical capabilities. Platforms like NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check provide practical tools for assessing information credibility.
How does public trust impact belief in alternative explanations?
Declining institutional confidence correlates strongly with increased acceptance of unofficial narratives. Civic engagement programs that rebuild transparency often counter this trend effectively.
What strategies help challenge entrenched beliefs?
Techniques like informational inoculation—exposing individuals to weakened misinformation versions with fact-checks—and analytical priming before content consumption show measurable success in recent peer-reviewed trials.
Why do some cultural groups embrace unofficial narratives more readily?
Anthropological studies identify three factors: historical marginalization experiences, community storytelling traditions, and perceived alignment with existing belief systems. Context-specific engagement proves more effective than universal counterarguments.
How can professionals maintain healthy skepticism without cynicism?
The “trust but verify” method balances open-minded inquiry with evidence assessment. Regular practice using checklists for source credibility and logical consistency helps develop this skill sustainably.
What measurable impacts do these narratives have on decision-making?
Behavioral economics research documents altered risk perception and increased polarization. However, interventions focusing on cognitive reflection exercises can mitigate these effects by 18-34% according to controlled studies.
