A former CIA operative suggests that government secrecy is frequently a tool to hide administrative incompetence, premature announcements, or procedural errors, rather than to cover up nefarious, large-scale conspiracies. This perspective reframes public distrust from calculated malice to bureaucratic failure.

Humans crave control. When faced with uncertainty, the brain compensates by creating narratives and seeing patterns where none exist. This explains why a conspiracy theory about a planned event can feel more comforting than a random, chaotic one—the former offers an illusion of understandable order.

People watched the movie 'Contagion' during the pandemic rather than reading scientific papers because the human brain is wired to learn through first-person stories, not lists of facts. Narratives provide a simulated, experiential perspective that taps into ancient brain mechanisms, making the information more memorable, understandable, and emotionally resonant.

When confronting seemingly false facts in a discussion, arguing with counter-facts is often futile. A better approach is to get curious about the background, context, and assumptions that underpin their belief, as most "facts" are more complex than they appear.

When presented with direct facts, our brains use effortful reasoning, which is prone to defensive reactions. Stories transport us, engaging different, more social brain systems. This allows us to analyze a situation objectively, as if observing others, making us more receptive to the underlying message.

We are cognitively wired with a "truth bias," causing us to automatically assume that what we see and hear is true. We only engage in skeptical checking later, if at all. Scammers exploit this default state, ensnaring us before our slower, more deliberate thinking can kick in.

Effective political propaganda isn't about outright lies; it's about controlling the frame of reference. By providing a simple, powerful lens through which to view a complex situation, leaders can dictate the terms of the debate and trap audiences within their desired narrative, limiting alternative interpretations.

A two-step analytical method to vet information: First, distinguish objective (multi-source, verifiable) facts from subjective (opinion-based) claims. Second, assess claims on a matrix of probability and source reliability. A low-reliability source making an improbable claim, like many conspiracy theories, should be considered highly unlikely.

Applying Hanlon's Razor ("Don't attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence"), it's more probable that a political figure was killed due to security failures than a complex, flawless conspiracy by a foreign state. Incompetence is statistically more common than a perfectly executed secret plot.