**tl;dr:** Complex systems can be corrupt to form a "false" (untruthful) consensus which then becomes embedded deep in the system, and through every participant's (skewed) incentives - maintain that lie for a long time. # About When a large hierarchical group of people (system) forms consensus in an idea, every participant becomes heavily incentivized to uphold it. If the idea is ***a lie*** (whether knowingly or not), participants stand to gain more from being complicit in it, rather than unveiling it. (most of the time) ## Characteristics - the lie can be ***a mistake*** - every participant may erroneously think it's true. (i.e there's no premeditated deceit) - the lie can be ***unknown*** - most participants can be honest and never notice they're peddling a lie (it's against their incentives to research further anyway). There's always a varying spectrum of percentage of people who - a) know fully well it's a lie - b) suspect it may be a lie but aren't sure - c) have absolutely no idea it's a lie. - the lie can be ***morally good*** (net beneficial for society, e.g religion) or ***morally bad*** (e.g [sugar is good for you](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat)). - PS: It's very easy to misjudge a lie's standing in this, as people don't take into account [Chesterton's Fence](https://fs.blog/chestertons-fence/). - Simple example: Covid vaccine shenanigans were called out -> less trust & less people getting vaccinated -> the [US now has a measles outbreak](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-10/us-measles-outbreak/105277230). # Elite->Expert Delegation Sometimes these group lies benefit a small insider group at the expense of a big common group (the masses). Similar dynamics motivates actors to form cartels. The masses often times delegate the expertise to the small insider group, who then perpetuate the lie. The small insider group consists of: - experts (people who are very well educated on the matter - e.g workers with experience) - elites (people who paint narratives, who have connections, influence - e.g CEOs). *(see Expert-Elite divide that [Rob Henderson very eloquently writes about](https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/experts-and-elites-play-fundamentally))* Masses aren't incentivized to dig too deep into it. If a member of the masses does - he/she steers into the path of becoming an expert, at which point they're incentivized to join the group, perpetuate the lie and benefit from it one way or another... ### Elite Power Those with power control the narrative (the group lie). Even if an expert says the truth, there's a high chance it's never heard: - If no mainstream journal/media outlet is ready to cover the opinion - the chance of it gaining traction is severely hampered. - If something gains traction, targeted funded discredit can nip it in the bud before it gains steam. ### Expert Incentives Essentially: - you can **ride the wave** and be complicit, profiting off the lie - you can go **against the tide** and try to gain something by exposing the lie. - (this can work sometimes, e.g at certain inflection points - but is rarer and riskier) > _**When you dive into it and find out the lie, you are disincentivized to expose it**_ You will: - get ignored - get called a nut job (lose status) - be ostracized (not called into big boy dinners, less chance to professionally prove yourself, maybe completely ignored) - suffer financially The consequences depend on the *significance* of the lie, the amount of people listening to you and the power of the insider group you're going: - In certain cases, you can get outright killed. (e.g call out Stalin in 1930s USSR) - In others, jailed. (e.g criticize Putin in Russia today) - In others, become ignored and irrelevant Most experts are incentivized to not go against it. There's little to win, a lot more to lose, and even more simply said - *opportunity-cost-wise* you're way better off spending your time elsewhere. # Conclusion While this all sounds very cynical, at the end of the day, I believe you have this system where **most actors are well-intentioned**. Most actors have rationalized to themselves that what they're doing is good, e.g: - this is actually true! - this may not be 100% true but is better for society - I don't place a lot of importance on this and I just need a way to provide for my loved ones Hence this doesn't fall into the "evil" connotation people usually place on such conspiracies. I'd rather ascribe it to natural mass human behavior and game theory.