What Jordan Klepper Teaches Us About Conspiracy Theorists
Why Empathy Works Better Than Facts, According To Science And A Comedian
"So you're saying Italian satellites, based in Pescara, Italy, changed the votes?" Jordan Klepper asked at a 2022 Trump rally, eyebrow raised but voice genuinely curious. The supporter nodded earnestly and launched into an elaborate explanation.
Most people would laugh, argue, or walk away.
I know I would.
But Klepper leaned in and asked for more details.
This moment, captured on his podcast "Fingers the Conspiracy," reveals something crucial about human communication. While experts, fact-checkers, and family members fail to engage conspiracy believers, a comedian with nothing but curiosity manages to have actual conversations with people most of us consider unreachable.
Klepper's approach actually has science behind it. Research in self-affirmation theory shows that people are less defensive when their self-esteem is affirmed rather than belittled. You can criticize ideas more effectively if you do not attack the person who holds them.
This matters more than ever. Conspiracy thinking continues to fracture families, poison public discourse, and undermine democratic institutions. Yet most of us treat conspiracy believers as enemies to defeat rather than humans to understand.
Most people trying to engage conspiracy believers make the same mistakes. Family members lead with facts and get frustrated when logic doesn't work. Journalists attack the theories head-on, triggering defensive reactions. Fact-checkers treat believers like they're stupid, which makes them double down.
Klepper does something much harder. He treats them as frustrated people seeking validation and significance in a complex world. He's not agreeing with them or indulging their theories. He's demonstrating that understanding someone doesn't require believing them.
The Hunger for Significance
"Americans love a good conspiracy," Jordan Klepper told Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air in February 2018. "We want there to be something we cannot see. And so I think even this idea of Deep State is so evocative. Like, we want to know more about it. Like, something is being hidden from us, I want to be in on the know."
Klepper has identified what psychologists call the "significance quest." Arie Kruglanski's research shows that the drive for significance can make people especially receptive to narratives that offer them a sense of insider knowledge and purpose.
They're not just looking for information as they're actually looking for importance and purpose.
This reframes a lot about conspiracy thinking. The person explaining Italian satellites isn't primarily concerned with election integrity. They're demonstrating “special knowledge” unavailable to the masses. The conspiracy theory becomes proof of their intelligence and independent thinking.
They've worked for this knowledge. They've done the research. This knowledge belongs to them.
Klepper recognizes this hunger and feeds it in unexpected ways. Instead of dismissing someone's research as nonsense, he asks genuine questions about their process. "How did you find out about this?" "What made you start looking into it?" "What convinced you this was true?" These questions validate the person's investigative efforts without validating their conclusions.
During the rally interviews, his humility is unique. He never attacks their intelligence or character, only the gaps in their logic. He treats their research process with the same seriousness he'd give a doctoral dissertation, even when the conclusions are absurd.
This approach works because it combines self-affirmation theory with motivational interviewing. By validating the person's intelligence while questioning their conclusions, Klepper prevents the defensive reactions that kill most conversations across divides.
This works because it's genuine. Klepper seems genuinely curious about how people construct alternative realities. He wants to understand the emotional journey that led someone to believe in weather control or reptilian celebrities.
But there are clear limits.
For those whose beliefs are tightly bound to their identity, what is called the "psychological immune system" can render even respectful questioning ineffective. Some people mistake validation for agreement and become more entrenched. Others are simply too invested to question anything, regardless of how gently they're approached.
Letting People Hang Themselves
"For comedy to work it has to be honest and built on recognizable truths," Klepper has consistently explained in interviews about his approach. "If you're just exaggerating for effect, it doesn't land. The best satire holds up a mirror, not a hammer."
Rather than attacking conspiracy theories directly, Klepper uses the same technique therapists call "motivational interviewing." William Miller and Stephen Rollnick developed this approach using open-ended questions to help people explore their own inconsistencies. While motivational interviewing is designed for personal change in therapeutic settings, Klepper adapts its spirit for public dialogue, though his goal is as much to reveal as to reform.
Watch Klepper's rally interviews and you'll see this principle in action. When someone explains theories about Italian satellites changing election results or claims that JFK Jr. is still alive, he doesn't immediately debunk them.
Instead, he asks follow-up questions that gently probe the logic. "How does that work exactly?" "What convinced you of that?" "Where did you first hear about this?" These innocent questions often reveal gaps in reasoning or contradictions the person hadn't considered.
These questions don't create cognitive dissonance.
It exposes it.
Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort we feel when holding contradictory beliefs simultaneously. As Leon Festinger's research shows, people are most likely to change when they notice their own contradictions, not when those contradictions are pointed out by others. The person has to wrestle with their reasoning in real time, without Klepper ever calling them illogical.
This technique succeeds where direct confrontation fails. It bypasses defensive mechanisms without attacking the values of the person. When someone attacks our beliefs, we instinctively defend them. When we discover problems in our own reasoning, we're more open to adjustment. Klepper creates space for self-discovery by appearing genuinely puzzled rather than adversarial.
The motivational interviewing research shows this technique works best with trained practitioners and willing participants. Klepper operates in neither environment. His subjects often don't realize they're being questioned for comedy, and he lacks clinical training to handle the psychological complexity of deeply held beliefs.
When the method works, though, it's remarkably effective. People reveal their own uncertainties, question their assumptions, and sometimes even laugh at their contradictions. The mirror reflects not just their beliefs, but their capacity for honest self-examination.
But there's a serious ethical tension: Is it fair to turn someone's confusion into a punchline, even if it occasionally sparks self-reflection? More troubling, would this approach risk public shaming or deepening polarization? In some interactions, Klepper's persistent questioning leads to visible agitation. People sometimes walk away feeling attacked or manipulated, potentially more entrenched in their beliefs than before.
They may also feel humiliated by being made to look foolish on national television, which could drive them further into conspiracy communities that validate their sense of persecution.
Klepper himself seems aware of this ethical minefield. He's walking a tightrope between revelation and exploitation, and even he notes that he doesn't always stick the landing.
The Limits of the Method
"I hope comedy isn't the last line of defence against misinformation because if it is we're all fucked," Klepper admitted. "But I do think that for comedy to work it has to be honest and built on recognizable truths."
This honest assessment reveals Klepper's awareness of his method's boundaries. Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler's research in Political Communication shows why: attempts to correct misinformation can sometimes strengthen false beliefs, especially when people feel attacked. Even Klepper's gentle approach can trigger these defensive reactions.
The demands of entertainment creates this tensions. Klepper needs compelling content, which means seeking out the most colourful characters and absurd theories. This skews toward people who make good television rather than those most likely to benefit from thoughtful dialogue.
The public nature of these interactions also adds volatility. People behave differently when they know they're being filmed for comedy. Some become performative, others shut down entirely, sensing they're being set up for ridicule.
Klepper discovered this difference after covering a Trump rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Stranded at the airport, he found himself alone with "Brick Suit Guy," a Trump supporter who had been antagonistic at the rally.
Over three and a half hours without cameras, something shifted.
"There wasn't a middle ground that we found, but there was a softening in those relations," Klepper said. "There's a softening when you remove the cameras, when you remove the fear that this conversation isn't just transaction for a gotcha moment but an actual conversation about the things that you care about and things you're unsure about."
The airport conversation highlighted what television comedy cannot provide: time, privacy, and genuine vulnerability. They didn't agree, but they found shared humanity. Real dialogue requires what Klepper calls "vulnerability" and "uncertainty," conditions that cameras actively discourage.
Sometimes the most honest thing you can do is admit you're not trying to save the world. You're just trying to understand it.
Lessons in Human Engagement
"I've found that if you go in with curiosity and a willingness to listen, you get a lot further than if you go in looking for a fight," Klepper reflected during his 2018 NPR interview. "People want to be heard, even if you don't agree with them."
Carl Rogers' research on empathy proves why this works. Active listening involves fully understanding and responding thoughtfully to the another person. Rogers showed that this genuine curiosity and empathetic listening build trust and openness.
The key isn't agreeing with people, but making them feel understood as human beings.
Practice Genuine Curiosity: Ask questions you actually want answered. Klepper's curiosity feels authentic because it is authentic. As Rogers emphasized, "Active listening must be grounded in a spirit of genuine respect." He seems fascinated by how people construct their alternative realities, and that fascination comes through in his voice and body language.
Validate the Person, Not the Belief: Never attack someone's intelligence or character; create psychological safety instead. Klepper treats their research process seriously even when his interviewees are absurd. Rogers noted the importance of "removing the threat of yourself as a potential changer.” This allows people to explore their thoughts without defensiveness.
Let Contradictions Emerge Naturally: Ask follow-up questions that highlight inconsistencies rather than pointing them out directly. This reflects Rogers' emphasis on reflective listening. As people will reflect on their own insights through careful questioning rather than external correction.
But active listening is a skill requiring practice and self-awareness, not just a technique to deploy.
It is a skill after all.
The realistic goal isn't conversion but connection. Klepper rarely changes anyone's mind in real time, but he occasionally creates moments of human recognition across ideological divides. Someone realizes they're talking to another person rather than an enemy. Someone laughs at their own contradiction. Someone admits uncertainty about something they'd claimed to know for sure.
These small moments might not solve the misinformation crisis, but they're valuable in themselves.
In a polarized world, the ability to have any genuine conversation across difference becomes precious.
And maybe that’s enough to diffuse tensions.
Jordan can be followed on
jordanklepper.com
https://x.com/jordanklepper
https://www.instagram.com/jordanklepper
Give the man your support and approach the next conversation the same way he would!
This article was published earlier, however, I made the really bad mistake of hitting "publish" instead of "save to drafts." It has been touched up since, but the core remains. Please enjoy.