It is not a crazy idea to conceptualize some conspiracy theorists as people who (1) have a high need for cognition (brain wheels are always turning), and (2) direct that at developing wrong/misguided/motivated frameworks for the world.

High NFC with low education or access to information.

I would say it's more about low empathy and ability to scrutinize their beliefs. This is very often paired with a nice dose of narcissism which makes them think that everyone else is an idiot and has flawed thinking, while they're immune to it.

Conspiracy theorists demote things like "parsimony" in favor of "holism" and "explanatory power". There's a reason the text says "reasonable" and not merely "comprehensible".

"Reasonable" is pretty subjective.

"Being reasonable" is more or less universally defined as "balancing between parsimony and explainability in a good-faith analysis".

Take it from the entire field of philosophy of science if you won't take it from me.

One could make the argument that "good-faith" is subjective, except that would imply that things like logical fallacies cannot exist. However it is true that values frameworks shape how we investigate questions and what we feel comfortable proposing as solutions. Many proposals can be "reasonable" and simultaneously mutually exclusive or even destructive.

You are aware though that yesterday's conspiracy theories have now repeatedly proven to become tomorrow's mainstream headlines, right?

Depends on the theory. I doubt we're going to discover proof that Moscow was hit by a nuke in 1812.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENwllHqDIE

And this is why no one can see eye to eye...because no one wants to. The slightest nerve jangled and we start arguing in bad faith

Who's arguing?