How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories • Hacker News Board

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#41

Post by 0-1 » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:33 PM UTC

For those hoping to talk sense into family or friends.

One site with an established track record of helping people out of false conspiracy theory rabbit holes is metabunk.org. They have mainly helped people with 9/11, chemtrails, and UFOs. The guy who runs the site has written a good book on it:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/escaping-the-rabbit-hole-bo...

Read an excerpt at https://www.salon.com/2018/09/16/how-to-pull-a-friend-out-of...

It is the best resource I have found in many years of searching but if you can suggest others, please do so.

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#42

Post by Uberphallus » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

blhack wrote: post #19

>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…

Exactly, my share of nuts in my feed are already convinced fact checkers are in the conspiracy, too.

Personally, I only try to have instructive discussion if I care about the person. Then it's time well spent. Strangers on the Internet? No, thanks.

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#43

Post by MonAlternatiu » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

I am creating a new account just for this: Social Media is the source of a lot of misinformation and there is no way to fix it other than reducing its usage.

Social Media increases information availability and by its very nature will always spread false information as fast or faster than the truth.

This ideal that we can fight misinformation with more truth is absurd.

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#44

Post by thih9 » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:34 PM UTC

blumomo wrote: post #28

blhack wrote: post #19

>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…

This comment resonates a lot with me. What I observe is that people mistake "fact" for "truth". A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. While truth is what objectively really happened. Most people can't detach their personal world view from an "absolute" reality and hence their "facts" are biased by the way how they _perceive_ the objective reality. But what's an objective reality? Everyone l…

> A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened.

This is not how I'd understand it.

From Cambridge dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact , "something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information"

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#45

Post by clktmr » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:35 PM UTC

blhack wrote: post #19

>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…

A fact-check doesn't need to be done by an authority. Pointing out logic errors (i.e. correlation != causation, loops in chain of reasoning) in the argumentation can be done by anyone, and be understood by anyone willing to think.

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#46

Post by sjaak » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:36 PM UTC

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the interesting parallel with religion here. Belief in a deity is also --in some eyes-- totally irrational. It can cause similar harm and sometimes also divides families, e.g. when people want to 'get out': Jehovas witnesses, scientology, ...

Let's face it, collectively, we're not as rational as we like to believe.

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#47

Post by ed25519FUUU » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:37 PM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #13

This is clearly about the war in Iraq. And yes the victims are not simply the millions of lives destroyed in the region or the thousands of lives destroyed in western countries; but the victim is the truth itself and the population's trust in authority.

Are you one of those conspiracy theorists who believe we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and to feed our war machine and not because of 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction? FACT mainstream media published all kinds of articles saying Hussein had WMDs!

Are you trying to say our government and a compliant media lies to us to get us to accept actions that go against our interest?

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#48

Post by arethuza » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

blhack wrote: post #19

>Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked) We have got to get away from this idea that you can "debunk" something with some authoritative source of truth. That is just not how reality works, and the idea that you can "fact check" and "debunk" your way to a healthy, functioning system of rhetoric is absurd. NO argument has EVER been won by somebody pointing to a third part…

"infallible arbiter sounds like it is lifted directly from an Orwell novel"

Actually, I think 1984 was more about the fact that the party was clearly not infallible but that ultimately that this didn't matter as all records were constantly rewritten to be consistent with what the party claimed was true at any moment in time.

"Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past"

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#49

Post by accountwhatever » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #35

LeCow wrote: post #25

I take such an issue with the portrayal of conspiracy theories like this, that is black and white. As with everything, it's that they encompass a range of things. Many times people have called conspiracy on something that's turned out to be true. It's just as anti-science to be extremely sceptical of everything as it is to be extremely susceptible. Some people believe in lizard people, and some think China is trying…

In the article, the mother was attempting to indoctrinate her son with “lizard people” conspiracy theories from a young age, among other things. At the extremes, these conspiracy theories are clearly false. The problem is that it’s not simply harmless to believe something so wrong at large scale. The believers aren’t just holding an opinion, they’re making decisions, taking action, voting, and even at times encouragi…

> The believers aren’t just holding an opinion, they’re making decisions, taking action, voting, and even at times encouraging violence based on beliefs that are clearly wrong.

Sounds just like the USA going to war over WMDs in Iraq. Clearly we need to give even more power to the mainstream press so they can act as the sole arbiters of truth.

/s

Re: How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

#50

Post by blix » Mon, Nov 02, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

thih9 wrote: post #44

blumomo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment resonates a lot with me. What I observe is that people mistake "fact" for "truth". A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. While truth is what objectively really happened. Most people can't detach their personal world view from an "absolute" reality and hence their "facts" are biased by the way how they _perceive_ the objective reality. But what's an objective reality? Everyone l…

> A "fact" is the _interpretation_ of something that has happened. This is not how I'd understand it. From Cambridge dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fact , "something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information"

Objective reality doesn't have a native representation in human language. When an event is recorded in text or speech it is neccessarily an interpretation. Even in memory, the record of an event is a mere interpretation of reality.

I'd also argue the words "known", "proof," and "information" all require interpretation as well.