In my 4 years here quite a few people posted asking for advice on how to talk to friends or family that had fallen prey to conspiracy theories. IIRC, nobody was advised to use ridicule or mockery.
Even in the past, when MB did focus a lot on the messaging side, there were a few members who believed mockery and degrading were the best way to get CTist to shut up (or possibly change their minds, i guess). Apparently if you ridicule and shame people, then 'the people on the fence' ..not wanting to be ridiculed and shamed.. will toe the appropriate party line.
In 10 years i haven't seen any evidence of this working.
A recent paper suggests (somewhat unexpectedly) that rational arguments and ridiculing can be effective against conspiracy beliefs, but emotional arguments are not.
Conspiracy theory (CT) beliefs can be harmful. How is it possible to reduce them effectively? Three reduction strategies were tested in an online experiment using general and well-known CT beliefs on a comprehensive randomly assigned Hungarian sample (N = 813): exposing rational counter CT arguments, ridiculing those who hold CT beliefs, and empathizing with the targets of CT beliefs. Several relevant individual differences were measured. Rational and ridiculing arguments were effective in reducing CT, whereas empathizing with the targets of CTs had no effect. Individual differences played no role in CT reduction, but the perceived intelligence and competence of the individual who conveyed the CT belief-reduction information contributed to the success of the CT belief reduction. Rational arguments targeting the link between the object of belief and its characteristics appear to be an effective tool in fighting conspiracy theory beliefs.
In both the "rational" and "ridicule" methods what they did was point out the logical and factual inconsistencies of the CT. In the "rational" method they pointed out the logical flaw, and then provided a more detailed explanation of events, in "ridicule" they pointed out the logical flaws and then emphasized how silly it was to believe a theory with such flaws.
the other problem with ridicule is you never really know if the person or lurker has actually changed their views or if they just say they have. Basically it's "thought-shaming". (which in some situations is definitely called for but i dont think it actually changes anyone's mind.).
In my 4 years here quite a few people came here asking for advice on how to talk to friends or family that had fallen prey to conspiracy theories. IIRC, nobody was advised to use ridicule or mockery.
In my 4 years here quite a few people posted asking for advice on how to talk to friends or family that had fallen prey to conspiracy theories. IIRC, nobody was advised to use ridicule or mockery.
Defining ridicule might be worth it here since extent would really matter. If you make jokes about it being dumb, it'll come off very differently than if you drop a degrading word in reference to a personal characteristic of theirs and then just degrade the belief instead of making a joke. This can work too but gets into longer and debatably malign processes.
In my 4 years here quite a few people posted asking for advice on how to talk to friends or family that had fallen prey to conspiracy theories. IIRC, nobody was advised to use ridicule or mockery.
The audience matters. We have a few conspiracy theorists who show up here from time to time, but it usually doesn't take long to realize that they are resistant to any factual information that might contradict a belief they've already decided is true. But I do not believe this forum reaches the CT world in general. For the most part, I think we are talking amongst ourselves, the "debunkers". The question about persuasively addressing family or friends (or trying to influence thought on a site where CTs predominate) is quite a different matter, and one for which not many of us are qualified. That's not our job, and for most of us that's not our skill set.
Ridicule in the context of comedy can be quite effective. I spent years discussing how nutty the bible was with a friend (who similarly, comes from a catholic family). Nothing worked. Then he started listening to Ricky Gervais, and bing bang boom...
Do not insult people either directly or indirectly
Do not call them names, such as "stupid", "ignorant", "uneducated", or "liar"
Do not describe their theory as "stupid", "moronic", "idiotic", "delusional", etc
...
The politeness policy is the basis for the nature of Metabunk.org, and for this to remain the unique little debunking site it has become, the politeness policy needs to be observed.
Do not insult people either directly or indirectly
Do not call them names, such as "stupid", "ignorant", "uneducated", or "liar"
Do not describe their theory as "stupid", "moronic", "idiotic", "delusional", etc
...
The politeness policy is the basis for the nature of Metabunk.org, and for this to remain the unique little debunking site it has become, the politeness policy needs to be observed.
Gotta agree with Landru there. It would seem relatively easy to explain why one does not think the Bible contains religious truths, or whatever you think it does not (or does) contain, without using belittling language. As an example, I believe the Bible expresses important spiritual and religious truths, while not believing it is particularly useful as, say, a science textbook. It would not be hard to express and explain that without using belittling language... but will refrain from going into examples as I don't want to drag the thread off into the off-topic weeds. Similarly, we can discuss "David Grusch's DOPSR Cleared Statement and IG Complaint" or other topics civilly.
(And to be clear, I was not myself deeply offended or anything, would be happy to take Davo27 out for a day flying kites on the beach! )
And finally, when I inevitably fall short of practicing what I preached here, everybody feel free to call me on it!
I'm not sure about that. Individuals should not be personally disparaged. But there should be no ideas that are beyond questioning, else we are not upholding our position as skeptics and seekers of the truth. Perhaps his language should have been more circumspect, that's all.
I'm not sure about that. Individuals should not be personally disparaged. But there should be no ideas that are beyond questioning, else we are not upholding our position as skeptics and seekers of the truth. Perhaps his language should have been more circumspect, that's all.
He said they spent years discussing it, and neither you nor I were party to that discussion, nor do we know how "thoughtful" it was. You're objecting to the language of a very brief synopsis, that's all. I merely thought it was flippant, not belittling.
tHe said they spent years discussing it, and neither you nor I were party to that discussion, nor do we know how "thoughtful" it was. You're objecting to the language of a very brief synopsis, that's all. I merely thought it was flippant, not belittling.
He said they spent years discussing it, and neither you nor I were party to that discussion, nor do we know how "thoughtful" it was. You're objecting to the language of a very brief synopsis, that's all. I merely thought it was flippant, not belittling.
Ann is on the money in my book - ideas have no intrinsic worth that they should deserve respect. People do. Belittling ideas, I'd have thought is a fairly morally consequence-free game, and not lacking in civility. (Granted, this may be outside of your particular rules here, in which case I'd mock the rules, but accept the consequences). Outside of this forum, many in the wider world have come to see 'debunking' as an impolite and belittling activity. Obviously, I disagree with this position.
The person I was describing is a friend with whom I am very close. We still talk most days. We belittle each other mercilessly, and both enjoy it. In what I was describing, there was a mixture of mocking the ideas in the book, as well as mocking him. Landru, am I to take from your comment that the description of events outside of this forum, that would break the rules if they were conducted inside this forum, is not allowed?
That seems like a slippery slope that would put many topics out of bounds.
The existence of atheists does not belittle Christians.
Atheists saying they're atheists does not belittle Christians.
Atheists saying they're atheists because of the perceived contradictions in the bible does not belittle Christians.
Atheists putting that sentiment flippantly does not belittle Christians.
Atheists saying they stopped believing because of comic Ricky Gervais does not belittle Christians.
I disagree.
I think that thoughtful discussion that goes into actual beliefs and makes a case why only irrational people could hold them would actually be belittling.
His roundabout way of saying "personally, I don't like the bible" is not, because it is not thoughtful discussion. It's not directed at anyone, while "thoughtful discussion" would be.
(i was really only pointing out how Mendel should stop insisting MB has a politeness policy that is enforced. wasn't trying to pick on @davo27 who didn't say anything out of the ordinary for MB)
(i was really only pointing out how Mendel should stop insisting MB has a politeness policy that is enforced. wasn't trying to pick on @davo27 who didn't say anything out of the ordinary for MB)
So If I said, "your professed school of beliefs (insert religious/political/ethical doctrines of choice) does not sit well with me", is that insulting? I am stating my personal opinion on that school of beliefs. By implication, the receiver may assume that they themselves also do not sit well with me. Is this an impasse? Is the fault still mine? My views/opinions are surely as 'valid' theirs. I can see that the manner of delivery may be a possible source of offence: if someone expressed their views so bluntly/offensively to me (about my beliefs), I am also judging them bluntly at that point. If there is a polite statement about differences of opinion, then there is an opening for engagement and conversation.
As a Kiwi living in Scotland, I have often been asked 'Where in Australia are you from?" At that point, this person is presenting a narrow-minded viewpoint: they have already made assumptions, and I am less inclined to answer politely. If they ask 'is that an Australian accent?', this is an open and approachable situation. They have an idea, but also know that they may be wrong and are entertaining the option for different answers. Externally, to some people this looks like the same conversation: I can assure you they are not.
Growing up and holding Pentecostal Christian (happy clappy) household views, (until my late teens, then taking about 3 years to recalibrate to a skeptical, atheistic world-view), I recall the concept being expressed: Love the sinner, but not the sin. In effect, I don't agree with what you do, but need to find the ability to see you as an individual equally worthy of God's love as I consider myself.
There is a lot of grey scale, covering the middle ground, with respect to insult/offence being meant or taken...
As a Kiwi living in Scotland, I have often been asked 'Where in Australia are you from?" At that point, this person is presenting a narrow-minded viewpoint: they have already made assumptions, and I am less inclined to answer politely.
I'm an atheist, and I would not feel insulted at all by someone saying 'atheism is stupid' or, say, Paine's The Age of Reason is nuts. I don't know if it's just me or if this is common among atheists, but in the latter case it would be a big plus for atheism.
I feel free to criticize any idea and, if I think it's useful, to use snark and mock any book I find deserving of mock and snark, even if said book happens to be 'holy' and 'sacred' for many people. Not only that: I think this is part of the fundamental right to speak which any human has (which, as a corollary, implies anti-blasphemy laws are among the worst thing I can imagine of).
On Metabunk mocking and snark are, rightly, no-nos, and this is one of those things which contribute keeping this forum quite enoyable! Outside of Metabunk it's generally unadvisable, not least because, as @Landru says, (mine bolderizing):
However (from personal experiences) there are cases when mocking and snark obtain amazing effects. It depends on the person(s) involved and on the topic, ie. it almost never works for religious topics (too radically held beliefs, I guess), but it can work miracles for UFOs or conspiracies. In any case, it's a trick which needs to be exercised with the utmost care.
No. I did not state I was insulted by that, but I usually start forming my own views about that individual's knowledge and experience of the bigger world. I also lived in Germany several years, and it was equally apparent to them I was foreign. I do not recall being asked the same question there: it always seemed to be an open enquiry. New Zealand does not have regional accents to speak of, but I have now been living 25 years in countries with very parochial accents/dialects, and folk frequently have a strong sense of being defined by that fact (along with their local football/soccer team). I never try to guess, as literally naming a town the 'other' side of a river can cause umbrage. Who knew?! I mean you can throw a stone between some of them, but they're not the same, in their eyes.
I also did not state an opinion about the word stupid, either way, in my post. This is the difficulty with keyboard conversations, there is no context or personality visible from the body language/facial expressions. I will admit my post was not as crafted I should have made it, trying to shoehorn it into a brief work-break, and my nuance may have got lost in translation. The thrust of the point I was trying to make: there are certainly ways to state disagreement that are more or less likely to cause insult. Stupid is a strong word to use and invariably considered derogatory; and when applied to personal beliefs almost guaranteed to cause offence. The risk will always exist of somebody conflating attack of beliefs with attack of the person: with religious matters, many folk define themselves by/as their beliefs, perhaps even more so than the regional issue discussed above (but the two are not mutually exclusive, either).
For someone experiencing strong cognitive dissonance over their beliefs, any statement of disagreement may cause offence, regardless of the terminology/politeness/phrasing/intent. (Personal opinion, no reference cited.)
I'm going to share something I said that I wish I could take back. My future ex-wife and I were discussing religion, her beliefs having been raised Catholic and my none beliefs due to having been raised by squirrels in the wild. We had some good conversations and I was learning about her being a believer and she was understanding my going through life not being a believer. When she pressed me for why I couldn't ever believe, I responded because it's silly. Like still believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny...etc. I immediately regretted it. And it has caused an issue between us that is still there.
It's one thing to be able to joke around with your friends when your relationship is based on who can out gross each other, or say the rudest or most outlandish thing to make each other laugh. But you can't belittle someone's core beliefs however "silly" you think they may be. I mean, you can belittle them. It's just you pay the consequences like I have of losing some respect. Or losing the ability to educate someone because they got offended by your bluntness. Isn't it easier to choose our words more wisely to not put someone off whose attention we are trying to keep?
Call me stupid, twice.
Very polite, very open. I feel that applies more to theories, though, than belief. It is certainly an approach I would like to remember to use, if I had the time/inclination/respect to engage in conversation with the person about our differences in belief/opinion. Intangible Fairies at the end of the garden are not a 'theory' I want to strongly entertain...
There are other sections, though, than pure 'Debunks' - see the current classification this thread has been split off to. We are all humans with our own frustrations, foibles, faults, and flaws. Ideally, we can remain cool enough to express ourselves concisely and clearly. Sometimes we fail. The recent rash of activity on the Mexican mummies shows the ability of most people to remain sanguine in the face of repeated return to a single point, regardless of so many other smoking gun issues with whole shemozzle.
The recent rash of activity on the Mexican mummies shows the ability of most people to remain sanguine in the face of repeated return to a single point, regardless of so many other smoking gun issues with whole shemozzle.
However (from personal experiences) there are cases when mocking and snark obtain amazing effects. It depends on the person(s) involved and on the topic
That might work in private conversation if you know the person and have some understanding of how they will react. But on a public text-based forum (like Metabunk, or most of social media) its very easy for people to take mocking very badly. That problem is compounded by the wider audience (and sometimes a much later audience). If other people see you mocking someone for holding an idea they also hold, then it's like you are mocking them.
Mocking can also lead to fruitless and counterproductive discussions about semantics and accusations of meaning one thing or another. We should aim to be both clear and effective in communication.
Something occasionally working does not mitigate the broader harm it does. Mocking might have a place, but it's not here.
I think in the end, Metabunk is made up of people and people are imperfect. Someone can write a ChatBot that might explain contrails and will continue to respond in a very polite and civil way no matter what is said to it. One could call it all sorts of vulgar things while insulting its intelligence and it will just calmly and politely go on explaining contrails. People don't work that way. We have our beliefs, sometimes passionate ones and we sometimes react emotionally. It's how we're wired.
I see the Politeness Policy as an attempt to rein in our baser selves. It's not perfect nor does it always work maybe, but it's something to strive for and an example we can try to set, not just for the newer members, but for the hundreds of non-members that are reading at any giving moment.
A short tale I wrote about "Phil", who partly inspired my thinking on this topic:
Be Polite and Respectful
If your goals are to effectively communicate, then you need to be polite and you need to respect your friend.
People will push back when they feel they are being attacked. Regardless of the intentions of the person they are talking to, or the article they are reading, or the video they are watching, if they feel it denigrates them in any way then they are far less likely to actually consider the validity of what is being said.
Phil was a visitor to my Chemtrail debunking website ContrailScience.com who did not agree with this approach. Phil was very intelligent, he knew a lot about the science behind contrails, and he was aware of most of the problems with the Chemtrail theory. He was able to provide concise explanations that refuted the bunk posted by others and gave helpful overviews of the actual science.
Yet Phil would almost invariably conclude his posts with something along the lines of “get an education,” “take some classes,” or “that’s just ignorant.” He would sometimes use more direct insults like “uneducated [chemtrailers],” “uneducated simpleton,” and even “mentally ill,” and urged people to “get professional help” for their “paranoia.”
This had two effects. Firstly, it meant either that any Chemtrail believer who engaged Phil in conversation would leave the forum or that the conversation would almost immediately degenerate into a flaming insult session where the original topic was essentially forgotten. It was highly counterproductive.
Secondly, it tainted the site, and it tainted the other debunkers by association. Since Phil was quite an active poster, it was very easy for a visitor to get the impression that his opinion was the opinion of the site. The opinion came across as Phil being an intellectual snob, arrogant and disdainful of contrary opinions. It also came across as Phil being totally unwilling to listen to the opinions of the believer. Since the believer was strongly emotionally and intellectually invested in their beliefs, this dismissal came across as a slap in the face. A direct insult. When more polite debunkers tried to explain things, the damage had already been done. The shields were up, and the mind was closed.
I tried to explain this to Phil several times, but he in turn took my criticism as a direct insult. So I banned him. This was not an action I took lightly, as he was generally a good contributor. But the damage he was doing by his insulting manner was outweighing the useful factual contributions that were great alone, but unfortunately seemed only to be a preamble to his insults.
Don’t be like Phil. Even if you feel your friend is being stupid, uneducated, or even crazy, it’s still best to just focus on the facts. Show them where they were wrong, show them what they missed, show them where their sources are wrong. Don’t tell them they are stupid. Be polite, please!
- West, Mick. Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect (Revised and Updated - Includes Information about 2020 Election ... Pandemic, The Rise of QAnon, and UFOs) . Skyhorse. Kindle Edition.
I don't remember who "Phil" was (it was probably over 10 years ago), but his legacy lives on!
to some conspiracy theorists, the more you shame, the more they decide to believe in something harder or the more they believe you've been brianwashed.
You can still disagree with someone but speak in a way that makes them walk away thinking - and then coming to the right conclusion on their own later.
The more dismissive you get with someone trying to explain a conspiracy theory - the more they can think you're not paying attention and avoiding the clues.
This is why shaming especially doesn't work in conspiracy debates IMO - the only people that shame anyone to a conspiracy theorist would be the authority trying to discredit and gaslight everyone.
Also when you expeirnece something, there is an emotional response - even just seeing a video that shakes your beliefe system into believing a conspiracy - finding out that it was fake after you believed it takes time to decompress from.
Like waking a sleep walker, you dont want to just shout WAKE UP at them or they freak out and hurt themselves... you need to be gentle with someone who has had a belief structure shakeup IMO
)
