3 ms·

Don't you think there's a danger that letting incorrect (especially wildly wrong) statements stand unchallenged on the internet encourages those ideas to spread

Don't you think there's a danger that letting incorrect (especially wildly wrong) statements stand unchallenged on the internet encourages those ideas to spread further ?

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
I have seen studies that suggest engaging with incorrect beliefs does nothing to prevent their spread and might even encourage them. Denying prominent supporters of a belief a platform ("cancelling" them) has plainly been effective in a few cases. However, I think that hammer should be reserved for seriously harmful and dangerous beliefs. I think flat Earth is quite harmless and also sufficiently unpopular that there's not really much that needs to be done.
- tgflynn 7y ago
  I guess there's a distinction to be made between people who appear firmly committed to ill-supported beliefs and those who plausibly may just be basing their beliefs on inaccurate information. It's true that I generally don't engage with people who believe in a flat earth or who claim to be absolutely certain that the government is colluding with extraterrestrials, simply because I doubt any good would come of such an interaction.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
    > those who plausibly may just be basing their beliefs on inaccurate information. IMO that excludes all flat Earthers, at least those who have received a primary school education.
    - tgflynn 7y ago
      Yes, of course. But I understood (perhaps incorrectly) your comments as intending to have broader applicability. The case of flat-earthers has always seemed like an extreme outlier to me even compared to other conspiracy theorists.
- jstarfish 7y ago
  > I have seen studies that suggest engaging with incorrect beliefs does nothing to prevent their spread and might even encourage them. If there's anything I learned from my experiences in organized religion, the skeptics' society, various mental institutions and a career in criminal justice, it's that confronting irrational targets (or salesmen!) just teaches them how to better-reinforce their own flawed arguments and behaviors. They learn what rational people will come at them with and learn how to counter or subvert it, which helps them become even more persuasive to their next mark. Now they sound more intelligent and authoritative, which is precisely what makes them so dangerous! The same advice applies to internet trolls. It's hard because it's instinctual, but never engage-- smile and walk away. Don't give them an opportunity to learn how to exploit or undermine the thought patterns of a rational person. If you don't yourself drown in their sea of circular logic, you're just giving a malicious organic learning algorithm free training data at the expense of your time and sanity. If you starve them of attention, they can only feed off of each other-- to predictably amusing ends. Without outside input, then like any cult, they eventually become an incestuous feedback loop of lunacy that deviates so far from societal expectations of normality that you no longer have to convince anybody of anything since they do it for you.
sokoloff 7y ago
"You can't reason people out of positions that they didn't reason themselves into."
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Something I keep telling my dad, as he tries to get grandma to stop regurgitating the "forwards from grandma" type of nonsense. She's not spouting this because it's rational.
s1artibartfast 7y ago
As an aside, I think there is a huge danger in poorly challenging incorrect statements on the internet and elsewhere. Dehumanizing or disrespecting others is one of the easiest dangers, as is challenging with a incomplete or fallacious counter. These only add fuel to the fire.

Don't you think there's a danger that letting incorrect (especially wildly wrong) statements stand unchallenged on the internet encourages those ideas to spread further ?

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago

I have seen studies that suggest engaging with incorrect beliefs does nothing to prevent their spread and might even encourage them. Denying prominent supporters of a belief a platform ("cancelling" them) has plainly been effective in a few cases. However, I think that hammer should be reserved for seriously harmful and dangerous beliefs. I think flat Earth is quite harmless and also sufficiently unpopular that there's not really much that needs to be done.

tgflynn 7y ago
I guess there's a distinction to be made between people who appear firmly committed to ill-supported beliefs and those who plausibly may just be basing their beliefs on inaccurate information. It's true that I generally don't engage with people who believe in a flat earth or who claim to be absolutely certain that the government is colluding with extraterrestrials, simply because I doubt any good would come of such an interaction.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  > those who plausibly may just be basing their beliefs on inaccurate information. IMO that excludes all flat Earthers, at least those who have received a primary school education.
  - tgflynn 7y ago
    Yes, of course. But I understood (perhaps incorrectly) your comments as intending to have broader applicability. The case of flat-earthers has always seemed like an extreme outlier to me even compared to other conspiracy theorists.
jstarfish 7y ago
> I have seen studies that suggest engaging with incorrect beliefs does nothing to prevent their spread and might even encourage them. If there's anything I learned from my experiences in organized religion, the skeptics' society, various mental institutions and a career in criminal justice, it's that confronting irrational targets (or salesmen!) just teaches them how to better-reinforce their own flawed arguments and behaviors. They learn what rational people will come at them with and learn how to counter or subvert it, which helps them become even more persuasive to their next mark. Now they sound more intelligent and authoritative, which is precisely what makes them so dangerous! The same advice applies to internet trolls. It's hard because it's instinctual, but never engage-- smile and walk away. Don't give them an opportunity to learn how to exploit or undermine the thought patterns of a rational person. If you don't yourself drown in their sea of circular logic, you're just giving a malicious organic learning algorithm free training data at the expense of your time and sanity. If you starve them of attention, they can only feed off of each other-- to predictably amusing ends. Without outside input, then like any cult, they eventually become an incestuous feedback loop of lunacy that deviates so far from societal expectations of normality that you no longer have to convince anybody of anything since they do it for you.

sokoloff 7y ago

"You can't reason people out of positions that they didn't reason themselves into."

blaser-waffle 7y ago
Something I keep telling my dad, as he tries to get grandma to stop regurgitating the "forwards from grandma" type of nonsense. She's not spouting this because it's rational.

s1artibartfast 7y ago

As an aside, I think there is a huge danger in poorly challenging incorrect statements on the internet and elsewhere. Dehumanizing or disrespecting others is one of the easiest dangers, as is challenging with a incomplete or fallacious counter. These only add fuel to the fire.