10 ms·

How I talk to the victims of conspiracy theories

97 points by ColinWright 6y ago

ColinWright 6y ago
The submission system removed the initial "How" but I've put it back now. The title "I talk to ..." is very different from "How I talk to ..." ... sorry if anyone feels misled.
lki876 6y ago
"BBC's specialist disinformation reporter" Well that sounds ominous.
temptemptemp111 6y ago
Hilarious. Funny how these things end up at the top of HN so quickly :)
- wildrhythms 6y ago
  What's funny about that?
holidayacct 6y ago
There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. Every conspiracy theory in existence can be explained in terms of math, technology, physics, psychology and behavioral biology. They are conspiracy theories because the average person refuses to believe basic science that was discoveres i the early 1900s. It's 2020 and if you use science and technology from the early to mid 1900s in the right way people get confused and they believe there is some strange conspiracy. Here is an example, I can get people to do things with online advertising. If I get people to do the right combination of things with the right combination of advertising it looks like magic to people who don't know about advertising, psychology and neuroscience.
- samcal 6y ago
  I'm failing to see the connection between "looking like magic" and "being a conspiracy theory", but I'd argue that the mechanism doesn't really matter. From a certain perspective, your advertising might take away some part of their free will, and _that's_ the part that makes them uncomfortable.
- komali2 6y ago
  Right but specifically a conspiracy theory involves malicious and powerful actors. >A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation So 5g mind control, moon landing is fake, earth is flat are all examples of conspiracy theories. No matter how much science you apply to demonstrating the theories are incorrect, the conspiracy theorist will simply provide more ways that the lizard people are tricking us. It's irrational by definition. I stress about this. I encounter plandemic types far too often in texas. I've tried so many different strategies to convince them of the public health crisis, that if they would at least just wear a mask it would help. I never get anywhere. Is this the fatal flaw of the species? Our vulnerability to disinformation? Considering the creation of disinformation can be scaled cheaply to staggering heights, will this halt our progress?
  - holidayacct 6y ago
    Agreed, and you don't want the answer to those questions. On a side note: Its easy to understand why people believe in the whole mind control thing. It's just advertising and sometimes its people running "Debility, Dependency and Dread" on other people to re-train them without having an understanding of what "Debility, Dependency and Dread" really is. For some reason people have a difficult time making the logical leap that humans are mammals. Everyone wants to believe that we are better than all other mammals in a way that none of that is possible.
- NikolaeVarius 6y ago
  BS. The US Govt reading middle-manning internet connections was pants-on-head stupid conspiracy theory until Snowden
  - mthoms 6y ago
    I strongly disagree. That theory (before Snowden) was never in the same category as flat earth, QAnon, lizard people, faked moon landings and the like.
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Yeah, that was the first thought that crossed my mind when Snowden happened: not "oh shit, they are listening!" (I knew that before, for a very loose definition of "to know"), but "oh shit, advocates of crazy conspiracy theories will cite this as precedent for decades".
  - jwalgenbach 6y ago
    Except it wasn't. Carnivore was a thing that people knew about, and the US government backed away from it when it was publicized. Total Information Awareness was a thing that was known and not a conspiracy theory. The Patriot Act was a thing that took a lot of steps towards a surveillance society. Snowden's information was just a confirmation that the US government was pursuing these things in secret when doing them in the open failed. It's not a lizard people/flat earth/q-anon level thing. There was plenty of "prior art" for the Snowden revelations. There are conspiracies. I have never seen or heard of one that turns the world upside down. They seem to be all continuations and expansions of bad behavior that is currently accepted as fact.
- II2II 6y ago
  > There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. Every conspiracy theory in existence can be explained in terms of math, technology, physics, psychology and behavioral biology. I don't know whether that is true of every conspiracy theory, but here is one example that supports your point: While finishing up teacher's college, I was paired with a maths teacher who believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories and who mentioned them in class. From his point of view, a delayed "explosion" lower down in the tower was evidence that the destruction was planned. Left in an awkward position, I did the only thing I could think of: I used math. Simply put, the time that it would take a shock wave to propagate through the steel structure matched the delay so the "explosion" did not prove his conspiracy theory. That was one heck of a teachable moment that transformed an otherwise abstract math lesson into something that could be applied to every day life. (Edit: clarification on the intent of the calculation.)
komali2 6y ago
That was interesting, but I'm now far more interested in a post covid interview of Brian Lee hitchens (in the article a covid denier until he and his wife got it, his wife then died).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
newsbinator 6y ago
This doesn't seem to offer insight. It's: 1. Talk to them, for hours if you can. 2. Figure out where they're getting their information and see if it's already been debunked. 3. Don't be a jerk. That's not very much 'how', unfortunately.
- black_puppydog 6y ago
  Actually, all three of those points are things that people (me included) regularly do wrong/don't do when engaging with conspiracy theorists. 1. Brush claims off as unimportant / ignore their messages in group chats instead of giving contra, leading them to misinterpret silence as tacit agreement. 2. If engaging, doing it very shallowly with platitudes like "check your sources" but never going over concrete examples with them. 3. Being a jerk about it. Edit: not advocating/demanding you do all three every time you spot someone BSing on the webs. We all only get 24h a day. But if it's someone close to you and you're really concerned, all these three are good things to keep in mind and easy to do wrong, especially when things get heated.
  - GreenWatermelon 6y ago
    I agree with you, but the article just glossed over it. It should've done what you did and expanded upon these points. As it stands, the article is just "The story of Sebastian's Mum: a victim of conspiracy theories" which is a more fitting title and still interesting, but it's not really a guide, so I also agree with OP, it doesn't really offer insight. Once I finished the article I was like "is that it?!"
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    What do you do when there are no concrete examples or relevant scientific facts at the time? How do you counter a conspiracy theorist when they then also point out very real conspiracies that have definitely happened and are well-known and well-documented? Conspiracies definitely do happen and have been perpetrated by institutions that are supposed to be regarded with the highest trust, such as the people tasked with protecting us with their intelligence. How do you restore faith in those institutions? Would you have argued against MK-ultra before having known it was real?
ezekg 6y ago
The anti-Q articles are out in full force the last few days... Why is this on HN's front page again?
- komali2 6y ago
  Anyone pro-rationality is anti-q. It's probably on the top of HN because people voted for it. The software that runs this website is on GitHub, you can go see for yourself. Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q?
  - blhack 6y ago
    >Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q? What purpose does mocking this person's question serve? Do you think you're going to convince them of something by making fun of them?
    - ezekg 6y ago
      Unfortunately, I've grown pretty used to it. This year especially is vitriol to anybody that questions the mainstream narrative.
      - Rick1 6y ago
        That's because "the mainstream" is constantly toxic to non believers. --- How effective are face masks really? There don't seem to be any standards and I'm wondering... CORONA DENIER! CONSPIRACY THEORIST! YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!
    - usrusr 6y ago
      Yeah, it surely won't convince OP. But public web discussion answers are rarely only intended for the parent poster. Often there is even a "private message" option for those few that are, all others are for the wider audience as well. If something as mockable as q posturing is left unmocked the impression on third parties can be very different than if it is not and the purpose of the reply is (I assume, not the author) this change.
petermcneeley 6y ago
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.
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  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?
  - ezekg 6y ago
    "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
austincheney 6y ago
Many of the behaviors associated with followers of conspiracy theories sound like behaviors associated with addiction disorders and abuse victims much like people susceptible to joining a cult. Some of those behaviors include socially isolated belief systems, security reenforcement, gullibility, loss of identity, loss of independent reasoning, and so forth.
jungletime 6y ago
Hard to read this with a straight face, after Snowden and Julian Assange. Snowden is still in exile, and Assange is tortured in Jail. This is the price for proving deep state "conspiracy theories".
- mthoms 6y ago
  There's a wide gulf between believing that "the government can listen in on any conversation" and "the government is comprised of lizard people". The article is about the latter.
  - jungletime 6y ago
    Wikileaks was a place for consciences objectors to reveal government corruption, and it quickly gained respect in the eyes of the public. With the arrest of Julian, and the downfall of Wikileaks. We are now left with much less reputable places to disseminate that information. I take issue with the article, because it attacks and delegitimizes independent investigative effort. Unfortunately that effort is now done in the dregs of the internet in places like 4chan, and now disseminated by less reputable people like Rudy Juliani. "Lizard" people is modern abstraction for evil/corrupt people. Similar to angels and demons. We call the earth round, when in fact its a little oval, and has mountains that protrude out. Abstractions can be true on some level of resolution, but in fact be false in the absolute sense. The article doesn't really invalidate the sentiment that some people in government are corrupt. Which is probably the right sentiment to hold, even if arrived through the wrong fact.
    - krapp 6y ago
      It's perfectly reasonable to believe that corruption exists in government. It's not reasonable to believe government is so corrupt that Tony Blair is probably a space lizard wearing a human skinsuit or that Hillary Clinton probably drinks the blood of child sex slaves.
- edgyquant 6y ago
  Snowden immediately fled to US adversaries and Assange was knowingly working with Russian intelligence agencies.
blhack 6y ago
>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 party "fact checker", and honestly the idea that there is some infallible arbiter sounds like it is lifted directly from an Orwell novel.
- xwolfi 6y ago
  You d go faster humiliating someone in front of an audience over a silly argument for sure.
- blumomo 6y ago
  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 lives in their own subjective reality! And this is where their "facts" come from. TLDR; The discussions around "facts" are totally useless to me. Unless you accept that someone who pushes through their "facts" does nothing else than pushing their worldview onto you. Everyone is free to learn "truth" through their own perception. Other people's "facts" don't support this much.
  - hobs 6y ago
    It's sounds like a teenage Solipsism, and its really boring and tedious for other people.
    - blumomo 6y ago
      For whom it is boring besides yourself? Are you presenting a „fact“ or your opinion ;) ?
  - 6y ago
netcan 6y ago
I've been in these conversations several times recently. My tips: Go in friendly. Make an effort to assume and embody good will and rationality. The premise of most conspiratorial thinking is very dichotomous. They see themselves as the open minded against dismissive, closed minded opposition. Don't play into this by being dismissive. Be generous instead and assume that they are truth seeking just like you. Don't be too defensive. If you don't know the "proof" for Gm1m2/r^2, don't pretend you do. Spend time. Be proactive instead. What's the proposed alternative to Gm1m2/r^2 and why do they think that one is true. Instead of seeking out logical holes and dunking, seek out points you can concede. This creates a common ground and gives them permission to concede points too. Intellectual honest is a reciprocal game. Make it an interesting conversation, not a game you're trying to win. Almost all of their exposure to the topic(s) is either monologue (probably youtube), or ridiculing/dismissive debate. Good faith dialogue will be a rarity. Be that. It often gets epistemological, and that actually is interesting. Last, remember that almost no conversation ends with a change of mind. That happens later, if at all. What you can "prove" within the conversation is that not all spherists are closed minded, dismissive arseholes. I'd also recommend doing it. There's a lot to learn here that transposes onto less fringy stuff... especially politics. You likely can't convince Democrat to be a Republican, but you can convince them that some Republicans have reached their conclusions with an open mind, good faith and good intentions. That's the myth which needs to be busted. Other myths are secondary. Conspiracy theories are about people and their perceptions of other people, primarily. The object of the conspiracy is secondary.
- anvandare 6y ago
  In short, use the Socratic method. (But then again, that didn't end well for Socrates - or did it?)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- desilentio 6y ago
  Have you ever had any success with this method; did you ever get anyone (sooner or later) to understand he had been deluded?
LeCow 6y ago
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 to undermine world security. One may or may not be more or less believable than the other. Why should I — someone with many of my subjective ideas and opinions try and talk someone else out of their personal beliefs and opinions. And why is the BBC, arbiter of shoddy journalism providing me with guidance on how to do it?
- PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  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 encouraging violence based on beliefs that are clearly wrong.
  - accountwhatever 6y ago
    > 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
  - ghthor 6y ago
    Clearly is a pretty strong term. I'm sure skeptics arguing against Galileo would have used string words like "clearly" to dismiss his ideas.
    - krapp 6y ago
      >I'm sure skeptics arguing against Galileo would have used string words like "clearly" to dismiss his ideas. The fact that people dismissing Galileo's claimed turned out to have been wrong does not mean people who dismiss COVID conspiracies or reptoids are equally as likely to be wrong. People who believe in a conspiracy of globalist elite reptilian shapeshifters are clearly wrong. Clearly is a strong term, and it's justified in the case of such beliefs. There is no danger that in the future those who hold such beliefs will turn out to have been correct in hindsight, as Galileo was proved correct in hindsight. Reasonable people can agree or disagree on reasonable conspiracy theories. Did Epstein kill himself? Maybe, maybe not. Did Trump or his staff collude with Russia? Maybe, maybe not. Was 9/11 an inside job? I don't believe it was but it's at least within the realm of metaphysical possibility. Are mattress stores just money laundering fronts for the Mafia? Probably not but it is weird how you can have, like, twenty of them on a single street. Who buys that many mattresses? How do they stay in business? There is, however absolutely no need to give anyone who claims Bill Gates created COVID-19 as a pretext to tag people with mind control chips through vaccinations in order to harvest adrenochrome from their brains for satanic ritual orgies the benefit of the doubt. They. Are. Clearly. Wrong.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Conspiracy theory is a fun 2020 buzzword because it’s such a powerful rhetorical attack. You can take something that is fringe and proven by data to be untrue (such as flat earth) and then lump it together with something that is simply unknown or politically embarrassing (what is on Hunter’s laptop?) and then treat them the same? The new way is actually just to suggest it’s Russian disinformation, and then suddenly that embarrassing thing about your family simply goes away.
motohagiography 6y ago
The article suggests "empathy," but often this is really just patronizing. It's about relationships, not "facts." Someone who believes there is a conspiracy identifies as an outsider to it. The only question is whether they are an outsider to their relationships as well. Discussing a conspiracy theory is usually the same as trying to explain a break-up to the person on the receiving end where the more you explain, the less convincing or final it is, with the real risk of exposing yourself to backlash. The necessary condition for a conspiracy theory is for someone to believe they are a victim, and that they are being actively disenfranchised by a group who doesn't acknowledge it. Some are falsifiable, others not so much. Quite a few are even more true than they could ever conceive of. The way I relate to the people I know whose lives are consumed by conspiracy theories is by setting clear personal boundaries for myself, so that when I inevitably diverge from their belief bubble, it's not traumatic because it's just outside the boundary on which we relate. I'd argue that if you want to deflect most conspiracy theories as a leader, professional, or even a manager, don't be empathetic, be magnanimous.
deegles 6y ago
The idea of memes being as something potentially dangerous should be more widespread. Maybe a different word should be used since it's colloquially used to refer to funny pictures with a caption, but I would pay for a service that used e.g. GPT-3 to detect fake news and flag them in my browser. I would trust a human moderation team to update the list for me, since even being aware of a meme lets it begin to take root in your mind. [0] (Also known as the illusory truth effect[1]) [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246 [1] https://fs.blog/2020/02/illusory-truth-effect/ https://fs.blog/2020/02/illusory-truth-effect/
hliyan 6y ago
My personal experience has always been that fact checking fails with the more extreme cases -- in that it wins the argument but fails to win over the person. In fact, that kind of win often seems to "inoculate" the person against anything you have to say in the future. When facts and logic fail, I usually fall back on the other two of the good old Greek trio: ethos, pathos and logos. First you need to understand what feelings are driving these individuals. Usually it's fear and uncertainty. Until you address the root cause of those feelings (which usually differ from person to person), no amount of fact checking is going to have a permanent effect. The other thing is to build mutual respect, even if you don't agree with the person. Branding someone an idiot is generally not considered a winning strategy when it comes to persuasion.
sto_hristo 6y ago
Do you know of the flat earther that in effort to prove the Earth is flat, he proved that it is round? He didn't accept it and came around with some other reason. This has got to be a mental condition that scientists have yet to study. At this point it's impossible to talk to true conspiracy theorists as stupidity is chronic by nature. Feed them the colorful pills to keep them at least subdued most of the time is probably the best strategy.
0-1 6y ago
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-book.8971/ 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-the-conspiracy-theory-rabbit-hole/ 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.
MonAlternatiu 6y ago
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.
sjaak 6y ago
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.
- aikinai 6y ago
  Who’s we? I doubt anyone would claim that most people are rational.
  - arethuza 6y ago
    Didn't some economists claim exactly that? "economic man, is the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
- desilentio 6y ago
  May I ask if you know why you use rules of that kind, with spaces only on the side opposite the insertion? I've seen that in print but only once.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  What if the faith in God was rational? I mean to YOU it doesn't seem rational, but to the faithful it does. I mean one logical, rational argument used is that the universe and life is incredibly complicated, we as "mere" humans cannot create it, and it's incredibly unlikely humans would develop like we did. Therefore, there must be intelligent design behind it. See? Rational and logical thought. Dismissing people who think differently as being irrational is just alienating and pushing them away, entrenching them even more if you go in with a judgment and mindset like that. It would make you scoff at "these people", because they're irrational unlike you, the epitome of rationality and logical thought. TL;DR, assume the "other side" is just as smart and rational as you are, they just have different ideas.
pjs_ 6y ago
Trying to pull someone out of a conspiracy theory rathole is very scary and difficult. There is a ratchet mechanism whereby whatever you do or say can be interpreted as further evidence for the conspiracy, and no matter how you push and pull they just go deeper. This article offers zero useful advice on how to overcome this extremely pernicious, scary and increasingly prevalent problem.
tpoacher 6y ago
When they said "she's a specialist on the human toll of misinformation", I had high hopes she was someone who talked at length about how the BBC helped fabricate evidence to justify Tony Blair's war on Iraq. Apparently not.
rboyd 6y ago
You only need to live through a handful of conspiracy theories turned conspiracy fact before the debunk-everything skeptics annoy you just as much as the complete lunatics.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bloak 6y ago
I think the term "conspiracy theory" is perhaps unhelpful, and it also seems that people are lumping together phenomena that aren't necessarily all that closely related. If there's a group of people with some strongly held belief, not supported by evidence, about the government doing something evil then perhaps we should call it a "shared paranoid delusion". It's hardly a "theory" if they already believe it and it hardly involves a "conspiracy" seeing as it's perfectly normal for the government to plan things in secret, even things that aren't "evil".
- ezekg 6y ago
  How is calling something a "delusion" more helpful?
- nojokes 6y ago
  I am not sure that this is a helpful definition. There are many opinions that could be described as "paranoid delusion" by its opponents but still have a high probability to be true. For example many politics from Eastern Europe tried to warn their Western colleagues (before 2008) that Russia is not up for good relations with EU. This was labeled as Russophobia i.e. paranoid delusion. Trying to understand global politics is a very difficult task and there are probably many false beliefs even on highest level. It is also up to interpretation.
carapace 6y ago
Recognize that there's some underlying payoff to believing this stuff. > Psychologists like Jovan Byford from the Open University tell me that a good strategy is to try to get to the bottom of the person's legitimate concerns and to find out how they are feeling. If you can find the payoff and substitute something else[1] the person will tend to return to "normal" on their own. It takes a lot of energy to fight the whole world. ([1] E.g. w/ the now-deprecated "Six-Step Reframe" https://gist.github.com/calroc/4719702 https://gist.github.com/calroc/4719702 ) Use the "Meta-Model" from Neurolinguistic Programming. > It is claimed that the Meta-model “yields a fuller representation of the client’s model of the world – the linguistic Deep Structure from which the client’s initial verbal expressions or Surface Structure, were derived” by offering challenges to its limits, the distortions, generalisations or deletions in the speaker’s language. https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ Be careful, it's a power tool. You can easily alienate the person you're trying to reach.
disown 6y ago
That's easy. Tell them to stop watching CNN, Foxnews, BBC, MSNBC, etc. > Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked), or people in the echo chamber of a conspiracy-minded Facebook group? Yes. Youtube algorithm favors establishment media and these poor conspiracy minded souls are being bombarded by establishment conspiracy theories 24/7. > Specialist disinformation reporter, BBC News There you have it folks. BBC News specializes in disinformation reporting. :) That title is orwellian but then again, orwell based the ministry of truth after the bbc and his time working as a bbc propagandist in india during ww2. The biggest conspiracy theorists are upset at the little conspiracy theorists. Nobody likes competition it seems.
RickJWagner 6y ago
How could this article avoid the term "Steele Dosier"? Honestly?
- ColinWright 6y ago
  It's a UK article on a UK website, for most of the intended audience the term "Steele dossier" would be meaningless.

97 points by ColinWright 6y ago

The submission system removed the initial "How" but I've put it back now. The title "I talk to ..." is very different from "How I talk to ..." ... sorry if anyone feels misled.

lki876 6y ago

"BBC's specialist disinformation reporter" Well that sounds ominous.

temptemptemp111 6y ago

Hilarious. Funny how these things end up at the top of HN so quickly :)

wildrhythms 6y ago
What's funny about that?

holidayacct 6y ago

There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. Every conspiracy theory in existence can be explained in terms of math, technology, physics, psychology and behavioral biology. They are conspiracy theories because the average person refuses to believe basic science that was discoveres i the early 1900s. It's 2020 and if you use science and technology from the early to mid 1900s in the right way people get confused and they believe there is some strange conspiracy. Here is an example, I can get people to do things with online advertising. If I get people to do the right combination of things with the right combination of advertising it looks like magic to people who don't know about advertising, psychology and neuroscience.

samcal 6y ago
I'm failing to see the connection between "looking like magic" and "being a conspiracy theory", but I'd argue that the mechanism doesn't really matter. From a certain perspective, your advertising might take away some part of their free will, and _that's_ the part that makes them uncomfortable.
komali2 6y ago
Right but specifically a conspiracy theory involves malicious and powerful actors. >A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation So 5g mind control, moon landing is fake, earth is flat are all examples of conspiracy theories. No matter how much science you apply to demonstrating the theories are incorrect, the conspiracy theorist will simply provide more ways that the lizard people are tricking us. It's irrational by definition. I stress about this. I encounter plandemic types far too often in texas. I've tried so many different strategies to convince them of the public health crisis, that if they would at least just wear a mask it would help. I never get anywhere. Is this the fatal flaw of the species? Our vulnerability to disinformation? Considering the creation of disinformation can be scaled cheaply to staggering heights, will this halt our progress?
- holidayacct 6y ago
  Agreed, and you don't want the answer to those questions. On a side note: Its easy to understand why people believe in the whole mind control thing. It's just advertising and sometimes its people running "Debility, Dependency and Dread" on other people to re-train them without having an understanding of what "Debility, Dependency and Dread" really is. For some reason people have a difficult time making the logical leap that humans are mammals. Everyone wants to believe that we are better than all other mammals in a way that none of that is possible.
NikolaeVarius 6y ago
BS. The US Govt reading middle-manning internet connections was pants-on-head stupid conspiracy theory until Snowden
- mthoms 6y ago
  I strongly disagree. That theory (before Snowden) was never in the same category as flat earth, QAnon, lizard people, faked moon landings and the like.
- usrusr 6y ago
  Yeah, that was the first thought that crossed my mind when Snowden happened: not "oh shit, they are listening!" (I knew that before, for a very loose definition of "to know"), but "oh shit, advocates of crazy conspiracy theories will cite this as precedent for decades".
- jwalgenbach 6y ago
  Except it wasn't. Carnivore was a thing that people knew about, and the US government backed away from it when it was publicized. Total Information Awareness was a thing that was known and not a conspiracy theory. The Patriot Act was a thing that took a lot of steps towards a surveillance society. Snowden's information was just a confirmation that the US government was pursuing these things in secret when doing them in the open failed. It's not a lizard people/flat earth/q-anon level thing. There was plenty of "prior art" for the Snowden revelations. There are conspiracies. I have never seen or heard of one that turns the world upside down. They seem to be all continuations and expansions of bad behavior that is currently accepted as fact.
II2II 6y ago
> There is no such thing as a conspiracy theory. Every conspiracy theory in existence can be explained in terms of math, technology, physics, psychology and behavioral biology. I don't know whether that is true of every conspiracy theory, but here is one example that supports your point: While finishing up teacher's college, I was paired with a maths teacher who believed in 9/11 conspiracy theories and who mentioned them in class. From his point of view, a delayed "explosion" lower down in the tower was evidence that the destruction was planned. Left in an awkward position, I did the only thing I could think of: I used math. Simply put, the time that it would take a shock wave to propagate through the steel structure matched the delay so the "explosion" did not prove his conspiracy theory. That was one heck of a teachable moment that transformed an otherwise abstract math lesson into something that could be applied to every day life. (Edit: clarification on the intent of the calculation.)

komali2 6y ago

That was interesting, but I'm now far more interested in a post covid interview of Brian Lee hitchens (in the article a covid denier until he and his wife got it, his wife then died).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

newsbinator 6y ago

This doesn't seem to offer insight. It's: 1. Talk to them, for hours if you can. 2. Figure out where they're getting their information and see if it's already been debunked. 3. Don't be a jerk. That's not very much 'how', unfortunately.

black_puppydog 6y ago
Actually, all three of those points are things that people (me included) regularly do wrong/don't do when engaging with conspiracy theorists. 1. Brush claims off as unimportant / ignore their messages in group chats instead of giving contra, leading them to misinterpret silence as tacit agreement. 2. If engaging, doing it very shallowly with platitudes like "check your sources" but never going over concrete examples with them. 3. Being a jerk about it. Edit: not advocating/demanding you do all three every time you spot someone BSing on the webs. We all only get 24h a day. But if it's someone close to you and you're really concerned, all these three are good things to keep in mind and easy to do wrong, especially when things get heated.
- GreenWatermelon 6y ago
  I agree with you, but the article just glossed over it. It should've done what you did and expanded upon these points. As it stands, the article is just "The story of Sebastian's Mum: a victim of conspiracy theories" which is a more fitting title and still interesting, but it's not really a guide, so I also agree with OP, it doesn't really offer insight. Once I finished the article I was like "is that it?!"
- wayneftw 6y ago
  What do you do when there are no concrete examples or relevant scientific facts at the time? How do you counter a conspiracy theorist when they then also point out very real conspiracies that have definitely happened and are well-known and well-documented? Conspiracies definitely do happen and have been perpetrated by institutions that are supposed to be regarded with the highest trust, such as the people tasked with protecting us with their intelligence. How do you restore faith in those institutions? Would you have argued against MK-ultra before having known it was real?

ezekg 6y ago

The anti-Q articles are out in full force the last few days... Why is this on HN's front page again?

komali2 6y ago
Anyone pro-rationality is anti-q. It's probably on the top of HN because people voted for it. The software that runs this website is on GitHub, you can go see for yourself. Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q?
- blhack 6y ago
  >Or maybe it's the lizard people trying to suppress the truth of q? What purpose does mocking this person's question serve? Do you think you're going to convince them of something by making fun of them?
  - ezekg 6y ago
    Unfortunately, I've grown pretty used to it. This year especially is vitriol to anybody that questions the mainstream narrative.
    - Rick1 6y ago
      That's because "the mainstream" is constantly toxic to non believers. --- How effective are face masks really? There don't seem to be any standards and I'm wondering... CORONA DENIER! CONSPIRACY THEORIST! YOU WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!
  - usrusr 6y ago
    Yeah, it surely won't convince OP. But public web discussion answers are rarely only intended for the parent poster. Often there is even a "private message" option for those few that are, all others are for the wider audience as well. If something as mockable as q posturing is left unmocked the impression on third parties can be very different than if it is not and the purpose of the reply is (I assume, not the author) this change.

petermcneeley 6y ago

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.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
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?
- ezekg 6y ago
  "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."

austincheney 6y ago

Many of the behaviors associated with followers of conspiracy theories sound like behaviors associated with addiction disorders and abuse victims much like people susceptible to joining a cult. Some of those behaviors include socially isolated belief systems, security reenforcement, gullibility, loss of identity, loss of independent reasoning, and so forth.

jungletime 6y ago

Hard to read this with a straight face, after Snowden and Julian Assange. Snowden is still in exile, and Assange is tortured in Jail. This is the price for proving deep state "conspiracy theories".

mthoms 6y ago
There's a wide gulf between believing that "the government can listen in on any conversation" and "the government is comprised of lizard people". The article is about the latter.
- jungletime 6y ago
  Wikileaks was a place for consciences objectors to reveal government corruption, and it quickly gained respect in the eyes of the public. With the arrest of Julian, and the downfall of Wikileaks. We are now left with much less reputable places to disseminate that information. I take issue with the article, because it attacks and delegitimizes independent investigative effort. Unfortunately that effort is now done in the dregs of the internet in places like 4chan, and now disseminated by less reputable people like Rudy Juliani. "Lizard" people is modern abstraction for evil/corrupt people. Similar to angels and demons. We call the earth round, when in fact its a little oval, and has mountains that protrude out. Abstractions can be true on some level of resolution, but in fact be false in the absolute sense. The article doesn't really invalidate the sentiment that some people in government are corrupt. Which is probably the right sentiment to hold, even if arrived through the wrong fact.
  - krapp 6y ago
    It's perfectly reasonable to believe that corruption exists in government. It's not reasonable to believe government is so corrupt that Tony Blair is probably a space lizard wearing a human skinsuit or that Hillary Clinton probably drinks the blood of child sex slaves.
edgyquant 6y ago
Snowden immediately fled to US adversaries and Assange was knowingly working with Russian intelligence agencies.

blhack 6y ago

>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 party "fact checker", and honestly the idea that there is some infallible arbiter sounds like it is lifted directly from an Orwell novel.

xwolfi 6y ago
You d go faster humiliating someone in front of an audience over a silly argument for sure.
blumomo 6y ago
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 lives in their own subjective reality! And this is where their "facts" come from. TLDR; The discussions around "facts" are totally useless to me. Unless you accept that someone who pushes through their "facts" does nothing else than pushing their worldview onto you. Everyone is free to learn "truth" through their own perception. Other people's "facts" don't support this much.
- hobs 6y ago
  It's sounds like a teenage Solipsism, and its really boring and tedious for other people.
  - blumomo 6y ago
    For whom it is boring besides yourself? Are you presenting a „fact“ or your opinion ;) ?
- 6y ago

netcan 6y ago

I've been in these conversations several times recently. My tips: Go in friendly. Make an effort to assume and embody good will and rationality. The premise of most conspiratorial thinking is very dichotomous. They see themselves as the open minded against dismissive, closed minded opposition. Don't play into this by being dismissive. Be generous instead and assume that they are truth seeking just like you. Don't be too defensive. If you don't know the "proof" for Gm1m2/r^2, don't pretend you do. Spend time. Be proactive instead. What's the proposed alternative to Gm1m2/r^2 and why do they think that one is true. Instead of seeking out logical holes and dunking, seek out points you can concede. This creates a common ground and gives them permission to concede points too. Intellectual honest is a reciprocal game. Make it an interesting conversation, not a game you're trying to win. Almost all of their exposure to the topic(s) is either monologue (probably youtube), or ridiculing/dismissive debate. Good faith dialogue will be a rarity. Be that. It often gets epistemological, and that actually is interesting. Last, remember that almost no conversation ends with a change of mind. That happens later, if at all. What you can "prove" within the conversation is that not all spherists are closed minded, dismissive arseholes. I'd also recommend doing it. There's a lot to learn here that transposes onto less fringy stuff... especially politics. You likely can't convince Democrat to be a Republican, but you can convince them that some Republicans have reached their conclusions with an open mind, good faith and good intentions. That's the myth which needs to be busted. Other myths are secondary. Conspiracy theories are about people and their perceptions of other people, primarily. The object of the conspiracy is secondary.

anvandare 6y ago
In short, use the Socratic method. (But then again, that didn't end well for Socrates - or did it?)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
desilentio 6y ago
Have you ever had any success with this method; did you ever get anyone (sooner or later) to understand he had been deluded?

LeCow 6y ago

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 to undermine world security. One may or may not be more or less believable than the other. Why should I — someone with many of my subjective ideas and opinions try and talk someone else out of their personal beliefs and opinions. And why is the BBC, arbiter of shoddy journalism providing me with guidance on how to do it?

PragmaticPulp 6y ago
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 encouraging violence based on beliefs that are clearly wrong.
- accountwhatever 6y ago
  > 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
- ghthor 6y ago
  Clearly is a pretty strong term. I'm sure skeptics arguing against Galileo would have used string words like "clearly" to dismiss his ideas.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >I'm sure skeptics arguing against Galileo would have used string words like "clearly" to dismiss his ideas. The fact that people dismissing Galileo's claimed turned out to have been wrong does not mean people who dismiss COVID conspiracies or reptoids are equally as likely to be wrong. People who believe in a conspiracy of globalist elite reptilian shapeshifters are clearly wrong. Clearly is a strong term, and it's justified in the case of such beliefs. There is no danger that in the future those who hold such beliefs will turn out to have been correct in hindsight, as Galileo was proved correct in hindsight. Reasonable people can agree or disagree on reasonable conspiracy theories. Did Epstein kill himself? Maybe, maybe not. Did Trump or his staff collude with Russia? Maybe, maybe not. Was 9/11 an inside job? I don't believe it was but it's at least within the realm of metaphysical possibility. Are mattress stores just money laundering fronts for the Mafia? Probably not but it is weird how you can have, like, twenty of them on a single street. Who buys that many mattresses? How do they stay in business? There is, however absolutely no need to give anyone who claims Bill Gates created COVID-19 as a pretext to tag people with mind control chips through vaccinations in order to harvest adrenochrome from their brains for satanic ritual orgies the benefit of the doubt. They. Are. Clearly. Wrong.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Conspiracy theory is a fun 2020 buzzword because it’s such a powerful rhetorical attack. You can take something that is fringe and proven by data to be untrue (such as flat earth) and then lump it together with something that is simply unknown or politically embarrassing (what is on Hunter’s laptop?) and then treat them the same? The new way is actually just to suggest it’s Russian disinformation, and then suddenly that embarrassing thing about your family simply goes away.

motohagiography 6y ago

The article suggests "empathy," but often this is really just patronizing. It's about relationships, not "facts." Someone who believes there is a conspiracy identifies as an outsider to it. The only question is whether they are an outsider to their relationships as well. Discussing a conspiracy theory is usually the same as trying to explain a break-up to the person on the receiving end where the more you explain, the less convincing or final it is, with the real risk of exposing yourself to backlash. The necessary condition for a conspiracy theory is for someone to believe they are a victim, and that they are being actively disenfranchised by a group who doesn't acknowledge it. Some are falsifiable, others not so much. Quite a few are even more true than they could ever conceive of. The way I relate to the people I know whose lives are consumed by conspiracy theories is by setting clear personal boundaries for myself, so that when I inevitably diverge from their belief bubble, it's not traumatic because it's just outside the boundary on which we relate. I'd argue that if you want to deflect most conspiracy theories as a leader, professional, or even a manager, don't be empathetic, be magnanimous.

deegles 6y ago

The idea of memes being as something potentially dangerous should be more widespread. Maybe a different word should be used since it's colloquially used to refer to funny pictures with a caption, but I would pay for a service that used e.g. GPT-3 to detect fake news and flag them in my browser. I would trust a human moderation team to update the list for me, since even being aware of a meme lets it begin to take root in your mind. [0] (Also known as the illusory truth effect[1]) [0] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2958246 [1] https://fs.blog/2020/02/illusory-truth-effect/ https://fs.blog/2020/02/illusory-truth-effect/

hliyan 6y ago

My personal experience has always been that fact checking fails with the more extreme cases -- in that it wins the argument but fails to win over the person. In fact, that kind of win often seems to "inoculate" the person against anything you have to say in the future. When facts and logic fail, I usually fall back on the other two of the good old Greek trio: ethos, pathos and logos. First you need to understand what feelings are driving these individuals. Usually it's fear and uncertainty. Until you address the root cause of those feelings (which usually differ from person to person), no amount of fact checking is going to have a permanent effect. The other thing is to build mutual respect, even if you don't agree with the person. Branding someone an idiot is generally not considered a winning strategy when it comes to persuasion.

sto_hristo 6y ago

Do you know of the flat earther that in effort to prove the Earth is flat, he proved that it is round? He didn't accept it and came around with some other reason. This has got to be a mental condition that scientists have yet to study. At this point it's impossible to talk to true conspiracy theorists as stupidity is chronic by nature. Feed them the colorful pills to keep them at least subdued most of the time is probably the best strategy.

0-1 6y ago

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-book.8971/ 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-the-conspiracy-theory-rabbit-hole/ 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.

MonAlternatiu 6y ago

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.

sjaak 6y ago

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.

aikinai 6y ago
Who’s we? I doubt anyone would claim that most people are rational.
- arethuza 6y ago
  Didn't some economists claim exactly that? "economic man, is the portrayal of humans as agents who are consistently rational, narrowly self-interested, and who pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_economicus
desilentio 6y ago
May I ask if you know why you use rules of that kind, with spaces only on the side opposite the insertion? I've seen that in print but only once.
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
What if the faith in God was rational? I mean to YOU it doesn't seem rational, but to the faithful it does. I mean one logical, rational argument used is that the universe and life is incredibly complicated, we as "mere" humans cannot create it, and it's incredibly unlikely humans would develop like we did. Therefore, there must be intelligent design behind it. See? Rational and logical thought. Dismissing people who think differently as being irrational is just alienating and pushing them away, entrenching them even more if you go in with a judgment and mindset like that. It would make you scoff at "these people", because they're irrational unlike you, the epitome of rationality and logical thought. TL;DR, assume the "other side" is just as smart and rational as you are, they just have different ideas.

pjs_ 6y ago

Trying to pull someone out of a conspiracy theory rathole is very scary and difficult. There is a ratchet mechanism whereby whatever you do or say can be interpreted as further evidence for the conspiracy, and no matter how you push and pull they just go deeper. This article offers zero useful advice on how to overcome this extremely pernicious, scary and increasingly prevalent problem.

tpoacher 6y ago

When they said "she's a specialist on the human toll of misinformation", I had high hopes she was someone who talked at length about how the BBC helped fabricate evidence to justify Tony Blair's war on Iraq. Apparently not.

rboyd 6y ago

You only need to live through a handful of conspiracy theories turned conspiracy fact before the debunk-everything skeptics annoy you just as much as the complete lunatics.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

bloak 6y ago

I think the term "conspiracy theory" is perhaps unhelpful, and it also seems that people are lumping together phenomena that aren't necessarily all that closely related. If there's a group of people with some strongly held belief, not supported by evidence, about the government doing something evil then perhaps we should call it a "shared paranoid delusion". It's hardly a "theory" if they already believe it and it hardly involves a "conspiracy" seeing as it's perfectly normal for the government to plan things in secret, even things that aren't "evil".

ezekg 6y ago
How is calling something a "delusion" more helpful?
nojokes 6y ago
I am not sure that this is a helpful definition. There are many opinions that could be described as "paranoid delusion" by its opponents but still have a high probability to be true. For example many politics from Eastern Europe tried to warn their Western colleagues (before 2008) that Russia is not up for good relations with EU. This was labeled as Russophobia i.e. paranoid delusion. Trying to understand global politics is a very difficult task and there are probably many false beliefs even on highest level. It is also up to interpretation.

carapace 6y ago

Recognize that there's some underlying payoff to believing this stuff. > Psychologists like Jovan Byford from the Open University tell me that a good strategy is to try to get to the bottom of the person's legitimate concerns and to find out how they are feeling. If you can find the payoff and substitute something else[1] the person will tend to return to "normal" on their own. It takes a lot of energy to fight the whole world. ([1] E.g. w/ the now-deprecated "Six-Step Reframe" https://gist.github.com/calroc/4719702 https://gist.github.com/calroc/4719702 ) Use the "Meta-Model" from Neurolinguistic Programming. > It is claimed that the Meta-model “yields a fuller representation of the client’s model of the world – the linguistic Deep Structure from which the client’s initial verbal expressions or Surface Structure, were derived” by offering challenges to its limits, the distortions, generalisations or deletions in the speaker’s language. https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-training-meta-model/ Be careful, it's a power tool. You can easily alienate the person you're trying to reach.

disown 6y ago

That's easy. Tell them to stop watching CNN, Foxnews, BBC, MSNBC, etc. > Are they quoting a fringe YouTube video (which may have been fact-checked and debunked), or people in the echo chamber of a conspiracy-minded Facebook group? Yes. Youtube algorithm favors establishment media and these poor conspiracy minded souls are being bombarded by establishment conspiracy theories 24/7. > Specialist disinformation reporter, BBC News There you have it folks. BBC News specializes in disinformation reporting. :) That title is orwellian but then again, orwell based the ministry of truth after the bbc and his time working as a bbc propagandist in india during ww2. The biggest conspiracy theorists are upset at the little conspiracy theorists. Nobody likes competition it seems.

RickJWagner 6y ago

How could this article avoid the term "Steele Dosier"? Honestly?

ColinWright 6y ago
It's a UK article on a UK website, for most of the intended audience the term "Steele dossier" would be meaningless.