5 ms·

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 alread

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?
newacct583 6y ago
But it's something that most of these disproportionately basement-dwelling isolatees don't get, though. I mean, no, it's not a surprise to say that people who gravitate to very online centers of disinformation tend to be socially isolated. But even so, treating the isolation is a feasible thing. Stated more scientifically: the hypothesis here is that isolation causes conspiracy mania. So treat the isolation. Most people don't do this, we just yell at or about these folks online. Seems like it's worth a shot to me.
- newsbinator 6y ago
  A lot of the conspiracy theorists I encounter online are long-term married people in their late-50s/early-60s. Or 20-somethings who, judging by their profiles, spend 2 ~ 4 nights a week in a bar. It doesn't seem like social isolation quite explains it.
everybodyknows 6y ago
It doesn't even succeed in showing readers how not to be a jerk: "Present facts and evidence neutrally, the experts say." A god may have facts, but we mortals have only evidence, and theories that explain the evidence more or less well. Is this not the central principle of science? But following scientific explanations requires certain skills, such as mathematics. And the mass media, including even Scientific American, do not print equations. So popular journalists treat scientists as, in effect, alternative gods, whose opinions may be weighted according to prestige, or by how well they flatter reader's prejudices, but cannot be otherwise tested or analyzed. Conspiracy theorists merely take more or less this same dysfunction to its extreme: a circle of Youtube pseudo-scientists, perfect conformity to reader's prejudices, and perhaps no numbers at all.

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?

newacct583 6y ago

But it's something that most of these disproportionately basement-dwelling isolatees don't get, though. I mean, no, it's not a surprise to say that people who gravitate to very online centers of disinformation tend to be socially isolated. But even so, treating the isolation is a feasible thing. Stated more scientifically: the hypothesis here is that isolation causes conspiracy mania. So treat the isolation. Most people don't do this, we just yell at or about these folks online. Seems like it's worth a shot to me.

newsbinator 6y ago
A lot of the conspiracy theorists I encounter online are long-term married people in their late-50s/early-60s. Or 20-somethings who, judging by their profiles, spend 2 ~ 4 nights a week in a bar. It doesn't seem like social isolation quite explains it.

everybodyknows 6y ago

It doesn't even succeed in showing readers how not to be a jerk: "Present facts and evidence neutrally, the experts say." A god may have facts, but we mortals have only evidence, and theories that explain the evidence more or less well. Is this not the central principle of science? But following scientific explanations requires certain skills, such as mathematics. And the mass media, including even Scientific American, do not print equations. So popular journalists treat scientists as, in effect, alternative gods, whose opinions may be weighted according to prestige, or by how well they flatter reader's prejudices, but cannot be otherwise tested or analyzed. Conspiracy theorists merely take more or less this same dysfunction to its extreme: a circle of Youtube pseudo-scientists, perfect conformity to reader's prejudices, and perhaps no numbers at all.