The main steps that Dr. Sinclair lists out pulled from the article: Steps 1-4, and 6 are intuitive to me and are the immediate things that I think of. I'm not sure that I would ever think to look...
The main steps that Dr. Sinclair lists out pulled from the article:
Step 1: Seek out the evidence
Step 2: Test the allegation
Step 3: Watch out for tangled webs
Step 4: Look for a motive
Step 5: Seek the source of the allegations
Step 6: Beware the supernatural
Step 7: Look for other warning signs
Steps 1-4, and 6 are intuitive to me and are the immediate things that I think of. I'm not sure that I would ever think to look for the source as I felt like most conspiracy theories don't hold up under the scrutiny of the other steps, but it definitely makes sense to look into that.
But blaming all members of a large group and not acknowledging that people will have conflicting motives, work at Cross purposes, many will be ignorant and uninvolved if not most... Even within an...
But blaming all members of a large group and not acknowledging that people will have conflicting motives, work at Cross purposes, many will be ignorant and uninvolved if not most...
Even within an extended family people fight and exclude each other.
This almost always comes with some absurd form of assumed competence or power. Looking even at the proven conspiracy theories you find that people are just as dumb, incompetent, short sided, and...
This almost always comes with some absurd form of assumed competence or power. Looking even at the proven conspiracy theories you find that people are just as dumb, incompetent, short sided, and unable to communicate or work together as your usual work environment.
And yet basically any conspiracy I hear somehow assumes THESE are the ones who actually have their shit together and can plan and manipulate the masses. They don’t. They’re still people, still fucking stupid , and so the easiest check on a theory has almost always been “how many people need to be more than just competent for this to work”
My slightly less conspiratorial questions is always, what are they trying to distract us from? There is a cynical, but accurate political proverb "Never waste a good crisis" There are definitely...
My slightly less conspiratorial questions is always, what are they trying to distract us from?
There is a cynical, but accurate political proverb "Never waste a good crisis" There are definitely examples of this but the latest one I can recall is during the pandemic when our Prime Minister actually tried to insist that he should be allowed to spend as much money as he saw fit to conquer the crisis with no oversight from Parliament - no budget, no voting, no vetting, just hand out money like water flowing through his fingers. That's an authoritarian style power grab at the best of times and fortunately he was denied but there were so many other newsworthy things happening that his attempted power grab barely made the news.
Once you've established its clearly false, my question is what do you do with a friend who actually believes it? We have a good friend, quickly becoming a former friend, who seriously believes...
Once you've established its clearly false, my question is what do you do with a friend who actually believes it? We have a good friend, quickly becoming a former friend, who seriously believes airplanes are leaving chem trails to poison us. The odd part is that she's not a stupid person, and very personable, however she's not aware that her algorithm keeps feeding her the same baloney she found in the first rabbit hole so she thinks she's doing more 'research' and finding more proof. We like this person otherwise, but this isn't the first conspiracy theory she's bought into and it gets bothersome when they come up in conversation. Dont know where to go with that.
Chemtrails is a tough one, because it's always so slippery. I've known people who believed in it, and I was in a somewhat unique place to debunk it, having been an aircraft mechanic in a past...
Chemtrails is a tough one, because it's always so slippery.
I've known people who believed in it, and I was in a somewhat unique place to debunk it, having been an aircraft mechanic in a past life.
The theory always starts with a very strong assertion like "all commercial airliners are constantly dumping clandestine chemicals in the atmosphere for nefarious purposes". As you start logically tearing that very obviously provably false claim down, it gets narrowed and the goalposts shift.
For me, it was bringing up that aircraft maintenance people have to do regular inspections of an aircraft, and they're familiar with every major system on the aircraft.
It would be literally impossible to not notice huge tanks of chemicals, pumping equipment, and spraying nozzles even on the biggest, most complicated aircraft on a preflight inspection, which every commercial aircraft undergoes by multiple people every time it flies, which would require tens of thousands of aircraft maintenance people, one of whom is me, (most of whom don't even have security clearances) to maintain a massive lie that they don't even benefit from.
Then the claim gets narrowed to "well not all of them do it, only some", and they have dedicated teams.
Which, yeah, the thousands of airport staff would definitely notice an entirely new, shady crew with their own hangar popping up every so often and messing with airliners.
This goes on and on until the claim eventually becomes "well crop dusters exist", to which I agree that yes, crop dusting aircraft do indeed exist.
Then they've "won" the argument and I've conceded that chemtrails are a real thing. It's a really irritating tactic.
I thought the goal post after the "where is the spraying equipment?" goal post was that it was additives in the fuel, ergo it's in every plane with no need to spray.
I thought the goal post after the "where is the spraying equipment?" goal post was that it was additives in the fuel, ergo it's in every plane with no need to spray.
Like a number of conspiracy theories, there's a kernel of truth in that the US military in the past has dispersed pathogens into the air. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray...
Like a number of conspiracy theories, there's a kernel of truth in that the US military in the past has dispersed pathogens into the air.
It's not really a kernel of truth. No one disputes that many organizations have, and still do spray chemicals from airplanes. Crop dusting still occurs, cloud seeding happens, aerial experiments...
It's not really a kernel of truth. No one disputes that many organizations have, and still do spray chemicals from airplanes. Crop dusting still occurs, cloud seeding happens, aerial experiments happen.
The claim that chemtrail advocates make specifically is that contrails currently coming from commercial airliners are actually some sort of chemical agent intentionally being released. That's not the case, is provably false, and there's no aspect of truth about it at all.
Oh I 100% agree, for the record, but it's not hard to see how someone might make the leap from "the US government secretly released pathogens into the air a couple hundred times over two decades"...
Oh I 100% agree, for the record, but it's not hard to see how someone might make the leap from "the US government secretly released pathogens into the air a couple hundred times over two decades" to chemtrails.
Nah, I've seen many call this crazy, even from the most basic form of "planes spraying chemicals that are not just insecticides on farms." It's a bit of a moving goalpost to say that the true...
No one disputes that many organizations have, and still do spray chemicals from airplanes.
Nah, I've seen many call this crazy, even from the most basic form of "planes spraying chemicals that are not just insecticides on farms."
It's a bit of a moving goalpost to say that the true conspiracy theorists were actually referring to commercial planes releasing some chemical agents.
Disputing very obvious reality is just as bad as making it up. I don't think it's a moving goalpost at all. If you search chemtrails content online, virtually all of it is based on misindentifying...
Disputing very obvious reality is just as bad as making it up.
I don't think it's a moving goalpost at all. If you search chemtrails content online, virtually all of it is based on misindentifying contrails from mostly jet airliners as chemical spraying. Not chemical crop dusting aircraft, which fly far lower, and don't create trails that linger in the air.
The core belief isn't "sometimes planes spray chemicals", because basically anyone would dispute that. Obviously planes spray chemicals for various reasons at some times.
The belief is "the contrails commonly seen at high altitude are actually from chemical spraying, and the government is hiding that."
That's why it's a conspiracy theory. There's a conspiracy involved as a core part of the belief.
The advice I've seen is to avoid contradicting or debunking directly and go with the Socratic method instead. Question how they know X or Y, point out contradictions in their theory and ask what...
The advice I've seen is to avoid contradicting or debunking directly and go with the Socratic method instead. Question how they know X or Y, point out contradictions in their theory and ask what they think of them, "but have you considered... ", that sort of thing. Planting seeds of doubt that might help them later to start questioning their theory.
Also recognize that most people don’t admit they’re wrong instantly. If you have a small conversation about it but it feels like it goes no where that doesn’t mean they aren’t reassessing what...
Also recognize that most people don’t admit they’re wrong instantly. If you have a small conversation about it but it feels like it goes no where that doesn’t mean they aren’t reassessing what they know.
Yeah sometimes it seems like people expect a Columbo moment where the perp is stunned into silence by the clarity of the evidence, but I have yet to see it happen in real life or online. Being...
Yeah sometimes it seems like people expect a Columbo moment where the perp is stunned into silence by the clarity of the evidence, but I have yet to see it happen in real life or online. Being disproven makes people defensive which leads to doubling down and further claims.
That's why I'm big into pushing this image of "planting seeds". You don't truly know the soil you're planting them in, so you'll never be sure which seed will grow into bigger questions, the one thing you know for sure is it'll start small and grow in its own time.
Someone who's JAQing off generally has very limited or no data to back up their spurious questions. They bake the flawed assumption into their questions, and can't back up the basis for their...
Someone who's JAQing off generally has very limited or no data to back up their spurious questions. They bake the flawed assumption into their questions, and can't back up the basis for their worldview. Comparatively, someone who's engaging in the Socratic method can better support the basis for their questions, and will engage with the person who's answering their questions if they go in a variety of directions.
For me, the difference is actual interest in the answers. When I'm asking questions Socractically, genuinely interested in their answers and I am hoping to learn something. Even if there's almost...
For me, the difference is actual interest in the answers. When I'm asking questions Socractically, genuinely interested in their answers and I am hoping to learn something. Even if there's almost no chance of me being swayed to their side, I still want to understand their position better. I never assume that I know what their answer will be, and I'm not looking to trip them up or catch them on a technicality.
It's tough to discern from the outside, though, because it relies on knowing someone else's intentions. You can't always pick it up quickly through the conversation.
The number of people who are not media figureheads and are ACTUALLY maliciously just asking questions I can count on one hand. This preemptive “BUT WHAT IF THEYRE SECRETLY PUSHING AN AGENDA” panic...
The number of people who are not media figureheads and are ACTUALLY maliciously just asking questions I can count on one hand.
This preemptive “BUT WHAT IF THEYRE SECRETLY PUSHING AN AGENDA” panic in so many circles actually shuts down any meaningful discussion or communication.
More often than not I’ve found those who make those accusations don’t like that they don’t have good answers for some of the legit questions. Discourse is almost always a positive if it’s respectful and frankly even if there are people trying to “outsmart” you, it’s still more than possible that they will reassess their own position.
I find people maliciously just-asking-questions to be extremely common online, but rare in person. It's often "respectful" in the sense that it's cordial - there's no cursing or insults - but not...
I find people maliciously just-asking-questions to be extremely common online, but rare in person. It's often "respectful" in the sense that it's cordial - there's no cursing or insults - but not in the sense that they're respecting the time or answers of the person they're conversing with. They're not actually interested in learning anything from the answers, other than potentially spotting an opportunity for a gotcha. I find it to be largely a frustrating waste of time.
Yeah I am a little surprised by Eji's response - I have encountered both directly and seeing other people's conversations plenty of bad faith actors when it comes to online discussions. Maybe they...
Yeah I am a little surprised by Eji's response - I have encountered both directly and seeing other people's conversations plenty of bad faith actors when it comes to online discussions. Maybe they are referring exclusively to in-person interlocutors, which yeah, I largely agree. But that doesn't detract from how bad it can get on the internet.
Admittedly in this case they work very similarly, but I would say "just asking questions" is used to obscure a lack of evidence for the claim being pushed, where the Socratic "planting seeds"...
Admittedly in this case they work very similarly, but I would say "just asking questions" is used to obscure a lack of evidence for the claim being pushed, where the Socratic "planting seeds" method is trying to make a close-minded conspiracy theorist see that there is evidence/arguments outside of their bubble.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I lost a friend the same way at the start of the pandemic. This is a question that is receiving a lot of attention, and unfortunately there is no silver bullet...
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I lost a friend the same way at the start of the pandemic. This is a question that is receiving a lot of attention, and unfortunately there is no silver bullet or clear solution for getting people out of it. The best approach, just like with diseases, is prevention. Trying to get people to think more critically and providing them with facts ahead of time can help, but it's not fool proof. But when someone is in it, it's much more difficult. A lot of the research shows that you can't just give the facts to someone who's firmly entrenched in conspiratorial thinking. They will have retorts to everything you offer that feeds into their narrative.
It seems like many people get into conspiracy theories because it offers explanations for complex things in the world, which can alleviate anxiety of the unknown. Additionally, communities inevitably form around these and people connect emotionally over these topics which helps engrain them as a core part of their identity.
If you're motivated, what you can do is try to get her first thinking critically about something you both agree on, or maybe talk about something new you learned and demonstrate some critical thinking techniques (e.g. How would my perspective be different if I were on the other side?, Where is this information coming from?, How do I know what I know?). This probably shouldn't be explicit, but you can maybe describe a scenario where you were analyzing a situation and your thought process. As conversation may inevitably shift to her conspiracy theories (and don't force it into that, let things naturally change), listen to what she has to say and then walk through some of the connections. Not in an accusatory way, but as if you're exploring it with them, bringing up some of those earlier questions (e.g. Why should we think that way about the world?, If we commit to planes leaving chemtrails, shouldn't we or the conspirators be wearing masks all the time? Why should we trust these sources?). You run the risk of her finding it patronizing, but it might also light a spark to get her to think a bit more deeply about it.
Ultimately, it's not your responsibility, and it takes a lot of time, effort, and patience to even try to get someone out of one conspiracy theory. You might consider having a frank discussion about why she believes these, what she gets out of them, that you're not too interested in talking about them, and that it's damaging your relationship. There are many people where they give up personal relationships to stay embedded in these conspiracy theory groups, and it's really unfortunate, but you can't help someone that doesn't want it.
You can read a bit more about some current ideas here and here.
It is easy to say for me as I'm not in your shoes, but... Don't waste energy on helping someone who doesn't want to be helped. I suppose you showed her some science/research on chemtrails or (if...
It is easy to say for me as I'm not in your shoes, but... Don't waste energy on helping someone who doesn't want to be helped.
I suppose you showed her some science/research on chemtrails or (if she isn't deep in it yet) told her what the trails behimd the planes are made of and how/under what corcumstances/why they are formed. If you did all this, the only thing left is to ignore her when she starts to speak about it - switch to something else in conversation with other people.
It seems you may lose your friend in the future, though. Some people are like that and can't be helped. They chose to close-in on the world around them and live with their own truth ultimately believing they are roght and everybody around them is wrong.
I wish you the best, but at the same time, I don't know if you should expect happy ending.
It's sad, but I think this is the healthiest attitude. I have a brother who is prone to these beliefs and no one in his life has ever been able to make in inch of progress with him. It's the only...
It's sad, but I think this is the healthiest attitude. I have a brother who is prone to these beliefs and no one in his life has ever been able to make in inch of progress with him. It's the only thing he wants to talk about, and talking about it only entrenches his beliefs. Eventually you've got to realize that your energy is being wasted and put it into something more positive.
You can’t use reason to get someone out of a place they didn’t reason themselves into. You have to mostly use emotion to do that. Conspiracy theories generally stem from deep institutional...
You can’t use reason to get someone out of a place they didn’t reason themselves into. You have to mostly use emotion to do that. Conspiracy theories generally stem from deep institutional distrust. Figuring out why they distrust institutions can help.
That is sound advice but I wonder who is it for. Most sane people already follow those steps spontaneously, and the ones who are not sane are unlikely to be persuaded by them. They're rather...
That is sound advice but I wonder who is it for. Most sane people already follow those steps spontaneously, and the ones who are not sane are unlikely to be persuaded by them. They're rather trivial and intuitive. Also, I'm rarely presented with a compelling conspiracy theory that could very well be true. They are usually deranged, requiring no effort to dismiss. So, while the article does contain truthful answers, they are answers to some very easy questions.
Being a communist, I deal with conspiracy theory on a daily basis. I just gave up. Last one was that in China people who have lots of babies throw all into one room with only one feeding bottle....
Being a communist, I deal with conspiracy theory on a daily basis. I just gave up.
Last one was that in China people who have lots of babies throw all into one room with only one feeding bottle. The one who survives will be the only child of that family, the others are buried. They don't even check if they are all dead, just burry them still alive.
Sure China has billions of people because Chinese women have 6 babies at the same time when they are pregnant.
The other one is that Taiwan is the only big city with technology. The rest of China is pure rice fields and poor people.
We don't know about all this because the Government doesn't want us to know.
It is interesting that you are a communist. Given the numerous competing definitions surround that terminology, would you be open to provide your own interpretation of what being a communist means...
It is interesting that you are a communist. Given the numerous competing definitions surround that terminology, would you be open to provide your own interpretation of what being a communist means to you?
I apply a very basic filter called, The test of reason and rationality. However improbable a theory may sound or appear, as long as known laws of universe will allow it to happen, I'm willing to...
I apply a very basic filter called, The test of reason and rationality.
However improbable a theory may sound or appear, as long as known laws of universe will allow it to happen, I'm willing to consider that theory.
I don't give much weight to probability and statistics though, it's always subject to manipulation. For example, if someone claims to have seen an alien, we have a habit of straightaway rejecting due to the probability factor (it hasn't officially happened yet, so it isn't likely to happen in this case). However, Fermi Paradox is a scientifically accepted theory which says that life on other planets is not just possible but it has a very high probability of happening too.
Another helpful tool in determining the validity of a theory is Occam's razor. If there is no other known explanation of something happening other than what this conspiracy theorist is claiming, they might well be true (subject to passing of first test of reason/rationality).
Sorry, but some corrections: The Fermi Paradox, neither a scientifically accepted theory nor claiming life to be probable, poses the question that: If life is common, then why have we no credible...
Sorry, but some corrections:
The Fermi Paradox, neither a scientifically accepted theory nor claiming life to be probable, poses the question that: If life is common, then why have we no credible evidence for it yet? It is typically used in conjunction with the Drake equation (which is probably what you were thinking of) to estimate the prevalence of life in our galaxy.
Occam's razor is a decision principle that tries to estimate the likelihood of competing explanations being true based on the number of made assumptions. So if there is only one explanation, then it shouldn't be applied.
You say that you don't give much weight to probability and statistics, but Occam's razor is a statistical rule-of-thumb about probability. I think I can explain it with a simple example. Suppose...
You say that you don't give much weight to probability and statistics, but Occam's razor is a statistical rule-of-thumb about probability. I think I can explain it with a simple example.
Suppose you have a problem with two seemingly equally probable explanations, but one requires one variable to explain with the variable having a 50% chance of being true. Suppose the second has two variables to explain the problem, each with a 50% chance of being true. While intuitively the two explanations seem equally likely, you actually have to multiply the two variables in the second case. Since 0.5 x 0.5 is 0.25, the second explanation actually has a 25% chance of being true. For this reason, the first explanation is more likely to be true, but it's definitely a probability assessment and not a golden rule.
This is why Occam's razor works but also is a rule-of-thumb. Among the seemingly equally likely explanations, the one with the fewer variables required for explanations is more likely to be true. You can say it requires the least amount of assumptions.
Fair enough. As I said, statistics can be misleading in many cases but Ocaam's razor is a good example where it doesn't. An example where probability can mislead is once again the Fermi Paradox....
Fair enough. As I said, statistics can be misleading in many cases but Ocaam's razor is a good example where it doesn't.
An example where probability can mislead is once again the Fermi Paradox. Probability says that it's practically impossible that we (Earth) are the only planet in the entire universe bestowed with intelligent life. The odds have to be like one divided by a quadrillion or something (the total number of planets with a livable atmosphere). But all the evidence and observations so far only points towards that impossibility (hence it's called Paradox).
Can you expand on this a little bit? Like it wouldn't be against the laws of the universe for a secret race of lizard people who live under the earth to be replacing our politicians one by one,...
However improbable a theory may sound or appear, as long as known laws of universe will allow it to happen, I'm willing to consider that theory.
Can you expand on this a little bit? Like it wouldn't be against the laws of the universe for a secret race of lizard people who live under the earth to be replacing our politicians one by one, but I'm sure that's not what you mean.
That would violate the first rule of reason/rationality. If a bunch of lower elements people or fairies existed under the earth's crust, someone would have surely noticed in the millennia of human...
a secret race of lizard people who live under the earth
That would violate the first rule of reason/rationality.
If a bunch of lower elements people or fairies existed under the earth's crust, someone would have surely noticed in the millennia of human existence? And the last few centuries of industrial revolution would have made their hiding even more difficult.
Secondly, if politicians were getting replaced one by one with these creatures, someone in the bureaucracy would have surely noticed and blown whistles by now?
My bad, it should be "Consider probability but only when it's backed by rationality". As I said, rationality is the first basic test, everything goes out the window if that test fails.
My bad, it should be "Consider probability but only when it's backed by rationality". As I said, rationality is the first basic test, everything goes out the window if that test fails.
The main steps that Dr. Sinclair lists out pulled from the article:
Steps 1-4, and 6 are intuitive to me and are the immediate things that I think of. I'm not sure that I would ever think to look for the source as I felt like most conspiracy theories don't hold up under the scrutiny of the other steps, but it definitely makes sense to look into that.
To me the big question is the money. Who is making money off this?
Which, ironically, is what the conspiracy theorists also say. Of course, they're usually just implying it's the Jews.
...while hawking their own merch on their Peertube channel after reading a few sponsor spots :D
But blaming all members of a large group and not acknowledging that people will have conflicting motives, work at Cross purposes, many will be ignorant and uninvolved if not most...
Even within an extended family people fight and exclude each other.
This almost always comes with some absurd form of assumed competence or power. Looking even at the proven conspiracy theories you find that people are just as dumb, incompetent, short sided, and unable to communicate or work together as your usual work environment.
And yet basically any conspiracy I hear somehow assumes THESE are the ones who actually have their shit together and can plan and manipulate the masses. They don’t. They’re still people, still fucking stupid , and so the easiest check on a theory has almost always been “how many people need to be more than just competent for this to work”
The higher the number the less likely the theory
My slightly less conspiratorial questions is always, what are they trying to distract us from?
There is a cynical, but accurate political proverb "Never waste a good crisis" There are definitely examples of this but the latest one I can recall is during the pandemic when our Prime Minister actually tried to insist that he should be allowed to spend as much money as he saw fit to conquer the crisis with no oversight from Parliament - no budget, no voting, no vetting, just hand out money like water flowing through his fingers. That's an authoritarian style power grab at the best of times and fortunately he was denied but there were so many other newsworthy things happening that his attempted power grab barely made the news.
Ditto-ish. For me, Step 4 is Step 1.
Once you've established its clearly false, my question is what do you do with a friend who actually believes it? We have a good friend, quickly becoming a former friend, who seriously believes airplanes are leaving chem trails to poison us. The odd part is that she's not a stupid person, and very personable, however she's not aware that her algorithm keeps feeding her the same baloney she found in the first rabbit hole so she thinks she's doing more 'research' and finding more proof. We like this person otherwise, but this isn't the first conspiracy theory she's bought into and it gets bothersome when they come up in conversation. Dont know where to go with that.
Chemtrails is a tough one, because it's always so slippery.
I've known people who believed in it, and I was in a somewhat unique place to debunk it, having been an aircraft mechanic in a past life.
The theory always starts with a very strong assertion like "all commercial airliners are constantly dumping clandestine chemicals in the atmosphere for nefarious purposes". As you start logically tearing that very obviously provably false claim down, it gets narrowed and the goalposts shift.
For me, it was bringing up that aircraft maintenance people have to do regular inspections of an aircraft, and they're familiar with every major system on the aircraft.
It would be literally impossible to not notice huge tanks of chemicals, pumping equipment, and spraying nozzles even on the biggest, most complicated aircraft on a preflight inspection, which every commercial aircraft undergoes by multiple people every time it flies, which would require tens of thousands of aircraft maintenance people, one of whom is me, (most of whom don't even have security clearances) to maintain a massive lie that they don't even benefit from.
Then the claim gets narrowed to "well not all of them do it, only some", and they have dedicated teams.
Which, yeah, the thousands of airport staff would definitely notice an entirely new, shady crew with their own hangar popping up every so often and messing with airliners.
This goes on and on until the claim eventually becomes "well crop dusters exist", to which I agree that yes, crop dusting aircraft do indeed exist.
Then they've "won" the argument and I've conceded that chemtrails are a real thing. It's a really irritating tactic.
I thought the goal post after the "where is the spraying equipment?" goal post was that it was additives in the fuel, ergo it's in every plane with no need to spray.
Like a number of conspiracy theories, there's a kernel of truth in that the US military in the past has dispersed pathogens into the air.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_LAC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dew
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_112
It's not really a kernel of truth. No one disputes that many organizations have, and still do spray chemicals from airplanes. Crop dusting still occurs, cloud seeding happens, aerial experiments happen.
The claim that chemtrail advocates make specifically is that contrails currently coming from commercial airliners are actually some sort of chemical agent intentionally being released. That's not the case, is provably false, and there's no aspect of truth about it at all.
Oh I 100% agree, for the record, but it's not hard to see how someone might make the leap from "the US government secretly released pathogens into the air a couple hundred times over two decades" to chemtrails.
Nah, I've seen many call this crazy, even from the most basic form of "planes spraying chemicals that are not just insecticides on farms."
It's a bit of a moving goalpost to say that the true conspiracy theorists were actually referring to commercial planes releasing some chemical agents.
Disputing very obvious reality is just as bad as making it up.
I don't think it's a moving goalpost at all. If you search chemtrails content online, virtually all of it is based on misindentifying contrails from mostly jet airliners as chemical spraying. Not chemical crop dusting aircraft, which fly far lower, and don't create trails that linger in the air.
The core belief isn't "sometimes planes spray chemicals", because basically anyone would dispute that. Obviously planes spray chemicals for various reasons at some times.
The belief is "the contrails commonly seen at high altitude are actually from chemical spraying, and the government is hiding that."
That's why it's a conspiracy theory. There's a conspiracy involved as a core part of the belief.
The advice I've seen is to avoid contradicting or debunking directly and go with the Socratic method instead. Question how they know X or Y, point out contradictions in their theory and ask what they think of them, "but have you considered... ", that sort of thing. Planting seeds of doubt that might help them later to start questioning their theory.
Also recognize that most people don’t admit they’re wrong instantly. If you have a small conversation about it but it feels like it goes no where that doesn’t mean they aren’t reassessing what they know.
Yeah sometimes it seems like people expect a Columbo moment where the perp is stunned into silence by the clarity of the evidence, but I have yet to see it happen in real life or online. Being disproven makes people defensive which leads to doubling down and further claims.
That's why I'm big into pushing this image of "planting seeds". You don't truly know the soil you're planting them in, so you'll never be sure which seed will grow into bigger questions, the one thing you know for sure is it'll start small and grow in its own time.
I've often wondered about the difference between the Socratic method and the tactic of "Hey I'm just asking questions" being used to push a worldview.
Someone who's JAQing off generally has very limited or no data to back up their spurious questions. They bake the flawed assumption into their questions, and can't back up the basis for their worldview. Comparatively, someone who's engaging in the Socratic method can better support the basis for their questions, and will engage with the person who's answering their questions if they go in a variety of directions.
For me, the difference is actual interest in the answers. When I'm asking questions Socractically, genuinely interested in their answers and I am hoping to learn something. Even if there's almost no chance of me being swayed to their side, I still want to understand their position better. I never assume that I know what their answer will be, and I'm not looking to trip them up or catch them on a technicality.
It's tough to discern from the outside, though, because it relies on knowing someone else's intentions. You can't always pick it up quickly through the conversation.
The number of people who are not media figureheads and are ACTUALLY maliciously just asking questions I can count on one hand.
This preemptive “BUT WHAT IF THEYRE SECRETLY PUSHING AN AGENDA” panic in so many circles actually shuts down any meaningful discussion or communication.
More often than not I’ve found those who make those accusations don’t like that they don’t have good answers for some of the legit questions. Discourse is almost always a positive if it’s respectful and frankly even if there are people trying to “outsmart” you, it’s still more than possible that they will reassess their own position.
I find people maliciously just-asking-questions to be extremely common online, but rare in person. It's often "respectful" in the sense that it's cordial - there's no cursing or insults - but not in the sense that they're respecting the time or answers of the person they're conversing with. They're not actually interested in learning anything from the answers, other than potentially spotting an opportunity for a gotcha. I find it to be largely a frustrating waste of time.
Yeah I am a little surprised by Eji's response - I have encountered both directly and seeing other people's conversations plenty of bad faith actors when it comes to online discussions. Maybe they are referring exclusively to in-person interlocutors, which yeah, I largely agree. But that doesn't detract from how bad it can get on the internet.
Admittedly in this case they work very similarly, but I would say "just asking questions" is used to obscure a lack of evidence for the claim being pushed, where the Socratic "planting seeds" method is trying to make a close-minded conspiracy theorist see that there is evidence/arguments outside of their bubble.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend. I lost a friend the same way at the start of the pandemic. This is a question that is receiving a lot of attention, and unfortunately there is no silver bullet or clear solution for getting people out of it. The best approach, just like with diseases, is prevention. Trying to get people to think more critically and providing them with facts ahead of time can help, but it's not fool proof. But when someone is in it, it's much more difficult. A lot of the research shows that you can't just give the facts to someone who's firmly entrenched in conspiratorial thinking. They will have retorts to everything you offer that feeds into their narrative.
It seems like many people get into conspiracy theories because it offers explanations for complex things in the world, which can alleviate anxiety of the unknown. Additionally, communities inevitably form around these and people connect emotionally over these topics which helps engrain them as a core part of their identity.
If you're motivated, what you can do is try to get her first thinking critically about something you both agree on, or maybe talk about something new you learned and demonstrate some critical thinking techniques (e.g. How would my perspective be different if I were on the other side?, Where is this information coming from?, How do I know what I know?). This probably shouldn't be explicit, but you can maybe describe a scenario where you were analyzing a situation and your thought process. As conversation may inevitably shift to her conspiracy theories (and don't force it into that, let things naturally change), listen to what she has to say and then walk through some of the connections. Not in an accusatory way, but as if you're exploring it with them, bringing up some of those earlier questions (e.g. Why should we think that way about the world?, If we commit to planes leaving chemtrails, shouldn't we or the conspirators be wearing masks all the time? Why should we trust these sources?). You run the risk of her finding it patronizing, but it might also light a spark to get her to think a bit more deeply about it.
Ultimately, it's not your responsibility, and it takes a lot of time, effort, and patience to even try to get someone out of one conspiracy theory. You might consider having a frank discussion about why she believes these, what she gets out of them, that you're not too interested in talking about them, and that it's damaging your relationship. There are many people where they give up personal relationships to stay embedded in these conspiracy theory groups, and it's really unfortunate, but you can't help someone that doesn't want it.
You can read a bit more about some current ideas here and here.
It is easy to say for me as I'm not in your shoes, but... Don't waste energy on helping someone who doesn't want to be helped.
I suppose you showed her some science/research on chemtrails or (if she isn't deep in it yet) told her what the trails behimd the planes are made of and how/under what corcumstances/why they are formed. If you did all this, the only thing left is to ignore her when she starts to speak about it - switch to something else in conversation with other people.
It seems you may lose your friend in the future, though. Some people are like that and can't be helped. They chose to close-in on the world around them and live with their own truth ultimately believing they are roght and everybody around them is wrong.
I wish you the best, but at the same time, I don't know if you should expect happy ending.
It's sad, but I think this is the healthiest attitude. I have a brother who is prone to these beliefs and no one in his life has ever been able to make in inch of progress with him. It's the only thing he wants to talk about, and talking about it only entrenches his beliefs. Eventually you've got to realize that your energy is being wasted and put it into something more positive.
You can’t use reason to get someone out of a place they didn’t reason themselves into. You have to mostly use emotion to do that. Conspiracy theories generally stem from deep institutional distrust. Figuring out why they distrust institutions can help.
That is sound advice but I wonder who is it for. Most sane people already follow those steps spontaneously, and the ones who are not sane are unlikely to be persuaded by them. They're rather trivial and intuitive. Also, I'm rarely presented with a compelling conspiracy theory that could very well be true. They are usually deranged, requiring no effort to dismiss. So, while the article does contain truthful answers, they are answers to some very easy questions.
Being a communist, I deal with conspiracy theory on a daily basis. I just gave up.
Last one was that in China people who have lots of babies throw all into one room with only one feeding bottle. The one who survives will be the only child of that family, the others are buried. They don't even check if they are all dead, just burry them still alive.
Sure China has billions of people because Chinese women have 6 babies at the same time when they are pregnant.
The other one is that Taiwan is the only big city with technology. The rest of China is pure rice fields and poor people.
We don't know about all this because the Government doesn't want us to know.
It is interesting that you are a communist. Given the numerous competing definitions surround that terminology, would you be open to provide your own interpretation of what being a communist means to you?
I'm Marxist-Leninist.
I apply a very basic filter called, The test of reason and rationality.
However improbable a theory may sound or appear, as long as known laws of universe will allow it to happen, I'm willing to consider that theory.
I don't give much weight to probability and statistics though, it's always subject to manipulation. For example, if someone claims to have seen an alien, we have a habit of straightaway rejecting due to the probability factor (it hasn't officially happened yet, so it isn't likely to happen in this case). However, Fermi Paradox is a scientifically accepted theory which says that life on other planets is not just possible but it has a very high probability of happening too.
Another helpful tool in determining the validity of a theory is Occam's razor. If there is no other known explanation of something happening other than what this conspiracy theorist is claiming, they might well be true (subject to passing of first test of reason/rationality).
Sorry, but some corrections:
You say that you don't give much weight to probability and statistics, but Occam's razor is a statistical rule-of-thumb about probability. I think I can explain it with a simple example.
Suppose you have a problem with two seemingly equally probable explanations, but one requires one variable to explain with the variable having a 50% chance of being true. Suppose the second has two variables to explain the problem, each with a 50% chance of being true. While intuitively the two explanations seem equally likely, you actually have to multiply the two variables in the second case. Since 0.5 x 0.5 is 0.25, the second explanation actually has a 25% chance of being true. For this reason, the first explanation is more likely to be true, but it's definitely a probability assessment and not a golden rule.
This is why Occam's razor works but also is a rule-of-thumb. Among the seemingly equally likely explanations, the one with the fewer variables required for explanations is more likely to be true. You can say it requires the least amount of assumptions.
Fair enough. As I said, statistics can be misleading in many cases but Ocaam's razor is a good example where it doesn't.
An example where probability can mislead is once again the Fermi Paradox. Probability says that it's practically impossible that we (Earth) are the only planet in the entire universe bestowed with intelligent life. The odds have to be like one divided by a quadrillion or something (the total number of planets with a livable atmosphere). But all the evidence and observations so far only points towards that impossibility (hence it's called Paradox).
Can you expand on this a little bit? Like it wouldn't be against the laws of the universe for a secret race of lizard people who live under the earth to be replacing our politicians one by one, but I'm sure that's not what you mean.
That would violate the first rule of reason/rationality.
If a bunch of lower elements people or fairies existed under the earth's crust, someone would have surely noticed in the millennia of human existence? And the last few centuries of industrial revolution would have made their hiding even more difficult.
Secondly, if politicians were getting replaced one by one with these creatures, someone in the bureaucracy would have surely noticed and blown whistles by now?
Got it, that's fair and about what I thought you meant.
I thought you didn't give any weight to probability and statistics? ;)
My bad, it should be "Consider probability but only when it's backed by rationality". As I said, rationality is the first basic test, everything goes out the window if that test fails.