Articles, Wiki, Politeness, Psychology

Jimbo

New Member
I ran across this article and I found it useful. A systematic debunking of global warming deniers. http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

I would like to see master-debunking articles like that here on metabunk. I wonder if adding a wiki is the right format for it. Though, the format at grist is pretty workable: it lets people comment on each sub-point that is delineated in response to the theory.

I'd also like to work up an article/wiki/forum about the psychology behind bunk-believers. I hope I'm not drifting outside the lines of the politeness policy. But like many, I have years of pent up anger at the assault on reason, and insulting behavior, coming from the bunkers. My point though is, can we summarize where they are coming from, and how to quickly and effectively stiff-arm or sidestep them in general. And this of course involves some psychology. And of course its fair game to analyze ourselves psychologically, or see what the bunkers say about our psychology, though of course its tricky to do this and stay polite. I mean I think this is why the debates get so heated, because its almost deeper than discussing religion or politics, its discussing people's bedrock beliefs.

I say this partly because, in my experience, when I say to them "can we just agree to disagree" they say NO WE CAN'T, and then they call me names. And thus in my experience, IT NEVER ENDS. I predict we will see this played out in this forum. Hear me now, believe me later. Thus, my interest in discovering the psychological underpinnings of the bunkers and conspiracy guys, and exploiting it. Either politely, or also by specifying how to best push their buttons or throw it back in their faces, e.g. by embroidering new theories or conflating their theories, in small or large scale reductio ad absurdum. Again I'm sorry if this is over the line but I really think it should be put on the table and faced squarely.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I agree with both points.

Debunkers waste a vast amount of time redebunking, there needs to be better tools for making reusable debunks, and making them findable.

And psychology is very important. It's fine to discuss it in the broad context, but gets a bit fiddly when discussing individuals.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
A wiki with important links, studies would be great. Some way for the debunkers to be able to let off 'steam' about posters that are making you tear your hair out, would cool down some of the posts also. Also sometimes one will know that someone is touchy about something and if you know it, you can work around it. A negative animal post is going to make me testy, for example. (I am not an animal rights nutter however, I eat meat, I don't object to hunting for food and other things that get me in trouble on pro animal pages).
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
I am sure that this is not quite the right place for this. I found it very interesting and I hope to find the original paper.

 

Jimbo

New Member
I did find http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ very helpful in debunking a friend. Alot of these bunkers are like Rush Limbaugh's dittoheads, who just parrot the same points over and over again. As my friend spouted one "reason" after another in an online chat, I simply looked up the response and quoted it back to him. He wasn't coming up with anything new.

Of course that site is just only about global heating, but similar ones could be constructed, and should be similarly effective. I also feel the format is good, though its not all that different from a forum, not sure what software he used there. It looks like blog software with threaded comments, and a master index.

In the end, I couldn't help but feel the most efficient approach is to be "better strangers" with my friend...
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I agree with both points.

Debunkers waste a vast amount of time redebunking, there needs to be better tools for making reusable debunks, and making them findable.

And psychology is very important. It's fine to discuss it in the broad context, but gets a bit fiddly when discussing individuals.
How about a decision tree approach. . . Chemtrail . . . . visible or invisible . . . persistent or non persistent . . . (motivations) geoengineering or population control, etc . . . above 30,000 feet or below 35,000 feet . . . used canned boilerplate debunking comments and links to the appropriate Threads where these are discussed in detail . . .a graphic design flowchart with hotlinks which the user can select in or out of sequence . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
How about a decision tree approach. . . Chemtrail . . . . visible or invisible . . . persistent or non persistent . . . (motivations) geoengineering or population control, etc . . . above 30,000 feet or below 35,000 feet . . . used canned boilerplate debunking comments and links to the appropriate Threads where these are discussed in detail . . .a graphic design flowchart with hotlinks which the user can select in or out of sequence . . .
Yes. I've been thinking about something along those lines for a while. Some kind of full-window "big picture" thing.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes. I've been thinking about something along those lines for a while. Some kind of full-window "big picture" thing.
You are much better at computer technology than I . . . so take this for what it is worth from a child in comparison . . . I used powerpoint and embedded hotlinks which would link to other graphics in a powerpoint presentation with a return link on each page that the person might view . . . always going back to the original table of contents graphic . . . so they could never really get lost . . . so the table of contents graphic page had all the main components of the decision tree . . . in sequence . . . so they could proceed down the decision tree or venture to the middle or very end at will and always returning to the beginning with one click . . .WTC Graphic.jpgA poor example (from 2009 proof of concept first draft) but it gives you a visual example . . .
 

lotek

Active Member
How about a decision tree approach. . . Chemtrail . . . . visible or invisible . . . persistent or non persistent . . . (motivations) geoengineering or population control, etc . . . above 30,000 feet or below 35,000 feet . . . used canned boilerplate debunking comments and links to the appropriate Threads where these are discussed in detail . . .a graphic design flowchart with hotlinks which the user can select in or out of sequence . . .

Find out if there is an open source version of something like this: www.pearltrees.com its essentially exactly what you said. its what i use to organize my debunking, data, and science links. Click the bubble to go to the group or click the + to grow the tree. http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-s=1_8090022&N-u=1_1268469&N-p=77533606&N-fa=8089958&N-f=1_8090022

Bonus to something like that is it is visually appealing, and intuitive. ive seen more simple versions but i like the sandbox nature of this one. dunno of any similar FOS api's tho. having to have an acc somewhere is kinda a dealbreaker as far as accessibility.,
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Find out if there is an open source version of something like this: www.pearltrees.com its essentially exactly what you said. its what i use to organize my debunking, data, and science links. Click the bubble to go to the group or click the + to grow the tree. http://www.pearltrees.com/#/N-s=1_8090022&N-u=1_1268469&N-p=77533606&N-fa=8089958&N-f=1_8090022

Bonus to something like that is it is visually appealing, and intuitive. ive seen more simple versions but i like the sandbox nature of this one. dunno of any similar FOS api's tho. having to have an acc somewhere is kinda a dealbreaker as far as accessibility.,
Looks very interesting . . . something that is flexible and intuitive . . .
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
A psychological observation I have made, is that people seem to feel (if real or imagined) things are forced upon them by a government. Fluoride, chemtrails and GMOs come to mind. This might not be the root of their belief in a CT but a theme I seem to get a lot is, I have no choice therefor it must be bad. Is there a underlying issue that causes people to react this way?
 
Top