Debunk: Kinder gentler Debunking is better. . . ??

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Debunk: Kinder gentler Debunking is better. . .

1) IMO, The existing method is too negative and results in anger of both the Debunker and debunk target (Debunkee) and seldom if ever changes anything . . .

2) a different approach may be better . . . . . . a variant of decision tree analysis . . .

"A decision tree is a decision support tool that uses a tree-like graph or model of decisions and their possible consequences, including chance event outcomes, resource costs, and utility. It is one way to display an algorithm.

Decision trees are commonly used in operations research, specifically in decision analysis, to help identify a strategy most likely to reach a goal."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree
Content from External Source
3) One would take a concept such as chemtrails . . . atomize it . . . take strategic pieces and ask the Debunkee to give their opinion on probabilities of their certainty . . . Note: the numbers below are not researched and are just hypothetical for demonstration purposes . . .

Debunkee would be asked what the probability or certainty that some issue was to them . . . like what percent of contrails they saw were chemtrails . . . 50 percent, they would then be told of the 25,000 flights each day how many were Chemtrail flights . . . 12,000? Of the 12,000 flights how many of the crew members (average of 6 people) or total of 72,000 crew members were involved each day ? Then what is the probability that 72,000 people would not talk about what they were doing ? How many people would it take to intimidate or control 72,000 people and what one would have to pay those people to do their job ? Do the math and give them the results . . .

4) Just straight forward questions . . . no emotional reaction to responses . . . just take their data and stated probabilities . . . then demonstrate the outcome of their belief . . . Like it would take 1/20th of the federal budget to accomplish this effort . . .

5) Of course Not all Debunkings are as clean as this hypothetical example above but requesting the believers opinions on atomized pieces of their conspiracy and getting them to share the certainty in percentages helps to define the depth of their belief and allows the debunker to devise an appropriate decision tree . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting idea. I wonder though if the math aspect might alienate a large segment. It's surprising how small an amount of math most people are comfortable with.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Interesting idea. I wonder though if the math aspect might alienate a large segment. It's surprising how small an amount of math most people are comfortable with.
Well, Mick, I think as long as the certainty numbers are given voluntarily by the Debunkee and the math is simple as in 25 percent x 100,000 . . . I don't think there is much to object too . . . I used this approach to effectively get waring board members to make common decisions . . . it often takes imagination but most if not all your existing members are sharp enough to use the technique. . . .
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Well, Mick, I think as long as the certainty numbers are given voluntarily by the Debunkee and the math is simple as in 25 percent x 100,000 . . . I don't think there is much to object too . . . I used this approach to effectively get waring board members to make common decisions . . . it often takes imagination but most if not all your existing members are sharp enough to use the technique. . . .
: ) and speaking English with more common vocabulary might help too. (that's my way of saying "huh?" :confused:)

 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
: ) and speaking English with more common vocabulary might help too. (that's my way of saying "huh?" :confused:)

I agree . . . Simple questions to get simple answers. . .


1) get people to quantify their beliefs . . . by asking them how certain they are of for example: How certain are you that actors were used in the Boston bombing? 1 to 100 percent?

2) How many actors do you think were used?

3) How many people were around the explosions and the recovery activities?

4) How many people would then have to be totally controlled and intimidated into keeping all the details perfectly in sync to carry this off with cell phone cameras and the like available . . .
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
This would require them to stay on topic. ALso would require no interruptions from jokers on either side making ad homs.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
This would require them to stay on topic. ALso would require no interruptions from jokers on either side making ad homs.
Well, true anything can happen in real time . . . however, if one remains focused and does not react to emotional distractions and return to the line of questions, when possible, I feel it may be a good tool to accomplish some real headway with a person who has not taken time to analyze their position and beliefs . . . except in a superficial way. . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Part of this approach is an attempt to minimize the emotional ownership of beliefs, opinions and concepts without eliminating feelings completely. . . because the subjective appraisal of stating the percentage of certainty of beliefs doesn't deny the belief or criticize the belief. I have always felt if the debunker gets drawn into the emotions of the discussion or reacts emotionally they need to back off and cool down before they proceed . . . it is not helping the debunking process . . .
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I have always felt if the debunker gets drawn into the emotions of the discussion or reacts emotionally they need to back off and cool down before they proceed . . . it is not helping the debunking process . . .
that is Absolutely true. I don't think one formula though can work with all theories or all (or most) [opponents?]. And whether you insult their math abilities, their critical thinking skills or their belief system, its still an insult and tends to put people on the defensive.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
that is Absolutely true. I don't think one formula though can work with all theories or all (or most) [opponents?]. And whether you insult their math abilities, their critical thinking skills or their belief system, its still an insult and tends to put people on the defensive.
I don't think this approach is necessarily a formula as it were, (I agree no single way works for all situations) it is just keeping a few things in mind when interacting with a believer . . .

1) Keep the discussion objective without ignoring subjective issues . . . understand both the Debunker and the Debunkee have emotional ownership of their positions . . .

2) Ask questions that place emphasis on attaching quantitative values to the answers . . .

3) Keep the analysis of the quantitative answers from the debunker systematic and avoid placing your opinion or feeling on the outcome . . . allow the Debunkee to respond without an emotional response . . . always suggest alternative interpretations based on probability. Never say something is impossible or simply stupid but has a low likely hood of occurrence based on the analysis of the known information . . . You might find you agree more than you think . . .
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
I think the core guys here do a good job doing that.

I just personally don't think 'quantitive values' can be used on belief systems. if the government is out to get us, then thousands of people involved isn't so far fetched. haven't you ever seen the x-files? ex. (the actor thing is just to silly for me to deal with) if I believed in chemtrails I would say 1. I don't know what percent I see. enough. 2. the crew doesn't know.

but again it depends on who you are talking to. perhaps chemtrail believers are on average older than boston bombing hoaxer people.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think the core guys here do a good job doing that.

I just personally don't think 'quantitive values' can be used on belief systems. if the government is out to get us, then thousands of people involved isn't so far fetched. haven't you ever seen the x-files? ex. (the actor thing is just to silly for me to deal with) if I believed in chemtrails I would say 1. I don't know what percent I see. enough. 2. the crew doesn't know.

but again it depends on who you are talking to. perhaps chemtrail believers are on average older than boston bombing hoaxer people.
You are correct when it comes to many situations . . . some people will never give a quantitative response to any question about their belief and if so maybe further effort in debate is possibly useless anyway . . . as far as the core debunkers here . . . yes many do a good job but I bet most if not all have been sucked into an emotional exchange when they know it is counterproductive . . . if this Thread does nothing but talks around ways of avoiding that situation it has been worth the time . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Question to all: Is it ever productive to challenge a person in a harsh and opinionated way? As in an eye for an eye? You said some harsh things to me so I am responding in kind. . .
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
You are correct when it comes to many situations . . . some people will never give a quantitative response to any question about their belief and if so maybe further effort in debate is possibly useless anyway . . if this Thread does nothing but talks around ways of avoiding that situation it has been worth the time . . .
the actual debunking of a specific claim is pretty easy (unemotional). But its when you get into trying to convince the other person to change their minds that emotion comes in. Some people are just dead sticks.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Question to all: Is it ever productive to challenge a person in a harsh and opinionated way? As in an eye for an eye? You said some harsh things to me so I am responding in kind. . .
yes. it shows you are human too/ just like them. and then you can demonstrate how to apologize and calm down. <I make it sound so easy, don't I? ; )
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
the actual debunking of a specific claim is pretty easy (unemotional). But its when you get into trying to convince the other person to change their minds that emotion comes in. Some people are just dead sticks.
That brings up an interesting question . . . when is something debunked? When you think the issue is debunked or when the person you are debating the issue with thinks the issue is debunked ??? Do we declare victory when we think we did a good job? How do we know?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
yes. it shows you are human too/ just like them. and then you can demonstrate how to apologize and calm down. <I make it sound so easy, don't I? ; )
Interesting . . . psychological twist but Me thinks very unpredictable in the desired outcome . . .
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think the core guys here do a good job doing that.

I just personally don't think 'quantitive values' can be used on belief systems. if the government is out to get us, then thousands of people involved isn't so far fetched. haven't you ever seen the x-files? ex. (the actor thing is just to silly for me to deal with) if I believed in chemtrails I would say 1. I don't know what percent I see. enough. 2. the crew doesn't know.

but again it depends on who you are talking to. perhaps chemtrail believers are on average older than boston bombing hoaxer people.

Quantitative values can be very useful in giving people realistic perspective. For example some chemtrail believers in Mt Shasta thought that only three flights per day flew overhead. It was later shown to them that it was actually well over 100 flights per day. No while this did not immediately convince the "true believers", I think it would have given pause to those less entrenched.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Quantitative values can be very useful in giving people realistic perspective. For example some chemtrail believers in Mt Shasta thought that only three flights per day flew overhead. It was later shown to them that it was actually well over 100 flights per day. No while this did not immediately convince the "true believers", I think it would have given pause to those less entrenched.
I agree . . . when the data is indisputable the impact is significant . . . the key I think is to get the Debunkee to establish the importance of a fact or issue to them (quantitatively if possible). . . then when the debunker is able to demonstrate there is a misconception with such indisputable data the Debunkee either must realign the importance of the issue in their beliefs, modify their beliefs or reject their belief completely . . .

By getting Debunkee to commit to a quantitative position you place them in the weakest position because, as likely as not, it is based on misinformation or misconceptions . . . then places the Debunker in their strongest position because of his/her research and analysis abilities . . .
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
I agree . . . when the data is indisputable the impact is significant . . . the key I think is to get the Debunkee to establish the importance of a fact or issue to them (quantitatively if possible). . . then when the debunker is able to demonstrate there is a misconception with such indisputable data the Debunkee either must realign the importance of the issue in their beliefs, modify their beliefs or reject their belief completely . . .

By getting Debunkee to commit to a quantitative position you place them in the weakest position because, as likely as not, it is based on misinformation or misconceptions . . . then places the Debunker in their strongest position because of his/her research and analysis abilities . . .

actually... that IS helpful. sandy hook hoaxers keep talking about an 'off duty tactical' guy because of a misunderstanding the Newtown Bee printed. and I couldn't figure out how to prove a negative. BUT if we get them to admit to all the media mistakes or "lies" the media is telling with a percentage, it would be more believable that the "off duty" media report is false too. Not sure my brain can wrap around that to do it, but it's a decent idea!
 

Rns

Member
Are you a different George B than used to post on a god named conspiracy site?

I seemed to recall that that particular George was a believer in chemtrails?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Are you a different George B than used to post on a god named conspiracy site?

I seemed to recall that that particular George was a believer in chemtrails?
Not really . . I was processing what people believed and tried to see it from their eyes . . . however, I did think geoengineering by injection techniques was possible and tried to address those possibilities and still do . . .
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Question to all: Is it ever productive to challenge a person in a harsh and opinionated way? As in an eye for an eye? You said some harsh things to me so I am responding in kind. . .

No George B, I typically don't use that approach because it is counterproductive. But I have only ever used it on a very limited number of times in my life when I've given countless second chances and I am finally, completely done with that person.
 

Brainiachick

Active Member
Interesting idea. I wonder though if the math aspect might alienate a large segment. It's surprising how small an amount of math most people are comfortable with.

LOL! You got that right. Mathematics isn't most people's forte and that has the potential to easily turn most people off the topic and/or to following the argument with zest or interest.
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
No George B, I typically don't use that approach because it is counterproductive. But I have only ever used it on a very limited number of times in my life when I've given countless second chances and I am finally, completely done with that person.
I think you observations and position are right on!
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Not really . . I was processing what people believed and tried to see it from their eyes . . . however, I did think geoengineering by injection techniques was possible and tried to address those possibilities and still do . . .
Geoengineering is in general an approach with few cost benefits. The whole approach requires a constant turnover of inanimate material and energy production. It isn't sustainable.

A permacultural approach to the problem would use animate living creatures which reproduce, multiply exponentially, search for their own nutrition, and form the bases for our food chain.

This same living system created the air we breathe.

Perhaps we could add the power of our intellect to aid it in many different ways, instead of tying ourself up in cultural knots, wondering whether or not some incompetent fool made a mistake within an unsustainable approach. Which is what you appear to be doing…

Correct me if I am wrong. I mean it in a kindly way. LOL. :)
 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Geoengineering is in general an approach with few cost benefits. The whole approach requires a constant turnover of inanimate material and energy production. It isn't sustainable.

A permacultural approach to the problem would use animate living creatures which reproduce, multiply exponentially, search for their own nutrition, and form the bases for our food chain.

This same living system created the air we breathe.

Perhaps we could add the power of our intellect to aid it in many different ways, instead of tying ourself up in cultural knots, wondering whether or not some incompetent fool made a mistake within an unsustainable approach. Which is what you appear to be doing…

Correct me if I am wrong. I mean it in a kindly way. LOL. :)
I never thought injection technologies (SRM) were the best approach to a potential future crisis and I think should never be a longterm approach . . . in fact they are the least desirable in many ways; however, they appear to be discussed to a great degree in the geoengineering community and approximate techniques similar to those imagined to be used by the Chemtrail believers. IMO, If one is to debunk chemtrails one must address all proposals of SRM management relying on aircraft delivery techniques . . . to not do so would be like trying to defuse an unexploded bomb by ignoring the detonator . . .
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Geoengineering is in general an approach with few cost benefits. The whole approach requires a constant turnover of inanimate material and energy production. It isn't sustainable.

A permacultural approach to the problem would use animate living creatures which reproduce, multiply exponentially, search for their own nutrition,
I thought that's what the nanobots are for
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
There's no real need to defuse a dud. Spelling, George.
My IPhone has very imaginative ways of changing my wording like changing all my "of(s)" to " if(s) . . . and "unexploded" to " unexplored" the defuse was probably my own fault . . . :confused:

Sorry to disagree on the dud issue . . . me thinks the Chemtrail issue is worth trying to defuse . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
My IPhone has very imaginative ways of changing my wording like changing all my "of(s)" to " if(s) . . . and "unexploded" to " unexplored" the defuse was probably my own fault . . . :confused:
Sorry to disagree on the dud issue . . . me thinks the Chemtrail issue is worth trying to defuse.
Yes. Happens with me too. I thought you were "defusing" geoeng. That's a dud. :)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well being kinder and gentle didn't keep me from being banned on this GLP Thread:

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2524994/pg8

Was just answering direct questions, guess they might have thought I was being too direct giving alternative explanations.

I suspect that thread was lost from the start. The OP is a classic Gish Gallop, although it purported to be making a simple claim of evidence. Good try though :)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I suspect that thread was lost from the start. The OP is a classic Gish Gallop, although it purported to be making a simple claim of evidence. Good try though.:)
Thanks, was actually the first time getting banned. Was able to leave a bunch of Metabunk resources for good info, unless of course the OP deletes them.;)
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
A rite of passage for any debunker :)
The thing that is frustrating is the OP didn't make it clear I was banned. So the other participants can now post anything they wish attacking my Posts and I have no way to respond or indicate I have been banned . Thus it appears I have left because I couldn't defend my pisition. Oh well, that is just the way it goes I guess?
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
Debunk: Kinder gentler Debunking is better. . .

1) IMO, The existing method is too negative and results in anger of both the Debunker and debunk target (Debunkee) and seldom if ever changes anything . . .

2) a different approach may be better . . . . . . a variant of decision tree analysis . . .

"A decision tree is a decision support tool that uses a tree-like graph or model of decisions and their possible consequences, including chance event outcomes, resource costs, and utility. It is one way to display an algorithm.

Decision trees are commonly used in operations research, specifically in decision analysis, to help identify a strategy most likely to reach a goal."
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree
Content from External Source
3) One would take a concept such as chemtrails . . . atomize it . . . take strategic pieces and ask the Debunkee to give their opinion on probabilities of their certainty . . . Note: the numbers below are not researched and are just hypothetical for demonstration purposes . . .

Debunkee would be asked what the probability or certainty that some issue was to them . . . like what percent of contrails they saw were chemtrails . . . 50 percent, they would then be told of the 25,000 flights each day how many were Chemtrail flights . . . 12,000? Of the 12,000 flights how many of the crew members (average of 6 people) or total of 72,000 crew members were involved each day ? Then what is the probability that 72,000 people would not talk about what they were doing ? How many people would it take to intimidate or control 72,000 people and what one would have to pay those people to do their job ? Do the math and give them the results . . .

4) Just straight forward questions . . . no emotional reaction to responses . . . just take their data and stated probabilities . . . then demonstrate the outcome of their belief . . . Like it would take 1/20th of the federal budget to accomplish this effort . . .

5) Of course Not all Debunkings are as clean as this hypothetical example above but requesting the believers opinions on atomized pieces of their conspiracy and getting them to share the certainty in percentages helps to define the depth of their belief and allows the debunker to devise an appropriate decision tree . . .


yes i have used this method often on many CT topics sadly only to find the subject person confronted with the weight number & evidence shuts down and begins look for exit avenues.. Its right here that behavioral care is required, press too hard they will fight back dig deeper or seek other countermeasures. Better to leave a save point or safe exit so they are not shamed or belittled & dont expect to be on the Christmas card list for awhile either.
 
Top