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 . . .
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 . . .
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 . . .
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 . . .
"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
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 . . .