Discussion of Metabunk's Politeness Policy

[FatPhil]

There is no debate about doing that here. You can't. As to the overall effectiveness of one versus the other, there plenty of examples of appealing to emotion and shaming. Old Usenet, Reddit, Above Top Secret, etc. It doesn't seem to work. Do you have evidence that it does?

Focusing on those who are already deep down in the rabbit hole isn't the whole story. The cloud of people floating around nearby also exist, and if there's a stench emanating from the rabbit hole, then they might not want to get any closer to it. I've seen that work in one of your examples, Usenet. It wasn't uncommon for new people to turn up, see that JSH was a punching bag, and join in. Ditto Archie Pu. Alas, the "in" crowd was perhaps too large. And whilst I agree that MB isn't the place for dumping on people, I still think that being repeatedly dumped on in public isn't a good look, and so has some value in warning people off.

 

[Mick West]

if I recall the interview properly, there were some changes in Ranty's personal life that preceded his conversion. I don't think the claim that it was just that one image (and none of the many others he'd taken before that also prove the globe) that did it is supportable.

That wasn't the claim. Quite the opposite. This was the claim (or observation)

like water dripping on stone, accumulating facts and the accumulating silliness of the ad-hoc arguments needed to refute them wore him down, until finally there was a "straw that broke the camel's back" in the form of a picture of the Blackpool Amusement Park and the mountains beyond

That why I have "give it time" as step #3 of my Escaping the Rabbit Hole methodology. Individual arguments rarely work. But those arguments can help or hinder the long-term progress.

It's perhaps arguable whether being polite in a one-off discussion will ultimately be more or less effective. But I think it's clear that in general it's not going to help continue the discussion. Perhaps there's a role for occasional anonymous one-off ridicule, or an excessively insensitive exposition of facts, but if you want to do it more than once, then having a reputation for ridicule is not helpful.

 

[JMartJr]

Having deleted the previous post as redundant frees me up to post on something else without hogging the thread!

I wonder if the Harris quote:

“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”

takes into account the idea that people might value evidence fairly highly, but be fooled by being given false evidence, either by charlatans or by well meaning folks who have just managed to get hold of the wrong end of the stick?

Don't want to harp on Ranty, but he was a flat Earther who valued evidence enough to go out and try to collect some, and eventually collected enough to reach critical mass -- and he changed his mind. How many others might lack his drive to go out and collect evidence, but might nonetheless have been persuaded by (wrong) evidence and be persuadable, over time, by good evidence? I suspect it is a non-zero number, and having good evidence placed on the table, while not scoring an "insta-win," might cumulatively have value to those folks.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Having deleted the previous post as redundant frees me up to post on something else without hogging the thread!

I wonder if the Harris quote:



takes into account the idea that people might value evidence fairly highly, but be fooled by being given false evidence, either by charlatans or by well meaning folks who have just managed to get hold of the wrong end of the stick?

Don't want to harp on Ranty, but he was a flat Earther who valued evidence enough to go out and try to collect some, and eventually collected enough to reach critical mass -- and he changed his mind. How many others might lack his drive to go out and collect evidence, but might nonetheless have been persuaded by (wrong) evidence and be persuadable, over time, by good evidence? I suspect it is a non-zero number, and having good evidence placed on the table, while not scoring an "insta-win," might cumulatively have value to those folks.

This is true in terms of cumulative value but there's a lot of other factors that come in.

I spoke about it in another thread but, resting on logic with these matters or a host of others usually is not the way to go forward. We primarily think with our "emotional brain", and most decisions made are ultimately emotional (in a loose sense) directly or indirectly. This alongside biases, conditioning etc can impact what you think is agreeable and "valuable". Depending on your past experiences and conditioning, and this is the root issue we see, some logical evidence may not seem logical to them, thus, its value from the "logic" frame does not exist for that audience. This is why if you get into things like counter narrative campaigning, you're equally trying to play on emotions, not just slapping logic and facts in their face. This is especially true for topics and subjects which take on an existential life, such as religion, and certain conspiracy sets, and counters against have a very high chance of being taken personally.
When we talk about value also, there are specific parts of the brain that hosts valuation, this is an actual cognitive process, not just a psychological process. To achieve value towards a set of information, you need to induce those activations for the brain to actually ascribe value to the information.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001063
Here for example is a relatively recent study covering analytic thinking being primed pre- and post- introduction to conspiracy beliefs. It found that inducing analytic thinking post-introduction to conspiracies did little itself to actually counter the belief.



https://nsiteam.com/social/wp-conte...tion-Whitepaper-Jun2016-Final5.compressed.pdf
This is a white paper covering a Counter-Daesh Influence Operations simulation that has some beneficial points. As an example, when we use the term "truth" or "real", the "believer" audiences already have a belief in what is "true" or "real". If we decide to use these terms in support of our point, it will degrade our point with the audience.

 

[Landru]

This is true in terms of cumulative value but there's a lot of other factors that come in.

I spoke about it in another thread but, resting on logic with these matters or a host of others usually is not the way to go forward. We primarily think with our "emotional brain", and most decisions made are ultimately emotional (in a loose sense) directly or indirectly. This alongside biases, conditioning etc can impact what you think is agreeable and "valuable". Depending on your past experiences and conditioning, and this is the root issue we see, some logical evidence may not seem logical to them, thus, its value from the "logic" frame does not exist for that audience. This is why if you get into things like counter narrative campaigning, you're equally trying to play on emotions, not just slapping logic and facts in their face. This is especially true for topics and subjects which take on an existential life, such as religion, and certain conspiracy sets, and counters against have a very high chance of being taken personally.
When we talk about value also, there are specific parts of the brain that hosts valuation, this is an actual cognitive process, not just a psychological process. To achieve value towards a set of information, you need to induce those activations for the brain to actually ascribe value to the information.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103123001063
Here for example is a relatively recent study covering analytic thinking being primed pre- and post- introduction to conspiracy beliefs. It found that inducing analytic thinking post-introduction to conspiracies did little itself to actually counter the belief.



https://nsiteam.com/social/wp-conte...tion-Whitepaper-Jun2016-Final5.compressed.pdf
This is a white paper covering a Counter-Daesh Influence Operations simulation that has some beneficial points. As an example, when we use the term "truth" or "real", the "believer" audiences already have a belief in what is "true" or "real". If we decide to use these terms in support of our point, it will degrade our point with the audience.

What does this have to do with politeness?

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

What does this have to do with politeness?

Moreso in connection to the conversation ongoing the past dozen or so posts relating to the potential influencing of beliefs, than politeness directly.

 

[Landru]

Moreso in connection to the conversation ongoing the past dozen or so posts relating to the potential influencing of beliefs, than politeness directly.

Tie it in or it's off topic. The topic is Metabunk's Politeness Policy.

 

[Mendel]

Don't want to harp on Ranty, but he was a flat Earther who valued evidence enough to go out and try to collect some, and eventually collected enough to reach critical mass -- and he changed his mind.

I'm not buying your and @Mick West's "critical mass" theory in this case. It runs counter to what I recall of the interview.

 

[Mendel]

Tie it in or it's off topic. The topic is Metabunk's Politeness Policy.

The claim is that politeness helps people out of the rabbit hole by making the presented logical arguments accessible to them.

If the major psychological mechanis that makes people willing to climb out of the rabbit hole is not logical, then does it really matter how politely logical arguments are presented?

(I support basic politeness because impolite forums are not fun to me.)

 

[Mick West]

If the major psychological mechanis that makes people willing to climb out of the rabbit hole is not logical, then does it really matter how politely logical arguments are presented?

Yes. People need something to climb out into - regardless of what logic they use. If you'd being impolite then they will steer away from the truth you are showing them.

But also people are not simplistically totally illogical. Everyone has some reasoning capability.

 

[tobigtofool]

People dont just wake up and go "the earth is flat" they come to that conclusion because of logical evidence that someone told/showed them.

The evidence when unpacked does not hold out, but it's still evidence to them.

Ashton Forbes and the MH370 debate - he was using evidence that he strongly felt was evidence to prove he was right.

People have shamed and shamed and shamed that evidence.

Shaming him did nothing but encourage him to dig his heals in more.

It was through evidence yesterday that he started his journey to admit it's a fake video.

 

[Scaramanga]

If the major psychological mechanis that makes people willing to climb out of the rabbit hole is not logical, then does it really matter how politely logical arguments are presented?

I think there is a case to be made that some people will not even admit to having a certain belief or point of view if they fear ridicule for having it. In that psychological respect, a welcoming environment is more likely to draw them in. And that is a good basis for such policy here. But I also think there is a smaller, more vocal in the first place, group who's identity is so caught up in some belief that they don't want to be persuaded out of it....even by the most rigorous and welcoming logic.

 

[deirdre]

But I also think there is a smaller, more vocal in the first place, group who's identity is so caught up in some belief that they don't want to be persuaded out of it....even by the most rigorous and welcoming logic.

well then they are unlikely to change their minds due to ridicule or impoliteness either.

And as far as onlookers (and psychology) ..dont forget, people love an underdog. I've sided with Cters or 'wrong debunkers' here at times simply because i feel they are being bullied too much.

 

[Ann K]

People dont just wake up and go "the earth is flat" they come to that conclusion because of logical evidence that someone told/showed them.

I'd scratch the word "logical", and perhaps even "evidence" from that sentence. A good many quote biblical passages to justify it, and some others use the same old phrases that get passed around.

 

[Mendel]

People dont just wake up and go "the earth is flat" they come to that conclusion because of logical evidence that someone told/showed them.

I strongly disagree. Flat Earth is 100% a conspiracy theory. Someone has to be psychologically ready to be a conspiracy theorist before Flat Earth "evidence" can have any effect on them. Remember that Flat Earth "evidence" does not explain anything, all it purports to do is to justify casting doubt where no doubt is warranted. People need to have fears, and the need to have these fears validated, even if indirectly, to be receptive to conspiracy theories.

It was through evidence yesterday that he started his journey to admit it's a fake video.

There is no evidence that Ashton Forbes is less of a conspiracy theorist now than he was a week ago. There is no evidence of a "journey" in a meaningful sense. You can get conspiracy throrists to shift goalposts when you argue with them, but that's meaningless with regard to their core beliefs that make them conspiracy theorists.

 

[Mendel]

In that psychological respect, a welcoming environment is more likely to draw them in.

We will never match the welcome that an Internet community of believers that validates their fears can extend to them.

 

[tobigtofool]

Remember that Flat Earth "evidence" does not explain anything, all it purports to do is to justify casting doubt where no doubt is warranted.

Evidence is evidence and it convinced people the earth is flat.

Just because you're privileged enough to know the evidence doesn't hold up doesn't mean everyone else is.

There is no evidence that Ashton Forbes is less of a conspiracy theorist now than he was a week ago.

I didn't say anything about his propensity to be bamboozled by other or future videos or sightings.

I was very clearly talking about the video he's been stanning for and his hardline stance changing as a result of evidence when it didn't after constant shaming on podcasts and twitter.

 

[Mendel]

Evidence is evidence and it convinced people the earth is flat.

Just because you're privileged enough to know the evidence doesn't hold up doesn't mean everyone else is.

All Flat Earth "evidence" says, "the globe is wrong". None of it says, "the Earth is flat". The FEers say that, but they don't have evidence for it.
FE propaganda is designed to sow and amplify doubt, not to prove anything. (All conspiracy theories are.)

I was very clearly talking about the video he's been stanning for and his hardline stance changing as a result of evidence when it didn't after constant shaming on podcasts and twitter.

His stance has not changed:

Ashton: "Personally I think the videos are still real but I can't deny that the cloud debunk does significant damage

 

[tobigtofool]

All Flat Earth "evidence" says, "the globe is wrong". None of it says, "the Earth is flat". The FEers say that, but they don't have evidence for it.
FE propaganda is designed to sow and amplify doubt, not to prove anything. (All conspiracy theories are.)

"I seen a video where they showed you can see across a big lake and it proved the earth was flat."

"My friend pointed at the sun and said, look at them rays, they shoot out like a giant light bulb... not in a straight line from millions of miles away."

His stance has not changed:

I have to publicly come out and state that we can't really say that they are authentic with this type of evidence that shows that there could be assets in them that come from these pictures."

That is a massive change from 24 hours prior where he relentlessly claimed without doubt they are real and the CGI is not CGI.

 

[Mendel]

"I seen a video where they showed you can see across a big lake and it proved the earth was flat."

Yes. But it's not "logical evidence". It's like, "people eat French Fries on flat Earth, you just ate a french fry, so Earth is flat". It's a fact that you can see across a lake (but if you're low enough, the opposite shore will be obscured), but it's not evidence the lake is flat.
It's kinda like the Chewbakka Defense.

"My friend pointed at the sun and said, look at them rays, they shoot out like a giant light bulb... not in a straight line from millions of miles away."

So what do long straight parallel lines look like? Can we logically say they don't look like rays "shooting out"? Are crepuscular rays evidence? (The answer is "no".)

Though, that's a point I omitted, a sizeable fraction of FE "proofs" is based on lies.

I have to publicly come out and state that we can't really say that they are authentic with this type of evidence that shows that there could be assets in them that come from these pictures."

That is a massive change from 24 hours prior where he relentlessly claimed without doubt they are real and the CGI is not CGI.

yes. shifting of minutiae, but not a fundamental change. see his quote via @jimmyslippin and his use of "could" in your quote. He now admits doubt as legitimate, but does not doubt himself.

 

[Mendel]

Though, that's a point I omitted, a sizeable fraction of FE "proofs" is based on lies.

And, to elaborate on that, a conspiracy theorist who trusts people telling lies has to make a choice whether these people or those Internet debunkers are lying. There's far more than politeness and logic needed to damage that misplaced trust.

 

[Mendel]

To add onto my previous reply:

"I seen a video where they showed you can see across a big lake and it proved the earth was flat."

"My friend pointed at the sun and said, look at them rays, they shoot out like a giant light bulb... not in a straight line from millions of miles away."

A normal person just sees this and thinks, "well, that's how the world works. There'll be an explanation for it." And if they feel intrigued, they'll look it up.

To believe it, their reaction must be more like, "I knew they were lying to me all along!".
Flat Earthers have a personal history that put them in the position where they're vulnerable to conspiracy theories, and unless that personal history is undone, they're going to remain conspiracy theorists. Logik won't do it.

 

[FatPhil]

well then they are unlikely to change their minds due to ridicule or impoliteness either.

And as far as onlookers (and psychology) ..dont forget, people love an underdog. I've sided with Cters or 'wrong debunkers' here at times simply because i feel they are being bullied too much.

Not everyone loves an underdog. In "Flame Warrior" terms, there's always "Me-Too":

Big Dog is a bully who doesn't hesitate to use his superior strength to intimidate other combatants. Big Dog may be smart, articulate or just plain mean, but in any case he is a remorseless fighter, brutally ripping into even the weakest of combatants. Once Big Dog securely fastens his powerful jaws on a hapless victim, Me-Too will join the attack. Me-Too is far too weak and insecure to engage in single combat, and must ally himself with Big Dog or a pack of other Warriors to bring down his quarry.

Content from External Source

-- https://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/bigdogmetoo.htm

 

[Scaramanga]

Evidence is evidence and it convinced people the earth is flat.

People are complicated and thus apply different standards to different things. That's the real issue. A person can quite happily be doing some complex and skilled engineering job during the day, and then go home and post their flat earth belief on some forum. Conversely, someone like myself can quite happily debunk UFOs, bigfoot, etc, and at the same time hold Christian beliefs. With the latter, I have rationalised that my beliefs may actually have something to them....though it's a long and tortuous logic that doesn't involve up-ending the whole of physics.

 

[tobigtofool]

To add onto my previous reply:

A normal person just sees this and thinks, "well, that's how the world works. There'll be an explanation for it." And if they feel intrigued, they'll look it up.

To believe it, their reaction must be more like, "I knew they were lying to me all along!".
Flat Earthers have a personal history that put them in the position where they're vulnerable to conspiracy theories, and unless that personal history is undone, they're going to remain conspiracy theorists. Logik won't do it.

"a normal person"

People are complicated and thus apply different standards to different things.

 

[Mendel]

"a normal person"

Article:

YouTube has been influential in propagating Flat Earth Ideology, but not everyone is equally susceptible to the effects of watching these videos. In an experiment with a participant pool restricted to regular YouTube users, we found that lower science intelligence and higher conspiracy mentality increase individuals’ susceptibility to flat Earth arguments on YouTube. In fact, these two dispositional variables interact: whereas people with lower conspiracy mentality do not find the arguments compelling at any level of science intelligence, among those with higher conspiracy mentality, perception of argument strength decreases as science intelligence increases. Moreover, perceptions of argument strength varied on the thrust of the clip’s argument (science-, conspiracy-, or religious-based), with the religious appeal being perceived as weaker and inspiring more counterarguing than the science clip.

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15213269.2019.1669461

Article:

Rather than treating conspiracy belief as pathological, we take the perspective that is an extreme outcome of common cognitive processes.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12662

 

[tobigtofool]

Article:

YouTube has been influential in propagating Flat Earth Ideology, but not everyone is equally susceptible to the effects of watching these videos. In an experiment with a participant pool restricted to regular YouTube users, we found that lower science intelligence and higher conspiracy mentality increase individuals’ susceptibility to flat Earth arguments on YouTube. In fact, these two dispositional variables interact: whereas people with lower conspiracy mentality do not find the arguments compelling at any level of science intelligence, among those with higher conspiracy mentality, perception of argument strength decreases as science intelligence increases. Moreover, perceptions of argument strength varied on the thrust of the clip’s argument (science-, conspiracy-, or religious-based), with the religious appeal being perceived as weaker and inspiring more counterarguing than the science clip.

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15213269.2019.1669461

Article:

Rather than treating conspiracy belief as pathological, we take the perspective that is an extreme outcome of common cognitive processes.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12662

define conspiracy theory

religion?

 

[Mendel]

define conspiracy theory

I'm not here to do (off topic) homework.

 

[Ann K]

define conspiracy theory

OK, I will.

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation,[3][4][5] when other explanations are more probable.[3][6][7] The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence.[8]
...
Conspiracy theories are generally designed to resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and absence of evidence for it are misinterpreted as evidence of its truth,[8][12] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven.[1][13]Studies have linked belief in conspiracy theories to distrust of authority and political cynicism.[14][15][16] Some researchers suggest that conspiracist ideation—belief in conspiracy theories—may be psychologically harmful or pathological,[17][18] and that it is correlated with lower analytical thinking, low intelligence, psychological projection, paranoia, and Machiavellianism.

Content from External Source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

You know, you CAN look this up for yourself and get the answers in a fraction of a second. It would be the polite thing to do...

 

[tobigtofool]

I'm not here to do (off topic) homework.

You are the one using it as a pejorative to describe someone whos ever believed in anything, as an "abnormal person".

Each conspiracy theory is unique and totally unrelated. The reasons people believe in each one is because someone gave them evidence that it was real enough to convince them.

By your logic, if you ever believed in god, or ever once thought aliens might be real because you saw a video that blew your mind, that means you're vulnerable in believing in flat.

This line of reasoning makes literally no sense to me.

 

[FatPhil]

You are the one using it as a pejorative to describe an "abnormal person".

Each conspiracy theory is unique and totally unrelated. The reasons people believe in each one is because someone gave them evidence that it was real enough to convince them.

By your logic, if you ever believed in god, or ever once thought aliens might be real because you saw a video that blew your mind, that means you're vulnerable in believing in flat.

This line of reasoning makes literally no sense to me.

Nope. Children from religious families or communities are brainwashed into believing in god, they don't reason their way into it.

And I'm not so sure each conspiracy theory is unique - so many of them nowadays are tied in with each other - the same shady groups are blamed for being behind them. A good modern example would be all of the things that are considered part of the "Great Reset"/"Globalisation"/"New World Order" paranoia.

 

[tobigtofool]

Nope. Children from religious families or communities are brainwashed into believing in god, they don't reason their way into it.

And I'm not so sure each conspiracy theory is unique - so many of them nowadays are tied in with each other - the same shady groups are blamed for being behind them. A good modern example would be all of the things that are considered part of the "Great Reset"/"Globalisation"/"New World Order" paranoia.

That's a pretty biggoted take on religion.

You can not believe in my religion but that doesnt mean im brainwashing my kid for raising them to learn about it (by showing them all the evidence that convinced me its real).

You want to get pedantic about semantics, then look up brainwashing and tell me that's raising your kid at a catholic school.

I give up, you guys are right, I cant convince you with reasoning so im quitting.

So ya'll are right: reason doesn't work when people refuse to listen, you've proved your point exceptionally well.

 

[Mendel]

You are the one using it as a pejorative to describe someone whos ever believed in anything, as an "abnormal person".

I did not do that. Please quote what you are referring to.

Each conspiracy theory is unique and totally unrelated. The reasons people believe in each one is because someone gave them evidence that it was real enough to convince them.

The evidence I gave contradicts this claim. You give no evidence to support it.

 

[tobigtofool]

I did not do that. Please quote what you are referring to.

Right there:

A normal person just sees this and thinks, "well, that's how the world works. There'll be an explanation for it." And if they feel intrigued, they'll look it up.

A conspiracy theory believer is a normal person who has been informed (likely incorrectly) about a subject.

Believing in 1 conspiracy theory =/= believing in all conspiracy theories.

 

[Mendel]

define conspiracy theory

religion?

That's a biggoted take on religion.

Why did YOU bring religion into it, then?

 

[tobigtofool]

Why did YOU bring religion into it, then?

Because believing in it is tantamount to believing in any conspiracy theory.

 

[FatPhil]

You want to get pedantic about semantics, then look up brainwashing and tell me that's raising your kid at a catholic school.

No problem. Raising your kid at a catholic school is brainwashing.

 

[Mendel]

A normal person just sees this and thinks, "well, that's how the world works. There'll be an explanation for it." And if they feel intrigued, they'll look it up.

You are the one using it as a pejorative to describe someone whos ever believed in anything, as an "abnormal person".

I am describing Flat Earth believers, not "someone whos ever believed in anything". I have cited studies that characterize them as being on the extreme ends on some scales. This is a description, not an insult. It just means they deviate substantially from the average person.

A conspiracy theory believer is a normal person who has been informed (likely incorrectly) about a subject.

You did not support this claim.
The research I quoted directly contradicts it. People who lack "conspiracy mentality" will [generally] not believe in Flat Earth even if their science literacy is low. (See above.)

 

[tobigtofool]

No problem. Raising your kid at a catholic school is brainwashing.

So is raising your kid at any school by that logic.

You just chose to think praying to a flag is somehow better than praying to a cross.

 

[Mendel]

Because believing in it is tantamount to believing in any conspiracy theory.

Completely unsupported claim, and the numbers do not bear this out.
For example, Catholics have better Covid vaccination rates than unaffiliated people.
See https://www.metabunk.org/threads/friend-has-fallen-into-covid-conspiracies.12058/post-259720

The highest risk of rejecting the vaccine doesn't stem from belief in any religion, but from belief in conspiracy theories:
Source: https://www.prri.org/research/religious-vaccines-covid-vaccination/

Now Evangelicals might be another matter...