How to effectively talk to chemtrail folk

[StratMatt777]

Lately I've been thinking about how I should narrate the intro to my first video showing that chemtrail evidence is a lie and how to present the data so that it is not rejected by people's confirmation bias (since those are the people I'm trying to help)…
It occurred to me that it is impossible to change another person's thinking.
I know this well from commenting on YouTube videos to explain how science explains persistent contrails (without attacking anyone) and then getting attacked as a "paid shill".
By attacking something they believe in with science (something they think is being covered up by the government) I send them right into fight mode.
My goal was to engage their logical mind and deliver facts that will give them a new awareness, but by merely expressing a views/facts that attack their belief, I engage their emotions (anger) and pull them right out of their logical mind, thereby being the guy responsible for triggering their confirmation bias.

My observation is something that we all know because we know it is true about ourselves.
That regardless of the subject matter, no one on earth can change our opinion about something we believe or have an understanding of by expressing their opinion to us.

The only way we will change/revise/improve our current understanding or improve or correct our level of awareness is by taking in new data _on our own_ without someone shoving it down our throat.

This is why all these years of commenting science to these people has never helped them.

I've come to the conclusion (that is reconfirmed regularly because I am too stupid to stop commenting on YouTube to explain the science of contrails) that every single word I have ever typed to them has been a TOTAL waste of time.

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to get through their confirmation bias to deliver the facts that explain the science of contrails (and that "Chemtrail planes inside" videos are showing ballast tanks) is to make a video that provides them information that can expand their awareness without triggering them by making them feel attacked...
so I think I will start my narration with "This video is not meant to change anyone's belief. The purpose of this video is to present factual data and evidence. How you choose to process this new data or incorporate it into your mind is up to you."

And then when they call me a "government/shill/troll" it will be a chance to develop the self-control to NOT reply to someone who is wrong as a result of their faulty awareness.

I was extremely impressed with Astro's Whitebeard's confessional-like post and identified with it... which is what prompted this post.

I've always thought that it is extremely important to be totally polite to these people, but lately, as a result of getting some YouTube comment reply alerts from comments I made 2 years ago I have realized that even though I don't do direct character attacks, that 2 years ago, in response to their character attacks on me I did take on a very rude tone as I described their confirmation bias and persecutory paranoid delusion to them... this primal backlash of my own apparently coming from some sort of shock about them personally attacking me for the crime of spending the time to help them by typing out how science explains persistent contrails.

When I went back through these 2 year-old comments I thought,
"Why did I get so upset at these people who don't know any better?
When I posted that was I _really_ making these comments to help these people or was I doing it in order to boost my self-esteem by being "the expert"?

I came to the realization that my first posts were/are genuinely to help people, but in many cases I "lost it" a bit as soon as the line was crossed where people started attacking my character and I became superior and condescending (violating my own code of ethics!) as I told them about their confirmation bias and persecutory paranoid delusion... not to "be the expert" (as I wondered) but as some kind of defense to the ad-homs (which is boundary failure).

With my video (which is going to have to be more than one video now because it is currently 2.5 hours long!), I'm hoping to somehow tip-toe around this mine-field of egos and deliver some truth to them that can expand their awareness. What they choose to do with this new info is none of my business!
All I can do is upload a video that fights the lies of the "Inside chemtrail planes" videos by delivering the evidence that proves that those videos are lies.

The true test will be whether or not I have the self control to not respond to the character attacking comments!
I think I'll respond to everything with this: "I see that you are having a strong reaction to the content of my video. I guarantee that everything presented in the video is fact-checked, verifiable and proven by science. Did I make a mistake in one of the pieces of data I presented? If so, please let me know, thanks!"

Ultimately, I think the mistake that I have made repeatedly is responding to irrational emotional people AS THOUGH they are rational people who will "see the light" when enough science about relative humidity and ice crystals and "cirrus clouds not dissipating" is explained to them.
Not so!

 

[Mick West]

The only way we will change/revise/improve our current understanding or improve or correct our level of awareness is by taking in new data _on our own_ without someone shoving it down our throat.

There's no reason why you can't help people take on new data. You can expose people to new information and new sources of information without alienating them.

Ultimately, I think the mistake that I have made repeatedly is responding to irrational emotional people AS THOUGH they are rational people who will "see the light" when enough science about relative humidity and ice crystals and "cirrus clouds not dissipating" is explained to them.
Not so!

I'm not sure that's your mistake. Based on what you write above it seems like your mistake was to be "superior and condescending", acting like they had "persecutory paranoid delusion"

With my video (which is going to have to be more than one video now because it is currently 2.5 hours long!), I'm hoping to somehow tip-toe around this mine-field of egos and deliver some truth to them that can expand their awareness. What they choose to do with this new info is none of my business!

Don't tiptoe. Just give the facts in a neutral manner. Avoid ANY judgements, even the hint of judgement. The goal is to show them things they did not know - and to do that you have to make it interesting to them.

 

[deirdre]

"This video is not meant to change anyone's belief. The purpose of this video is to present factual data and evidence. How you choose to process this new data or incorporate it into your mind is up to you."

translation: This video was made to change your belief. I am going to give you the facts and if you choose to not process my "facts" the way I want you to, then you are stupid.


If your video is good enough, you don't need to waste my brain cells with explaining to me why you are making a video and how you are not trying to manipulate me. In fact, you've got my attention for between 2 and 5 minutes.. and if you've bored me in that time, I'm going to search for a bigfoot movie. (also don't do some long fancy 'channel' intro with music and slideshows.. that will get me to tune off within 30 secs.)

"I see that you are having a strong reaction to the content of my video. I guarantee that everything presented in the video is fact-checked, verifiable and proven by science. Did I make a mistake in one of the pieces of data I presented? If so, please let me know, thanks!"

lose the first line. it's combative.

 

[StratMatt777]

There's no reason why you can't help people take on new data. You can expose people to new information and new sources of information without alienating them.

Yes, that is exactly what I think, but I have noticed that, without exception, people on YouTube get mad and attack my character for presenting the science that explains persistent contrails in the most polite way possible (which is how I always post prior to people ad-homing me).

I'm not sure that's your mistake. Based on what you write above it seems like your mistake was to be "superior and condescending", acting like they had "persecutory paranoid delusion"

I must have made it sound like I always "lose it" when they start hitting me with the ad-homs in their responses to my initial polite non-combative post about the science of contrails.
That is not my "normal procedure", but there have been times when the character attacks I receive are particularly brutal and I have made the mistake of moving in their direction (specifically the 2 year old comment of mine that I recently got comment reply alerts on).

Don't tiptoe. Just give the facts in a neutral manner. Avoid ANY judgements, even the hint of judgement. The goal is to show them things they did not know - and to do that you have to make it interesting to them.

Good advice! That is the plan.

I think that a video is the only way to go (speaking of YouTube) because I've never seen a textual comment posted on YouTube that has ever gotten through to a believer.
None of the comments I have ever posted to inform someone about "chemtrails" being persistent contrails has ever once been met with anything but an unwarranted totally negative irrational response (usually "troll").
Although there have been 4 or 5 exceptions of people who appreciated the comment and it kept them from falling down the "chemtrail" rabbit hole.

I posted this "off topic" comment in direct reply to the similar off-topic things that were said by Astro in comment #17 and Whitebeard in comment #28 in the other thread.
It would have not been composed or posted except to reply to their comments and share our common experience and personal insights.
Taken out of that context the comment probably looks like the over-confessional train-of-thought rant of some rude butthead who insults "chemtrail" believers and makes all his internal mental dialogue about personal insights public.

 

[StratMatt777]

Deirdre, thanks for this feedback!
I think I may have a tendency to over-think things!

translation: This video was made to change your belief. I am going to give you the facts and if you choose to not process my "facts" the way I want you to, then you are stupid.

If your video is good enough, you don't need to waste my brain cells with explaining to me why you are making a video and how you are not trying to manipulate me. In fact, you've got my attention for between 2 and 5 minutes.. and if you've bored me in that time, I'm going to search for a bigfoot movie. (also don't do some long fancy 'channel' intro with music and slideshows.. that will get me to tune off within 30 secs.)

lose the first line. it's combative.

 

[deirdre]

Yes, that is exactly what I think, but I have noticed that, without exception, people on YouTube get mad and attack my character for presenting the science that explains persistent contrails in the most polite way possible (which is how I always post prior to people ad-homing me).

I don't think I have ever bothered to log into youtube in order to tell someone "wow that was very helpful, I've learned a lot". I do bother to log in if something ticks me off though So try to focus on the people NOT commenting, trust that you are reaching some of them and trust that they are watching how you respond to other commenters.

 

[Mick West]

I posted this "off topic" comment in direct reply to the similar off-topic things that were said by Astro in comment #17 and Whitebeard in comment #28 in the other thread.
It would have not been composed or posted except to reply to their comments and share our common experience and personal insights.

If you want to directly reply to someone it's usually best if you quote them, so people know what you are replying to. Post numbers are not helpful.

None of the comments I have ever posted to inform someone about "chemtrails" being persistent contrails has ever once been met with anything but an unwarranted totally negative irrational response (usually "troll").
Although there have been 4 or 5 exceptions of people who appreciated the comment and it kept them from falling down the "chemtrail" rabbit hole

None, except 4 or 5 that you know of, and an unknown number that you don't. That's not none, that's some, possibly a few, maybe a lot.

 

[tinkertailor]

I've had difficulty with the same things you have lately, primarily with my father. He is beginning to swirl down the rabbit hole on a few subjects--primarily issues of gender and race, something he feels very strongly about and knows I feel even stronger. I'm finding that engaging with him tires me out, and one of the things I'm learning to do is to take a break when he starts going on about something that I know isn't true. Later, when I've cooled off and gathered resources, I'll ask him if we can sit down on the couch and I can show him something relating to an earlier topic. Usually I just find a source that I know he'll trust, like a news organization or journalist he admires, and I'll read aloud to him. Then we can discuss it. I try not to use 'you' statements, like "where you made your mistake is", and I try to keep my words as neutral and calm as possible. I think Mick and Deirdre have given you a few really good ideas, and I'd recommend that you treat this like you would a speech in, say, a public speaking class at a college. Hardcore chemtrailers will watch videos about chemtrails that are 3 hours long easily, but those videos confirm their beliefs. This is an interest to them, and grabbing their attention is going to be something that will be tough. Don't start with anything but 'today I'm going to be talking about ballast tanks', or something neutral like that. Present your information with good sources, preferably a trusted source but at the very least one they won't immediately refute, like an airplane company or a government association. There's no way to completely stop judgement from people who really firmly believe in something in my view, but there are ways to open the channels of communication a little wider. I'd also suggest viewing these people as more than just chemtrailers or conspiracy theorists. That may be a big part of their personality now but they're also human beings, people who drive cars and go to work and have barbeques and watch television. They're human, and humans can and do change their minds.

 

[MikeC]

as some of you know already, I work for a Govt agency and am often the recipient of phone calls from people complaining about chemtrails.

My experience is that they fall into 2 major camps:

1/ fanatics. there is no talking to these people. They tell me there's proof, they abuse me personally in various ways, etc as i'm sure we are all familiar with. The calls end in 1 of 3 ways:

• I hang up (I have no obligation to take crap), or
• they hang up, or
• I ask "given that I/we am/are complicit in this what do you expect me/us to do for you?" that stumps them and the conversation ends.

2/ People who can be talked to. There are 2 subsets of these:

• People who have heard of chemtrails and do not know anything much about contrails and are genuinely seeking information. A rational explanation and reference to information on our website leaves them feeling a lot happier.
• People who firmly believe in chemtrails but can hold a rational discussion and we agree to disagree in the end. Often they'll tell me they are surprised that I talk to them at all let alone have a reasonable discussion.

In all cases I make a record of the phone call (we do not actually record the phone calls), and tell the person I will do so if we manage a discussion.

 

[Mick West]

People who firmly believe in chemtrails but can hold a rational discussion and we agree to disagree in the end. Often they'll tell me they are surprised that I talk to them at all let alone have a reasonable discussion.

I talked to a guy recently who falls into this category. He was in town visiting someone so I agreed to meet him in Folsom. He was convinced that some of the trails were obvious spraying, and that if only I could see them in his home town (in the California Central Valley) I would see the trails falling to the ground, and I'd be convinced.

He was a really nice guy. But he was also convinced by the arguments for 9/11 controlled demolition, Sandy Hook as a hoax, and pretty much all of the chemtrail stuff. We went over maybe 30 different claims of evidence on a variety of topics. The main thing he took away was that planes separated by only 1000 feet can leave entirely different contrails. He seemed quite interested in this. I gave a detailed explanation.

I was also just on a podcast where one of the hosts is a bit of a conspiracist. We were talking about how hard it would be to keep a large scale conspiracy secret. I talked about how half of the FBI was on 9/11 for years. But I also talked about having a global perspective. Why don't other countries expose all these American conspiracies? Other countries have intelligence agencies, and they are not all friendly. He seemed interested in this perspective.

I think that realistically that small victories like this are about as good as you will get from the reasonable believers. Give them something to factual think about - some information they are missing, or a perspective they had not considered. You don't need to push beyond that initially, just make sure that one thing sticks.

The unreasonable believers, the angry and/or suspicious, still respond to the same approach - but you can't expect any acknowledgment straight away. Just try to keep communication open, and if not friendly, at least not impolite. You can't tell if things are sticking, but you can still keep giving them information in a neutral manner.