I might be wrong on this......... for once.

[Efftup]

This article: is a very interesting article about how we like to try and always paint the "Other Side" of our views as idiotic and daft, when they may just have a different view on something and for their own perfectly good reasons.
But also how we like to create an echo chamber where laughing at people with opposing views tries to reinforce our own, and how so many people like to share things on social media without even caring if they are true or not.

It also suggests we should always go into something with the POSSIBILITY at least, that we MIGHT be wrong on this one.

Online it means we can be blindsided by the opinions of our friends or, more broadly, America. Over time, this morphs into a subconscious belief that we and our friends are the sane ones and that there’s a crazy "Other Side" that must be laughed at — an Other Side that just doesn’t "get it," and is clearly not as intelligent as "us." But this holier-than-thou social media behavior is counterproductive, it’s self-aggrandizement at the cost of actual nuanced discourse and if we want to consider online discourse productive, we need to move past this.

What is emerging is the worst kind of echo chamber, one where those inside are increasingly convinced that everyone shares their world view, that their ranks are growing when they aren’t. It’s like clockwork: an event happens and then your social media circle is shocked when a non-social media peer group public reacts to news in an unexpected way. They then mock the Other Side for being "out of touch" or "dumb."

Fredrik deBoer, one of my favorite writers around, touched on this in his Essay "Getting Past the Coalition of the Cool."

Content from external source

 

[tadaaa]

I think we all need to cognisant of the fact that jumping down the throat of people with different views, even the CT'rs - especially the mild variety who, for maybe genuine reasons are "not sure" or simply ill informed over a particular topic

Can make us look over preachy and evangelical in our protestations - and our urge to reveal the "truth"

And just as I find that "fervour" unattractive in other people, they prop feel the same when it is replayed to them

And yes, the mark of a person is not how he/she behaves when they are right, but how they behave when they are wrong

 

[benthamitemetric]

There was a really good TED talk about this a few years ago:
The basic thesis is that adaptive learning social networks will cater to whatever we like to click on the most. The longer they collect information on us, the more accurate they get on feeding us what we like. The result is that people see more information that agrees with them, which reinforces their belief, which reinforces the algorithm feeding them information that agrees with them, and the cycle churns on. This is detrimental to democracy because it ultimately leaves people less informed, pushes people to extreme margins, and cripples compromise candidates by making it much harder for them to reach people and much harder for their message to resonate if it reaches.

We certainly see this sort of thing happening in conspiracy theory circles, but I also see it happening on my facebook feed. I even see it happening to me personally when I use google news and have had to try to step back and use other aggregators to try to diversify my ne

 

[MikeG]

I just finished Rob Brotherton's Suspicious Minds this week. He speaks to your point and it is well taken.

It is tempting to treat the conspiracy theorist as an aberrant factor and dismiss him/her. Confirmation bias works in both directions whether we are talking about a CT or a debunker.

I have found a comfortable place at Metabunk. I admire the research ability evident in the many threads. It might be possible that I am getting too comfortable.

Maybe there is another approach.

I think what I would like to do is find an incident, event, or issue that both sides might recognize as plausible, to use the old Mythbusters term. Brotherton mentions that quality, although I cannot remember the page number off the top of my head.

Regardless, my next thread may be to try that approach.

 

[deirdre]

Regardless, my next thread may be to try that approach

Just remember Metabunk is about debunking bunk. Using evidence to address specific claims of evidence.

Not weighing sides of any issue (conspiracy, alternative health or political).

While such an approach is very useful, it isnt what Metabunk is about.

 

[MikeG]

Just remember Metabunk is about debunking bunk. Using evidence to address specific claims of evidence.

Not weighing sides of any issue (conspiracy, alternative health or political).

While such an approach is very useful, it isnt what Metabunk is about.

Fair enough. Point well taken.

 

[Mick West]

Metabunk is also about discussing the best way to debunk. Part of that is how you communicate the debunking. The impression people get is important. Simple factual rebuttals are the most neutral, but is that enough?

 

[deirdre]

Metabunk is also about discussing the best way to debunk. Part of that is how you communicate the debunking. The impression people get is important. Simple factual rebuttals are the most neutral, but is that enough?

i was just going to say that in a PM, if the thread is formed to examine debunking techniques (Practical Debunking) that would be cool.

But not a thread say focused on presenting the two sides of the global warming debate as plausible, unless the focus is 'keeping in mind the other side may be right'.

 

[Mick West]

i was just going to say that in a PM, if the thread is formed to examine debunking techniques (Practical Debunking) that would be cool.

But not a thread say focused on presenting the two sides of the global warming debate as plausible, unless the focus is 'keeping in mind the other side may be right'.

But threads should be about claims of evidence, not huge theories like global warming/denialism. I think the useful idea here is not to immediately describe the claim of evidence as laughable, or stupid, or some other derogatory term that might make people stop reading.

Take, for example, my thread here:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-h...make-contrails-actually-they-make-more.t3187/

Which I open with:

"
In a rather odd reversal of known science, the latest chemtrail theory is that modern high-bypass engines do not create contrails. A comprehensive explanation of why this is incorrect can be found in the following video:
"

Is "a rather odd reversal of known science" too strong an immediate rejection? Maybe. Should I change it to something more neutral?

 

[deirdre]

But threads should be about claims of evidence, not huge theories like global warming/denialism. I think the useful idea here is not to immediately describe the claim of evidence as laughable, or stupid, or some other derogatory term that might make people stop reading.

Take, for example, my thread here:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-h...make-contrails-actually-they-make-more.t3187/

Which I open with:

"
In a rather odd reversal of known science, the latest chemtrail theory is that modern high-bypass engines do not create contrails. A comprehensive explanation of why this is incorrect can be found in the following video:
"

Is "a rather odd reversal of known science" too strong an immediate rejection? Maybe. Should I change it to something more neutral?

just take out 'rather odd'. maybe.
it IS a reversal of known science. so that part is ok and necessary.
But i dont know, the 'rather odd' may seem insulting to them but on the other hand it depicts your confusion and surprise of the claim. i think trying to sanitize the human element out of every word we utter is futile and insulting in itself.

 

[Mick West]

i think trying to sanitize the human element out of every word we utter is futile and insulting in itself.

Yeah, but then there are some things that fall quite obviously on one side of the line. Like if I opened with "Tin-foil hatters have come up with a real crazy ..."

I'll just leave it.