Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
-
Do you have links to more effective strategies?
Focus on material arguments, find common ground on the basis of class upon which to make such arguments. Only make them if needed. We don’t need to have high degree of conformity and we’re not gonna get it either way. And all of this should be anchored to a purpose for doing it. E.g. fighting the oligarchy, reaching better alignment within a family, etc. If there’s no worthy purpose, we shouldn’t expend social capital in convincing people.
-
I’ve got anecdotes about deradicalizing people or I got links to videos about how the gotcha approach doesn’t work. I’m a terminally online anarchist so unfortunately my knowledge stems from terminally online spaces.
Beyond that what we have to go by is studying high control groups in the past and trying to better educate ourselves on how they operate.
My favorite example are Jehovah’s Witnesses. My favorite video about their inner workings has been removed but there’s a lot of documentaries about people who have escaped. Instead This is a channel that highlights the psychological tactics used by high control groups to erode people’s sense of reality and separate them from their families.
Innuendo Studios has a video about the grooming process into MAGA and a series on the mental gymnastics they’re using to stay radicalized. It’s important if you want to understand why the people in your life aren’t responding to being talked to like adults.
This is an oversimplification by an “enlightened centrist” who does actually do a great job of prescribing the best advice for trying to engage in debate theatrics: Stop and move on.
Philosophy Tube is another terminally online leftist but that video describes the fractured models of reality that life in America creates and why you can’t just logic someone out of a worldview they didn’t logic themselves into. This one however probably comes the closest to actual prescriptive advice on how to deradicalize people and it only works on individuals you are personally close to anyway.
Again, I’m just a terminally online agoraphobe who’s only got personal stories about my loved one’s descent into MAGA schizoid shit. But all of the videos I linked have actual sources you could track down for further reading. Let me know if you’d like to hear the synopsis in my own uneducated words, I in no way expect anyone to watch all that bullshit.
got personal stories about my loved one’s descent into MAGA
You and me both. It’s a bit terrifying how much of this has momentum outside the US. The supporters of South Korean president that ordered military rule wearing MAGA hats, or how often the talking points pop up outside the US, especially during US election cycles, from the “free thinkers”.
who does actually do a great job of prescribing the best advice for trying to engage in debate theatrics: Stop and move on.
Thinking of my personal experience, I get that, especially on the mental health front. Thinking of societal / political implications though, doesn’t that just give time to scatter information that’s hard to dislodge? A lot of what I’ve heard is the importance of prebunking, like what’s written in The Debunking Handbook (2020).
Let me know if you’d like to hear the synopsis in my own uneducated words, I in no way expect anyone to watch all that bullshit
I’ll save this post and get back to it. I also have a long boring flight coming up soon.
-
Rather than focus purely on the group dynamic, I encourage people to read Madness by Justin Garson. It’s an exploration of the neuroprotective aspects of mental illness, the biological reasons why people cling to false hope or pursue delusions.
Considering the research that has been done by psychologists employed by the US disinformation systems producing narratives like QAnon and Russiagate, I assume these tricks are already known quantities being exploited. That’s just my read though, Garson never brings up anything like that.
anecdotally all my mentally ill or social inferior friends/partners over the years… have all become full blow misinformation/delusional conspiracy theory types of people. and are no longer my friends.
their desperation in my reading is that they simple refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and rectify their behaviors… so it must be some vast conspiracy that causes them to overspending, make poor lifestyle choices, and be unable to keep a job…
and to them anyone who is mildly put together is some privledged jerk with zero empathy for them and their ‘totally unique’ situation…
i also pathologically avoid these people now, i was a lot more tolerate of them 10 years ago. But all they want to do is drag you down into their delusions and misery, they do not want to improve their own lives, let alone ours. They will also take your successes as personal attacks on themselves…
-
Do you have links to more effective strategies?
yeah, metaphorically punching them in the face.
people like this tend to only respond well visceral reality right in front of their faces. just think of how addicts have to ‘bottom’ before they seek recovery… it’s basically the same issue. they have to visible see the horrible negative consequences of what they are doing to themselves. you can’t ‘win’ these people over by appealing to them… shock therapy is really the only think.
and a lot of them will tell you how they were ‘shocked’ at some point into their lives out of their previous beliefs.
-
Focus on material arguments, find common ground on the basis of class upon which to make such arguments. Only make them if needed. We don’t need to have high degree of conformity and we’re not gonna get it either way. And all of this should be anchored to a purpose for doing it. E.g. fighting the oligarchy, reaching better alignment within a family, etc. If there’s no worthy purpose, we shouldn’t expend social capital in convincing people.
Aligning on a purpose is important. I’d argue that being aware of how on board people are for that purpose is important too. I recently tried to say that the family chat should have less influencer posts since we don’t all agree on the positions and it causes friction. Boy was that a shit show
-
anecdotally all my mentally ill or social inferior friends/partners over the years… have all become full blow misinformation/delusional conspiracy theory types of people. and are no longer my friends.
their desperation in my reading is that they simple refuse to acknowledge their mistakes and rectify their behaviors… so it must be some vast conspiracy that causes them to overspending, make poor lifestyle choices, and be unable to keep a job…
and to them anyone who is mildly put together is some privledged jerk with zero empathy for them and their ‘totally unique’ situation…
i also pathologically avoid these people now, i was a lot more tolerate of them 10 years ago. But all they want to do is drag you down into their delusions and misery, they do not want to improve their own lives, let alone ours. They will also take your successes as personal attacks on themselves…
In order to face this problem we need to move beyond individualistic causes like “people are right wing because they are pathetic incels”. I got the same results from trying to reason with people. These are serious psyops programs, and we need to remember that most people don’t listen to each other but whatever form of “television” makes them feel good. People can respond to real hardship by becoming selfish and horrible, or they can respond to having everything and never facing their own flaws by seeking out sadism for thrills, there are so many ways people’s minds can spoil. The structure of the belief system that pulls them in is what needs to be confronted, not their individual pathologies.
-
got personal stories about my loved one’s descent into MAGA
You and me both. It’s a bit terrifying how much of this has momentum outside the US. The supporters of South Korean president that ordered military rule wearing MAGA hats, or how often the talking points pop up outside the US, especially during US election cycles, from the “free thinkers”.
who does actually do a great job of prescribing the best advice for trying to engage in debate theatrics: Stop and move on.
Thinking of my personal experience, I get that, especially on the mental health front. Thinking of societal / political implications though, doesn’t that just give time to scatter information that’s hard to dislodge? A lot of what I’ve heard is the importance of prebunking, like what’s written in The Debunking Handbook (2020).
Let me know if you’d like to hear the synopsis in my own uneducated words, I in no way expect anyone to watch all that bullshit
I’ll save this post and get back to it. I also have a long boring flight coming up soon.
Ooh, thanks. I’ve given up on trying to debunk things to people who’s reality has become highly subjective and vibes based. But I’m going to look at that book anyway. Inoculation is the tactic I’ve been using with my family to try and keep them out of pitfalls and I definitely swear by that
-
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
“Winning” means prioritizing independence from outside influence over being right.
Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
Reverse cargo cult.
-
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
“Winning” means prioritizing independence from outside influence over being right.
Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
This paper makes an assumption that there are no known risks with the covid-19 vaccinations, which is factually incorrect, and thus it’s engaging in the same type of misinformation reinforcement that it laments
Much of the misinformation is the lack of nuance, or willingness to engage with details…
-
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
“Winning” means prioritizing independence from outside influence over being right.
Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
that is conservatives, antivaxxers, flat earthers conspiracy theorist of debunked theories in a nutshell.
-
Really hope this starts to sink in with people more. We really gotta evolve past trying to appeal to everyone’s reason and morality all the time.
The people trying to destroy public education dgaf if they look stupid or if you have a news article that proves they’re a hypocrite
covid misinformation really broke peoples brain everything else.
-
This paper makes an assumption that there are no known risks with the covid-19 vaccinations, which is factually incorrect, and thus it’s engaging in the same type of misinformation reinforcement that it laments
Much of the misinformation is the lack of nuance, or willingness to engage with details…
Funny that when reading “covid-19 prevention” you forgot anti-maskers - which is actually a very visible “I win” statement - but instead went for not being vaccinated, which is not at all a visible thing hence nowhere as much a “I win” statement.
-
Funny that when reading “covid-19 prevention” you forgot anti-maskers - which is actually a very visible “I win” statement - but instead went for not being vaccinated, which is not at all a visible thing hence nowhere as much a “I win” statement.
The article indicates multiple instances of what it considers to be misinformation, I illustrated one point that isn’t absolute misinformation, which is ironic given what they are trying to say…
-
The strongest predictor of whether someone believed in COVID-19-related misinformation and risks related to the vaccine was whether they viewed COVID-19 prevention efforts in terms of symbolic strength and weakness. In other words, this group focused on whether an action would make them appear to fend off or “give in” to untoward influence.
[…]
Our findings highlight the limits of countering misinformation directly, because for some people, literal truth is not the point.
Believing misinformation is a “win” for some people, even when proven false
“Winning” means prioritizing independence from outside influence over being right.
Ars Technica (arstechnica.com)
the easier a statement is to disprove, the more of a power move it is to say it, as it symbolizes how far you’re willing to go. - ie “faith” in religion.
-
Do you have links to more effective strategies?
As uncomfortable as it may be, research suggests adopting an empathetic, non judgemental, but firm attitude, without any expectation to actually change their mind.
This is an attitude broadly similar to that of a professional providing advice (e.g. accountants or lawyers).
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01771-z
Unpaywall:
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://archive.is/1gn2g
-
As uncomfortable as it may be, research suggests adopting an empathetic, non judgemental, but firm attitude, without any expectation to actually change their mind.
This is an attitude broadly similar to that of a professional providing advice (e.g. accountants or lawyers).
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01771-z
Unpaywall:
How to speak to a vaccine sceptic: research reveals what works - https://archive.is/1gn2g
It’s not just uncomfortable though, it’s hugely time consuming. And like, I think we’re getting to the point where more collective time has been spent explaining the world is not flat than the human hours it took to find out the world is round. If the person happens to be knowledgeable then they can kill a lot of time through out “what about X?” arguments (like missing links for evolution) and that requires someone with a lot of knowledge to slowly explain, so the approach also biases towards locking up the most knowledgeable people instead of them being more free to do other things (in the evolution example, maybe biology research).
I guess I’m not arguing against the empathy first communication, just lamenting how effective the flood the zone strategy is.
-
yeah, metaphorically punching them in the face.
people like this tend to only respond well visceral reality right in front of their faces. just think of how addicts have to ‘bottom’ before they seek recovery… it’s basically the same issue. they have to visible see the horrible negative consequences of what they are doing to themselves. you can’t ‘win’ these people over by appealing to them… shock therapy is really the only think.
and a lot of them will tell you how they were ‘shocked’ at some point into their lives out of their previous beliefs.
Can you you give an example?
