Posted: Jul 17, 2010 10:26 pm
Hi everybody.
My general question is this, but read on afterward for more details:
What is the best way of dealing with extremely irrational people?
To give a bit more detail:
I don't mean to solicit simplistic replies like "just leave them alone", or "try not to provoke them". I don't mean clearly mentally disturbed people who are deluded to the point whose admission to a mental institution would be warranted. I mean people who continue to make extremely irrational assertions and meet counter-arguments and evidence against their position with denials, lies, self-delusions, fabrications, etc. to the point where it just seems utterly incredible that people like that are able to function on any other level. What I am looking for is a rational approach to dealing with the irrationality itself. We could debate whether such people are mentally ill, for instance, but what I want to know is if any of you have any good lessons from experience, or knowledge from psychology studies (for instance) that point to a route for debating such people, for finding some way through their armour of nonsense and give them a glimpse of how stupid the things they really believe are and how stupid their responses to criticisms are.
In recent years I have corresonded with someone who believes not just ONE crazy thing they won't budge on, but the following combination: that evolution is false (for humans, but not other animals), that extra-terrestrials created life on earth, that astrology is true, that global warming is false, that global warming is fabricated by a world-wide conspiracy of scientists in the service of authoritarian governments, that the Yeti exists, that passive smoking bolsters childrens' immune systems...etc. etc. etc.. (this is not an exhaustive list)
It's not that this person, let's call him T., believes ONE of these things, but the whole combination - and a whole lot besides I don't have the time to list here. T. comes from a secular middle class English family and professionally he is a chemical engineer with a degree from a good UK university. Some of his behaviours are clearly correlated with his beliefs. For example, the claims about global warming and smoking are probably related to the fact he works for oil companies and smokes. But the other stuff?
In debates T. will frequently cite "evidence" from right-wing journalists (e.g. Christopher Booker from the Telegraph - guy who can't tell the difference between asbestos and talcum powder), astrologers, propagandists (Marc Morano) or sources he doesn't even know the origins of. At one point, he found a quote from a biologist that he misconstrued as implying that neanderthals and humans weren't related. I contacted the biologist, who confirmed this was a false interpretation of the quote in question. On hearing this, T. failed to see that this counted against his concept of "evidence". Despite his education, T. has demonstrated both ignorance of and disdain for the peer-review process by which science is published, and has outrightly ignored all the articles I have sent him about everything from smoking to the genetics of evolution, except in those cases where he has read portions of the texts, misunderstood them (on purpose or not) and then tried to say that the evidence lies in favour of his beliefs.
Many of T.'s beliefs are drawn from online sources, usually peddled by a small number of people who portray themselves as alternative knowledge gurus, e.g. Lloyd Pye. It is clear that T. looks for what look like authority figures who can give him a sense of belonging to a small community of alternative truth-seeking upholders of morality, who believe they will ultimately defeat the mainstream conspiracy to curtail people's freedoms of lock down the public's minds. Many of T.'s sources are "lecturers" in the sense that they tell him "how things are" in online presentations. (I realise that much of this sounds like T. is essentially religious, and I think in a broad sense he is. However, he rejects the mainstream religions as "misinterpretations" of ancient literature - such as Sumerian myths - because he believes them instead to be historical accounts of extra-terrestrial - rather than divine - intervention.)
To return to my original question:
Do any of you know of effective strategies for dealing with people like T.? He is encased in nonsense, and I would like to make progress with him on at least one of his beliefs, I don't care which. What is the best way of proceeding?
I have in the past tried to be patient, but often I have failed.
I know, for example, that people rescued from cults are sometimes subjected to a 'deprogramming' procedure. Is there anything of the sort, or that has similar effects, that one can apply to people like T.?
Finally, T. has severely shaken my belief in human beings. I knew already of the crazy and irrational excesses of religion, cults and various forms of denial. But to find someone who is this badly affected and who so staunchly denies so many aspects of basic reality is really disheartening. How can we hope for a brighter, more rational or moral future when humans are liable to become so totally stupefied?
Any help would be very much appreciated.
My general question is this, but read on afterward for more details:
What is the best way of dealing with extremely irrational people?
To give a bit more detail:
I don't mean to solicit simplistic replies like "just leave them alone", or "try not to provoke them". I don't mean clearly mentally disturbed people who are deluded to the point whose admission to a mental institution would be warranted. I mean people who continue to make extremely irrational assertions and meet counter-arguments and evidence against their position with denials, lies, self-delusions, fabrications, etc. to the point where it just seems utterly incredible that people like that are able to function on any other level. What I am looking for is a rational approach to dealing with the irrationality itself. We could debate whether such people are mentally ill, for instance, but what I want to know is if any of you have any good lessons from experience, or knowledge from psychology studies (for instance) that point to a route for debating such people, for finding some way through their armour of nonsense and give them a glimpse of how stupid the things they really believe are and how stupid their responses to criticisms are.
In recent years I have corresonded with someone who believes not just ONE crazy thing they won't budge on, but the following combination: that evolution is false (for humans, but not other animals), that extra-terrestrials created life on earth, that astrology is true, that global warming is false, that global warming is fabricated by a world-wide conspiracy of scientists in the service of authoritarian governments, that the Yeti exists, that passive smoking bolsters childrens' immune systems...etc. etc. etc.. (this is not an exhaustive list)
It's not that this person, let's call him T., believes ONE of these things, but the whole combination - and a whole lot besides I don't have the time to list here. T. comes from a secular middle class English family and professionally he is a chemical engineer with a degree from a good UK university. Some of his behaviours are clearly correlated with his beliefs. For example, the claims about global warming and smoking are probably related to the fact he works for oil companies and smokes. But the other stuff?
In debates T. will frequently cite "evidence" from right-wing journalists (e.g. Christopher Booker from the Telegraph - guy who can't tell the difference between asbestos and talcum powder), astrologers, propagandists (Marc Morano) or sources he doesn't even know the origins of. At one point, he found a quote from a biologist that he misconstrued as implying that neanderthals and humans weren't related. I contacted the biologist, who confirmed this was a false interpretation of the quote in question. On hearing this, T. failed to see that this counted against his concept of "evidence". Despite his education, T. has demonstrated both ignorance of and disdain for the peer-review process by which science is published, and has outrightly ignored all the articles I have sent him about everything from smoking to the genetics of evolution, except in those cases where he has read portions of the texts, misunderstood them (on purpose or not) and then tried to say that the evidence lies in favour of his beliefs.
Many of T.'s beliefs are drawn from online sources, usually peddled by a small number of people who portray themselves as alternative knowledge gurus, e.g. Lloyd Pye. It is clear that T. looks for what look like authority figures who can give him a sense of belonging to a small community of alternative truth-seeking upholders of morality, who believe they will ultimately defeat the mainstream conspiracy to curtail people's freedoms of lock down the public's minds. Many of T.'s sources are "lecturers" in the sense that they tell him "how things are" in online presentations. (I realise that much of this sounds like T. is essentially religious, and I think in a broad sense he is. However, he rejects the mainstream religions as "misinterpretations" of ancient literature - such as Sumerian myths - because he believes them instead to be historical accounts of extra-terrestrial - rather than divine - intervention.)
To return to my original question:
Do any of you know of effective strategies for dealing with people like T.? He is encased in nonsense, and I would like to make progress with him on at least one of his beliefs, I don't care which. What is the best way of proceeding?
I have in the past tried to be patient, but often I have failed.
I know, for example, that people rescued from cults are sometimes subjected to a 'deprogramming' procedure. Is there anything of the sort, or that has similar effects, that one can apply to people like T.?
Finally, T. has severely shaken my belief in human beings. I knew already of the crazy and irrational excesses of religion, cults and various forms of denial. But to find someone who is this badly affected and who so staunchly denies so many aspects of basic reality is really disheartening. How can we hope for a brighter, more rational or moral future when humans are liable to become so totally stupefied?
Any help would be very much appreciated.