How Do You Deal with Family Members who Subscribe to Conspiracy Theories?

[smallcleanrat]

When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then  I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.

I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.

What does this look like?

When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.

[mahagonny]

When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then  I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.

I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.

And do they ever do this back to you?

[Wahoo Redux]

When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then  I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.

I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.

What does this look like?

When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.

I meet people who are very dedicated to misinformation, alternative facts, faulty superficial impressions, or outright lies. 

Their premises are spurious but they believe in them wholeheartedly. 

Rightwing propaganda blogs which deal in confirmation bias provide most of the fodder. 

[Economizer]

You must find other family members with whom you might conspire against them! Alas, not as easy as it sounds.

[mahagonny]

When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then  I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.

I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.

What does this look like?

When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.

I meet people who are very dedicated to misinformation, alternative facts, faulty superficial impressions, or outright lies. 

Their premises are spurious but they believe in them wholeheartedly. 

Rightwing propaganda blogs which deal in confirmation bias provide most of the fodder.

https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf

[mahagonny]

con't

Not to quarrel with what Wahoo posted, but there's this too. I guess we're ignorant about different things. No one is quite a complete idiot.

[Parasaurolophus]

When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then  I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.

I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.

What does this look like?

When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.

Do you mean, what does the questioning look like? Or what does their conceding they don't know look like?

When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then  I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.

I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.

And do they ever do this back to you?

Oh, sure. It's called a 'conference presentation'. Actually, those are worse, because we routinely offer counterexamples or devastating arguments, which you don't do when you're just asking 'why?' over and over. It can look pretty vicious to people outside the discipline, but it's not (usually).

[Wahoo Redux]

No one is quite a complete idiot.

No one here...

But I beg to differ.

[Sun_Worshiper]

If I really want to convince someone and I also want to maintain the relationship with them, then I'll try to meet them halfway by at least empathizing with why they would believe some nonsense. From there I try to make a few points* that force them to to acknowledge how silly it all is, which isn't hard since most conspiracies fall apart easily. However, even the most bulletproof argument won't convince many, or even most, people, so it is probably better to just change the subject away from politics in most cases.

* Probably logical arguments will be more effective than stats, since they can find their own "alternative stats" to counter.

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

There are some great ideas here and I have tried some of them. I suppose I should say that it has been difficult for me to stand up to these people since we have a lot of history (that I won't get into) and they have a tendency to yell/scream about their beliefs (while belittling me) with such a viciousness that it can be incredibly unsettling . I have hung up on them in the past, put the phone down and done something else (only to come back and hear them still venting) and I have lied in order to get off the phone. I don't like to lie, but it works. Maybe I'm like some of my students with their magical thinking and I thought there would be an answer here that would solve all of my problems. I think my best bet is to make up a lie and use it. Unfortunately, I've gotten really good at it.

[Myword]

Did my post here today  11:20 am get sent properly?

[smallcleanrat]

When I encounter such people IRL, if I want to engage then  I usually channel Socrates and ask about their premises until they're forced to concede they don't know, or look uncomfortable about just what their commitments are.

I don't know that it helps them, but it's a kinder way of showing them their ignorance.

What does this look like?

When I've tried asking simple questions along these lines, the response was more often goggle-eyed, spittle-flecked anger.

Do you mean, what does the questioning look like? Or what does their conceding they don't know look like?

Both.

I often cannot get straight answers to basic questions like "Where did you hear that?" Or asking them to connect the dots for me so I can understand how they got from their premises to their conclusion.

Sometimes the reply is "Oh, come one. Everybody knows it."

Sometimes they abruptly switch topics, ignoring the question entirely (I'd call this a dodge, not a concession).

Sometimes they get defensive "Who are you to question me?"

There are people in my life who refuse to acknowledge they were wrong on basic matters of fact (things you might not expect someone to feel personally attached to). Years ago we had a family gathering, and a few of us were watching a quiz show on TV. One of the questions had to do with ant colonies, I recall it was asking something like "What sex are the majority of the ants?" The contestant answered "Female", and a family member scoffed, "Idiot! The queen is the female!" When the host told the contestant he was correct, this family member got quite huffy about it. He seemed to think that if the queen is female, none of the other ants can be female...for some reason.

I was a kid, so I naively thought this could easily be resolved by bringing out one of my books on insects, to show the family member the part about ant colonies. I was surprised when he seemed even more annoyed, saying "I don't need to look at that. I know what I know!"

That incident really stuck with me. It still baffles me.

[spork]

It's a mistake trying to debate people who have constructed a self-identity based on willful ignorance.

[dismalist]

It's a mistake trying to debate people who have constructed a self-identity based on willful ignorance.

Yes. That's why one doesn't have to talk with many people.

[mahagonny]

And do they ever do this back to you?

Oh, sure. It's called a 'conference presentation'. Actually, those are worse, because we routinely offer counterexamples or devastating arguments, which you don't do when you're just asking 'why?' over and over. It can look pretty vicious to people outside the discipline, but it's not (usually).
[/quote]

I get it. It's a discipline. People who do it well are like concert pianists who practice four hours a day. People tear each other to shreds in debate, then go have lunch together.

I still don't get how so many of today's academics can pretend black animosity towards whites is not a problem (mostly to the people harboring the attitude), nor how something called 'antiracism' from a cadre of self-insulating holier-than-thous can be expected to become mainstream.   And your hayseed relative, I suspect, is just as baffled. Which I take as a very sane response. Or maybe I am the hayseed. Which wouldn't destroy me to believe.