Why you cant win an argument with a conspiracy theorist [simplified]

[TheSquealer]

You will never convince a conspiracy theorist they are wrong in their conclusions. It's just not going to happen. Here's why....

Your brain is an incredibly complicated machine. Often argued to be the most sophisticated computer on the planet. Unfortunately for your brain, the world is also a very complicated place. The good news however, is that your brain is very well adapted to dealing with this complex environment. Every waking moment, you are bombarded with endless sensory input. Sights, sounds, shapes, colors, smells, tastes and all the near infinite complexities and submodalities of each, often bombarding the mind all at the same time.

As a result, your brain does a lot of amazing things to deal with the overwhelming amount of information available to it every second of the day.

The 3 most important things your brain does to make sense of the world around it are these.

1) Your brain generalizes information
2) Your brain deletes information
3) Your brain distorts information

Your brain does this and in this process creates what can be called an "internal representation" of the world around it. It's a model. Owns own interpretation and understanding.

Imagine you need to get across the street to withdraw money from your bank before they close. It's 5:58. You've got less than 120 seconds to get from where you are, across the busy street and in the door.

What does your brain do?

The first thing your brain does is generalize information. You don't look at every footstep required to get across the street. You think more in broader terms "need to get across the parking lot, then across the street, then across that parking lot and then into the bank" - all of the millions of details such as the weather, the position of the sun, trees around you, sounds, where each footstep will be placed and so on, are irrelevant and you've generalized the process and how to get from a to b, using and observing and processing only relevant information to that task.

The second thing your brain does is that it deletes information that isn't useful as it goes. You don't remember details of the things behind you. You don't remember the cars you ran past. You don't remeber the bird singing in the background. You may not remember anything at all that doesn't stand out to you as being worth remembering that is not relevant to the tast. In fact, you can walk right past things for many years and never realize its there. Being aware of it or remembering it just wasn't important.

The third thing your brain does is that it distorts information. As you approach the street to run across and make it in time to the bank, you start tell yourself it's safer than it is, that cars are going slower than they are, that you have a wide enough gap to run between cars and so on. You lie to yourself. You create an often very innacurate picture of what you believe to be a truth or fact, based on what you need to believe in that moment.

Imagine you run out into the street and a car screeches to a halt before he hits you. What is the response of most people that would run out into the street and almost get hit? Usually the same defensiveness, telling themselves as they keep running that the driver is a shithead and so on - this happens because in their minds, most often (at least in that moment) they believe they've acted correctly. Their brains told them they acted correctly as they darted out into the street. How will they remember this event where they were almost hit by a car in the future? Well, memories are not memories. Memories are memories of memories of memories. You remember only the basic key points and a few snapshots/videos, maybe some sounds and so on, which may or may not be accurate at the time but which a definitey less accurate over time. This information is continually passed through those same filters. You're brain is only trying to keep what it needs. Your final memory of this event will most likely be distilled down to key and more often than not, wholly innacurate points. "i was fine. i was right. i acted appropriately. they were wrong... everyone over reacted. the driver acted innapropriately" etc.

The truth is that we ALL distort everything. Our brains filter and distort everything it takes in. Even our memories are simply filtered information of filtered information of filtered information. In fact, anything that you are aware of, has already passed through these filters and has already been distorted, generalized and some parts deleted before your conscious mind is aware of it. There is no information that you are consciously aware of which hasn't already passed through these filters.

We tend to believe that the way we percieve the world around us is . We generalize, we delete information and we distort information and accordingly, we create a model of the world that is nothing more than our own internal representation of how we understand the world. In fact, what are hallucinogenic drugs? You can eat an 1/8th ounce of mushrooms and stare at your hand for the next 6 hours, or God forbid, end up in front of a mirror and never get bored with what you are looking at. This is because those filters are now disabled and you are now seeing countless details and information that you've never noticed before because your brain was filtering it out. Hippies would love to tell you how they are expanding their mind, their consciousness and so on, but really, this information is filtered out for a reason... its irrelevant and unecessary and has no value and serves no useful purpose.

This is a simple explanation of how we all tend to end up with radically different understandings of the world around us and why we have so much difficulty seeing things the same way.

Think about all the things you argue about in life. Politics, money, Al Queda, bitcoins, George Bush, Republicans/Democrats or whatever. Each person having an often radically different internal representation of the world, shaped by their own generalizations and distortions and deletions are trying to argue to get the other to see the world in the same exact way that they do. Thats generally not possible. The model that you've created in your mind of the world, which shapes your thoughts, decisions, actions, feelings, communication with others and so on are very unique to you, though we all love to believe thats not true. For example, two people will argue about there being a God or not being a God and will never see eye to eye because both have learned to look at all the same evidence and distort into proof that their belief correct. In fact, people will look at the exact same thing and each see it as incontrovertable evidence that they are each correct though it is clearly not possible.

An important thing to understand in human behavior is how to know who is distorting information to an unreasonable degree.

What happens when we are presented with information that challenges our own internal representations of the world? Well.... Your brain generalizes, deletes and distorts information. The brain will create irrationally broad generalizations, start blurring the lines, concepts, definitions and so on and then will continue and distort a square peg to fit into a round hole and quite often, the brain will summarily dismiss any new and contradicting informtion as being irrelevant which doesn't fit into its own model of the world. Ooops!.... sounds an aweful lot like a conspiracy theorist, right?

So how do we know when one has gone too far and is deleting, distorting and generalizing information to an unreasonable degree?

How do we know when a discussion of bitcoins has gone from passive interest, discussion of new ideas, all possible outcomes to complete irrationality with an individual?

This answer is actually very simple.

Certainty.

Certainty, when it comes to beliefs and ones own internal representation of the world is simply the minds way of reinforcing the idea that your own representation of the world is perfectly correct. Certainty is how a brain defends itself from new information which might challenge it's own internal representation of the world.

What is a healthy position? What does a healthy mind do?

Doubt... You doubt what you believe. You question what you believe. You are open to new information and changing your beliefs and conclusions. What does doubt do? Doubt says you are willing to accept new information and are willing to change or expand your own internal representations of the world. Doubt makes room for new information. Certainty, rejects new information.

Have you ever seen a conspiracy theorist expressing doubt in their beliefs? Doubting their conclusions? Willing to accept new information which may challenge their views? Willing to say "oh, i guess 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy"? Willing to accept they are wrong? Generally not. To what extent do they over generalize information? Shifting from specifics to broad and vague concepts "government", "authority" etc etc. Putting the presence or absence of mental disorders and disease aside, that's how you know there is something very off in how they are processing information and that they are clinging to a very distorted internal representation of the world and further distorting information to fit it into that model.

Conspiracy theorists typically are, above all things, 100% certain in their beliefs.

As user Camgirls said on GFY, (paraphrasing) "medications do not help stop the voices in my head, because the voices are real". He's made it clear that he's 100% certain of that fact.

[The Duck]

Can't believe you took the time to write all this on gfy.

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by The Duck

Can't believe you took the time to write all this on gfy.

Try reading it you conspiracy imbecile. It's about people like you. You sick fuck.

[seeandsee]

^^^^^
chicken >
-----()
|||

Conspiracy nuts
Anti-conspiracy nuts

Normal people can't win here!

[EonBlue]

I think you have just more or less described cognitive dissonance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Belief disconfirmation paradigm

Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.

[dyna mo]

so here's the question we should all begin with when we attempt to engage a conspiracist in debate-

Could you be wrong?

ingress or egress the debate accordingly.

[epitome]

Can you make this a YouTube video so they will watch and believe this?

[MaDalton]

i cannot believe that this is the simplified version...

[Si]

It's like a new religion, logic and proof are thrown out the window and replaced with beliefs and speculation.

Just watched a movie on Ancient Aliens debunked, it just shows the way these people think. It was 3 hours long though, so not for everyone

[pimpmaster9000]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

How do we know when a discussion of bitcoins has gone from passive interest, discussion of new ideas, all possible outcomes to complete irrationality with an individual?

This answer is actually very simple.

Certainty.

Certainty, when it comes to beliefs and ones own internal representation of the world is simply the minds way of reinforcing the idea that your own representation of the world is perfectly correct. Certainty is how a brain defends itself from new information which might challenge it's own internal representation of the world.

What is a healthy position? What does a healthy mind do?

Doubt... You doubt what you believe. You question what you believe. You are open to new information and changing your beliefs and conclusions. What does doubt do? Doubt says you are willing to accept new information and are willing to change or expand your own internal representations of the world. Doubt makes room for new information. Certainty, rejects new information.

Have you ever seen a conspiracy theorist expressing doubt in their beliefs? Doubting their conclusions? Willing to accept new information which may challenge their views? Willing to say "oh, i guess 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy"? Willing to accept they are wrong? Generally not. To what extent do they over generalize information? Shifting from specifics to broad and vague concepts "government", "authority" etc etc. Putting the presence or absence of mental disorders and disease aside, that's how you know there is something very off in how they are processing information and that they are clinging to a very distorted internal representation of the world and further distorting information to fit it into that model.

Conspiracy theorists typically are, above all things, 100% certain in their beliefs.

As user Camgirls said on GFY, (paraphrasing) "medications do not help stop the voices in my head, because the voices are real". He's made it clear that he's 100% certain of that fact.

a wonderful post...but the part I quoted above is an easy way out for the conspiracy theorists because they will turn the argument and claim, that people who are certain its not a conspiracy, have distorted perception and should keep an open mind

your post is otherwise 100% spot on and the part I did not quote will get re-written and used in one of my mainstream projects, thanks for wording it in such a concise and to-the-point form for me...

[grumpy]

simple version:

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
Mark Twain

[The Duck]

This message is hidden because Dirty F is on your ignore list.

Sorry man can't see anything you write. Don't remember why I have you ignore but probably for good reason so I will leave it.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by epitome

Can you make this a YouTube video so they will watch and believe this?

Yea, wear one of the anonymous face masks and use a funky computer generated voice. Then they can start a conspiracy as to why the govt is trying to stop them..

[Supz]

That is the simplified version? That looks like the long drawn out version to me. The simplified version would be

'They are mentally unstable and incapable of rational thinking'

[TheFootMan5]

The word "conspiracy theorist" is yet another play on words

Unless the bombs created themselves, then there was in fact a conspiracy involved

[Dirty F]

Originally Posted by The Duck

This message is hidden because Dirty F is on your ignore list.

Sorry man can't see anything you write. Don't remember why I have you ignore but probably for good reason so I will leave it.

Funny, how did you know i was talking to you?

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by TheFootMan5

The word "conspiracy theorist" is yet another play on words

Unless the bombs created themselves, then there was in fact a conspiracy involved

Generalization + distortion. "Conspiracy theorist" which ypu are attwmpting to blur, has a common usage and meaning within the context of this discussion as well as conspiracy discussions.

The "conspiracy" as you well know, refers to government involvement and/or concealment of their involvement in the perpetration of the crime.

But thanks at least for not bringing alien forefathers into the conversation.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by TheFootMan5

The word "conspiracy theorist" is yet another play on words

Unless the bombs created themselves, then there was in fact a conspiracy involved

Yes it's the long politically correct version of "crazy"

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

so here's the question we should all begin with when we attempt to engage a conspiracist in debate-

Could you be wrong?

ingress or egress the debate accordingly.

I don't think it is useful to debate at all with anyone who is 100% certain in their beliefs. The debate itself usually becomes more about each affirming their own beliefs... Which includes the belief that the other side is wrong as much as they need to believe they are right. Generally speaking, you won't have much success convincing a priest there is no God, regardless of how you attempt to go about discussing it.

As the saying goes...
"Never teach a pig to sing. It will waste your time and annoy the pig"

[TheFootMan5]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Generalization + distortion. "Conspiracy theorist" which ypu are attwmpting to blur, has a common usage and meaning within the context of this discussion as well as conspiracy discussions.

The "conspiracy" as you well know, refers to government involvement and/or concealment of their involvement in the perpetration of the crime.

But thanks at least for not bringing alien forefathers into the conversation.

"Government" is just another play on words. There are individuals...and there are a few of them who plot events like this all the time. Not even debatable.

No one knows what happened or who was involved, but to say that high level members or an FBI plot gone wrong isn't on the table as an option, it just being flat out dumb. Only a propagandized moron would think that the FBI "would never do anything like this"...

A real "terrorist" as defined by our lovely government wouldn't go after other lemmings or ordinary persons, they would go after those in leadership positions. Pretty simple

[- Jesus Christ -]

Summary:

Bitcoin fried this motherfuckers brain and hes transposing his emotions by pretending its about "conspiracies".

[TheFootMan5]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

so here's the question we should all begin with when we attempt to engage a conspiracist in debate-

Could you be wrong?

ingress or egress the debate accordingly.

Of course anyone can be wrong

Unless you have inside knowledge, EVERYONE on the outside is just speculating

But when the government has the ADMITTED track record it does of lying to go to war, killing millions, imprisoning millions, then only a true moron would dismiss the idea of criminal elements plotting events like this. It's their MO

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

I don't think it is useful to debate at all with anyone who is 100% certain in their beliefs. The debate itself usually becomes more about each affirming their own beliefs... Which includes the belief that the other side is wrong as much as they need to believe they are right. Generally speaking, you won't have much success convincing a priest there is no God, regardless of how you attempt to go about discussing it.

As the saying goes...
"Never teach a pig to sing. It will waste your time and annoy the pig"

well, i think this is prolly where we differ, i think there is a difference between being certain and the ability to be wrong.

for instance, when i debate, i do it believing the conclusions i am supporting 100%, but if i am faced with clear opposing facts, i must concede, i can only do that if i can admit i am wrong, even though i was just 100% certain.

subtle eh.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Funny, how did you know i was talking to you?

[TheSquealer]

Johnnyclips, you are the perfect example in this discussion. You can retreat from every unreasonable and bizarre position you've ever taken and pretend you've never stated countless bizarre beliefs and attempt to appear reasonable and get an audience with people who all have already judged you insane, but everyone knows who and what you are.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

well, i think this is prolly where we differ, i think there is a difference between being certain and the ability to be wrong.

for instance, when i debate, i do it believing the conclusions i am supporting 100%, but if i am faced with clear opposing facts, i must concede, i can only do that if i can admit i am wrong, even though i was just 100% certain.

subtle eh.

That's not certainty. That's allowing for doubt and change. Maye I'm just articulating myself poorly. Also, not attacking you at all. You're one of the good ones!

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

That's not certainty. That's allowing for doubt and change. Maye I'm just articulating myself poorly. Also, not attacking you at all. You're one of the good ones!

right back at cha!

i'm going to have to go look up certainty and evaluate my standing definition, i guess i've always figured there is wiggle room there. so what is the term to describe certainty that also allows for correction?

[CDSmith]

You know you may be a conspiracy nutjob when:
A) you find yourself often passing off your opinion as fact.
B) seeing the facts others throw at you as opinions.
C) confusing fantasy with reality.
D) disbelieving or otherwise challenging the authenticity or accuracy of virtually anything and everything anyone tells you, or reports to you via the news media.

Of course, just as jerks don't know they're jerks, paranoid conspiracy types often don't have the self-awareness to realize they're exhibiting such symptoms. They are simply certain and utterly, hopelessly convinced they are 100% right.

In other words no, you can't win an argument with someone that deluded.

[TheSquealer]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

right back at cha!

i'm going to have to go look up certainty and evaluate my standing definition, i guess i've always figured there is wiggle room there. so what is the term to describe certainty that also allows for correction?

Well, lets step back. Forget about "you" and look at it within the context of those claiming 9/11 being a government conspiracy. Any doubt there? Anyone retreating frothier stance that it was all a false flag operation? Anyone saying "yeah, you're right... I guess it was hijackers". That's the certainty I'm referring to. Not that one can't ultimately change ones view but when one is responding to anything and everything as well as rejecting it with unwavering certainty no matter what the evidence used in a specific point or argument says.

[TheFootMan5]

Originally Posted by CDSmith

You know you may be a conspiracy nutjob when:
A) you find yourself often passing off your opinion as fact.
B) seeing the facts others throw at you as opinions.
C) confusing fantasy with reality.
D) disbelieving or otherwise challenging the authenticity or accuracy of virtually anything and everything anyone tells you, or reports to you via the news media.

Of course, just as jerks don't know they're jerks, paranoid conspiracy types often don't have the self-awareness to realize they're exhibiting such symptoms. They are simply certain and utterly, hopelessly convinced they are 100% right.

In other words no, you can't win an argument with someone that deluded.

I agree, Dirty F thinks the FBI/CIA/government doesn't kill people or create their own plots and get patsies...and then refuses to admit it when its happened and been reported hundreds of times....unreal

[helterskelter808]

You will never convince a conspiracy theorist they are wrong in their conclusions. It's just not going to happen. Here's why....

I don't have time to read why; is it the same reason why you'll never convince a "non-conspiracy theorist" they are wrong?

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Try reading it you conspiracy imbecile. It's about people like you. You sick fuck.

Quote: "How do we know when a discussion of bitcoins has gone from passive interest, discussion of new ideas, all possible outcomes to complete irrationality with an individual?"

Sure, dude. It's about him.

[scottybuzz]

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Try reading it you conspiracy imbecile. It's about people like you. You sick fuck.

here theduck

i quote for you

[scottybuzz]

nothing wrong at all with conspiracy theorists.

Its when they present their theories as facts which pisses me off.

these retards don't understand the concept of the word "theory".

richard & wehatelife.... again, take note.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by scottybuzz

nothing wrong at all with conspiracy theorists.

Its when they present their theories as facts which pisses me off.

these retards don't understand the concept of the word "theory".

richard & wehatelife.... again, take note.

you got proof there champ?

id hate for people to think i take wild theory and present it as solid proof

that could hurt my business

[Rochard]

With any "large event" it's simple to poke holes in it. All you need to do is place doubt, and the rest is easy. But of course the obvious is too easy to accept.

[Vapid - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Rochard you are the most gullible person on the internet.

[WarChild]

Why are conspiracy theorists always such abject failures in life like Johnny and wehateporn? I wonder if there's some connection between failure and complete disconnection from reality?

Shit, Johnny's not even smart enough to be consistent in his OWN posts on the SAME day.

Originally Posted by TheFootMan5

Exactly, and strangely enough people simply just ignore this. This is what is ADMITTED by the government...now imagine what they actually do that they never tell the public

And yet when you bring up the possibility that it COULD have been an FBI plot gone live, the propaganda kicks in in their head and they flip out. ...

Originally Posted by TheFootMan5

It will be blamed on a homegrown person, but was most likely an FBI plot

Originally Posted by TheFootMan5

Of course anyone can be wrong

Unless you have inside knowledge, EVERYONE on the outside is just speculating

But when the government has the ADMITTED track record it does of lying to go to war, killing millions, imprisoning millions, then only a true moron would dismiss the idea of criminal elements plotting events like this. It's their MO

You might want to start keeping notes as to what you think or don't think as you seem to lose track of it very quickly.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you got proof there champ?

id hate for people to think i take wild theory and present it as solid proof

that could hurt my business

The only one that's hurting your business is you, chump.

[TheFootMan5]

The term "conspiracy theorist" means absolutely nothing to someone who is not propagandized like most of the population. Just like calling someone an "extremist" makes absolutely no sense nor does it have any weight.

People who use these terms are usually propagandized in some way and are not after the truth

[TheFootMan5]

So the mainstream media and government constantly lies, have conflicting reports, etc and then they'll all agree on one narrative in a day or two and any one who doesn't agree with it is labeled a "conspiracy theory"

Where's the logic in that?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by WarChild

The only one that's hurting your business is you, chump.

please. attempt. proper. grammar. when. insulting. people.

[WarChild]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

please. attempt. proper. grammar. when. insulting. people.

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you got proof there champ?

id hate for people to think i take wild theory and present it as solid proof

that could hurt my business

Yes, you're obviously quite the stickler for these types of things.

Just for fun, why don't you go ahead and let us know what you think was wrong with that sentence?

[georgeyw]

Holy fuck, you typed all of that for conspiracy theorists?

Who exactly is nuts?

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by WarChild

Yes, you're obviously quite the stickler for these types of things.

Just for fun, why don't you go ahead and let us know what you think was wrong with that sentence?

you.. have no idea do you

[TheFootMan5]

Define "conspiracy theorists", because if you believe, and that's all it is is a BELIEF that 19 radical muslims hijacked those planes and took down 3 buildings with two planes, then clearly you believe in a CONSPIRACY, no?

[lazycash]

Originally Posted by TheFootMan5

Define "conspiracy theorists", because if you believe, and that's all it is is a BELIEF that 19 radical muslims hijacked those planes and took down 3 buildings with two planes, then clearly you believe in a CONSPIRACY, no?

No Johnny.

[TheFootMan5]

It's amazing to see propaganda and mind control at work

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you.. have no idea do you

that's < who's

[Sly]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

You... have no idea, do you?

Thought I would help you out? being the friendly American that I am!

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by Sly

Thought I would help you out? being the friendly American that I am!

am i trying to insult anyone?

would i need to watch my grammar if i wasn't?

helpful canadians