# How to talk to believers of COVID-19 conspiracy theories



## Nathan (May 1, 2021)

Conspiracy theories abound these days, some people are attracted to embracing such stories, and indeed it can be challenging to verify *facts*. 

Just to clarify:

```
fact
/fakt/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts

    a thing that is known or proved to be true.
```

Conspiracy theories about COVID-19 are causing real-world problems by discouraging some people from getting vaccinated, wearing masks or following other guidelines. Some bizarre theories about the virus have prompted believers to burn 5G cell towers, shut down vaccination clinics or even ingest poisons touted as cures.

Experts on misinformation and psychology interviewed by The Associated Press offer several tips for individuals wondering how to talk to friends or family who believe conspiracy theories about COVID-19. Here’s what they suggest:

LISTEN, DON’T PREACH: Believers in conspiracy theories aren’t likely to be swayed by people who mock their views. Instead of lecturing, listen and ask questions about how they became interested in the conspiracy theory, where they get their information, and whether they’ve considered other explanations. Whenever possible, have the conversation offline.

STAY CALM: Arguing with someone about conspiracy theories is likely to result only in higher blood pressure. Remember that some people won’t change their mind no matter what you say, and arguing over the proven benefits of mask wearing or vaccines isn’t likely to convince them.

BE WARY OF CONTENT THAT PLAYS ON EMOTIONS: Misinformation and conspiracy theories often exploit anger, fear or other emotions. Be cautious of content that features strongly emotional language, or that seems intended to make you outraged. If you read something that really gets you fired up, wait until your emotions have cooled before reposting or sending to friends.

As for increasing your own defenses against conspiracy theories and misinformation about the virus (or any other topic), experts suggest the following:

EXPAND YOUR MEDIA DIET: Checking a variety of news sources — including some mainstream local, national and international outlets — is the best way of staying informed and avoiding rabbit holes of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Don’t rely solely on social media for your news.

CHECK SOURCES: Look to see who wrote the content, and who is quoted in it. Are they named? Do they have a position, or experience, that lends credibility to their claims? Are other viewpoints expressed in the article? Be wary of claims made by “insiders,” anonymous internet posters or anyone citing hearsay as fact. Also, check the dates: Misinformation peddlers often post old photos or news stories and claim they’re new.

VERIFY EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS: If you read something that makes an incredible claim — one that seems too good, too awful or too weird to be true — check to see if it’s being reported elsewhere. If it’s an important story, other outlets will confirm the details. Be cautious of explosive claims if they’re only being made on one website or by one social media user.    apnews


----------



## Irwin (May 1, 2021)

People in this forum have posted crazy conspiracy theories as "facts." I prefer not to have any interaction with them, whatsoever. The same goes for real life. I have a neighbor that believes the crap propagated on cable "news." I hate to be rude, but he's annoying as hell, and I've gotten to the point where I just walk away rather than try to be "nice."


----------



## MarciKS (May 2, 2021)

I think some of them argue just to be arguing about something. It's a waste of time and energy entertaining the discussions anymore.


----------



## Keesha (May 2, 2021)

I allow people to believe what they want. It’s not my responsibility to change their minds.


----------



## Buckeye (May 2, 2021)

I just attribute it to the Dunning-Kruger effect


----------



## Warrigal (May 2, 2021)

There is little to be gained by engaging in dialogue with a conspiracy theorist or a fundamentalist. When the person is a conspiracy theorist AND a fundamentalist there is nothing at all to be gained in either direction.


----------



## StarSong (May 2, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> I just attribute it to the Dunning-Kruger effect


For all of us who don't know what this is, here's a Wikipedia snapshot explanation:
The *Dunning–Kruger effect* is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

Exactly who is the judge as to what is or isn't a conspiracy theory and who or who isn't a conspiracy theorist?  Is is something or somebody that is different from what you think?  Is the main stream media the judge (e.g. average who says what the most)?  Some folks here are a little quick to label others who post things that disagree with their "supposedly mainstream" thought.  Such behavior is judgemental and not open minded. Instead of crying CONSPIRACY and feeling smug, how about digging a little deeper into the issue and respecting others view points.


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

StarSong said:


> For all of us who don't know what this is, here's a Wikipedia snapshot explanation:
> The *Dunning–Kruger effect* is a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability.


Is referencing Wikipedia the basis of your psychology degree.  How long have you been practicing such you are qualified to diagnose that in others?


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> There is little to be gained by engaging in dialogue with a conspiracy theorist or a fundamentalist. When the person is a conspiracy theorist AND a fundamentalist there is nothing at all to be gained in either direction.


So, do you generally advise not talking to people who don't follow your line of thinking?   Just asking.


----------



## Warrigal (May 2, 2021)

Not at all. I love talking to people who do not think as I do. That is why I engage on forums like this one. However past experience has taught me that there are a few topics where fixed positions leave no common middle ground where fruitful interaction can occur. So I back off.


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Conspiracy theories abound these days, some people are attracted to embracing such stories, and indeed it can be challenging to verify *facts*.
> 
> Just to clarify:
> 
> ...


Well, there could be a problem with that bit of advice.  Sometimes conspiracy theories turn out to be true.  Here's one SOURCE that says that's happened.


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Not at all. I love talking to people who do not think as I do. That is why I engage on forums like this one. However past experience has taught me that there are a few topics where fixed positions leave no common middle ground where fruitful interaction can occur. So I back off.


Perhaps there's common ground in just respecting their position and not having to attack what they say, put them down or cry "conspiracy".


----------



## StarSong (May 2, 2021)

MarciKS said:


> I think some of them argue just to be arguing about something. It's a waste of time and energy entertaining the discussions anymore.


Agreed.  I'm starting to ignore them.  Haven't yet put them on _ignore,_ but I'm becoming less interested in engaging with them.


----------



## MarciKS (May 2, 2021)

StarSong said:


> Agreed.  I'm starting to ignore them.  Haven't yet put them on _ignore,_ but I'm becoming less interested in engaging with them.


There's just no point in engaging.


----------



## squatting dog (May 2, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Exactly who is the judge as to what is or isn't a conspiracy theory and who or who isn't a conspiracy theorist?  Is is something or somebody that is different from what you think?  Is the main stream media the judge (e.g. average who says what the most)?  Some folks here are a little quick to label others who post things that disagree with their "supposedly mainstream" thought.  Such behavior is judgemental and not open minded. Instead of crying CONSPIRACY and feeling smug, how about digging a little deeper into the issue and respecting others view points.


Yo Jon. Looks like you beat me to it.     
Exactly... How about some conspiracy theories that turned out to be correct. Some of these I myself have been chastised for wearing a tin-foil hat a little too tight.   
I particularly enjoyed the Canadian "Gaydar" machine.

Conspiracy: The CIA was testing LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs on Americans in a top-secret experiment on behavior modification.

The truth: The program was known as MK-ULTRA, and it was real. The CIA started by using volunteers; the novelist Ken Kesey was one notable subject. But the program heads soon began dosing people without their knowledge; MK-ULTRA left many victims permanently
mentally disabled

Conspiracy: With the advances in technology, the government is using its vast resources to track citizens.

The truth: In 2016, government agencies sent 49,868 requests for user data to Facebook, 27,850 to Google, and 9,076 to Apple, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (the EFF), a major nonprofit organization that defends civil liberties in the digital
world and advises the public on matters of internet privacy.

Conspiracy: For decades, tobacco companies buried evidence that smoking is deadly.

The truth: At the beginning of the 1950s, research was showing an indisputable statistical link between smoking and lung cancer, but it wasn’t until the late 1990s that Philip Morris,the nation’s largest cigarette maker at the time, even admitted that smoking could cause
cancer.

Conspiracy: The Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 2, 1964, was faked to provoke American support for the Vietnam War.

The truth: By the time news reached American ears, the facts surrounding the North Vietnamese attack on the American Naval ship Maddox were already fuzzy. Declassified intelligence documents have since revealed that the Maddox had provided support for
South Vietnamese attacks on a nearby island and that the North Vietnamese were responding in kind, according to the U.S. Naval Institute

Conspiracy: The Canada government was so paranoid about homosexuality that it developed a “gaydar” machine.

The truth: It really happened: In the 1960s, the government hired a university professor to develop a way to detect homosexuality in federal employees. He came up with a machine that measured pupil dilation in response to same-sex-erotic imagery; the Canadian
government used it to exclude or fire more than 400 men from civil service, the military, and the Mounties.


----------



## Warrigal (May 2, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Perhaps there's common ground in just respecting their position and not having to attack what they say, put them down or cry "conspiracy".


You keep trying to put words in my mouth. My position is to respect their point of view without endorsing it and I choose not to attack because that is the very definition of engaging.

That is not to say that I do not make my own position known on a forum such as this but I would hope that I don't attack people because they think differently. Over my life time I have changed my thinking on a number of issues many times. I like to call that growth.

My position on conspiracy theories (take the faking of the lunar landings as an example) is that too many people would have to be conspiring to deceive many millions for some nefarious reason. A conspiracy only works when the number of conspirators is small and all of them are sworn to silence. Conspiracies of silence designed to cover up embarrassing or criminal behaviour are very real.


----------



## StarSong (May 2, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> My position on conspiracy theories (take the faking of the lunar landings as an example) is that too many people would have to be conspiring to deceive many millions for some nefarious reason. A conspiracy only works when the number of conspirators is small and all of them are sworn to silence. Conspiracies of silence designed to cover up embarrassing or criminal behaviour are very real.


Exactly.


----------



## Sunny (May 2, 2021)

Nathan, the advice in your post (and Paco's) is good common sense, when talking with conspiracy theorists who are just shooting their mouths off.  But I wonder if all of these theories should be ignored. What about the ones making paranoid accusations against particular racial or ethnic groups?  Isn't that one method they use to stir up trouble?

Example: "The coronavirus was developed in a lab by (name your group), and then deliberately spread. They want to kill people, and developed the perfect weapon. This is known to be a fact, and anyone denying it is part of the conspiracy."

Down through history, conspiracy theories have been used to incite hatred. It isn't always enough to just change the subject.


----------



## Sunny (May 2, 2021)

P.S. One argument I have frequently used on these forums (probably without changing anyone's mind) is:  If so-and-so were really true, wouldn't it be all over the airwaves, the news headlines, the Internet, etc.?  How come only you and the "chosen few" know about it?


----------



## Buckeye (May 2, 2021)

Here's an interesting read about the psychological side of folks who believe in conspiracy theories.

Belief in Conspiracy Theories


----------



## SetWave (May 2, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> I just attribute it to the Dunning-Kruger effect


So true.


----------



## 911 (May 2, 2021)

After what I went through, I try to convince any anti-vaccer to get the shots.


----------



## Mr. Ed (May 2, 2021)

*I don't engage in debate of controversial subjects. Frankly I don't care what people think about silly rhetoric as usual there are no clear answers on either side but people like to make point converting others to think as they do. More or less an egotistical power trip. When it is all said and done Who Cares? *


----------



## Nathan (May 2, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Perhaps there's common ground in just respecting their position and not having to attack what they say, put them down or cry "conspiracy".


@JonDouglas , you seem to be an intelligent, educated person, you also seem to like "stirring the pot" with posts containing controversial(your words) material.   So...be happy with and enjoy the reaction that you asked for.


----------



## PamfromTx (May 2, 2021)

Nathan said:


> Conspiracy theories abound these days, some people are attracted to embracing such stories, and indeed it can be challenging to verify *facts*.
> 
> Just to clarify:
> 
> ...


Spot on with your post, @Nathan And one more thing, if I had wanted to debate, I would have joined a _*debate forum.*_  Enough said.


----------



## Aunt Marg (May 2, 2021)




----------



## digifoss (May 2, 2021)

Some of the things posted in this thread are pretty far out and remind me of an episode of a weekly medical TV series I saw earlier this year.  In the show, a woman, probably in her 50's was in the hospital with Wuhan Covid-19, and she was in real bad shape,  dying actually,  running fever, having difficulty breathing, she had all of the more common and worst sysmptoms of the sickness.  She was on a ventilator and the nursing staff would only enter her room with a full rubber suit and self-contained breathing air.  Yet this poor dying woman, anytime she was able to speak, her only words, while she was desperately gasping for air,  would always be something to the effect of, _*"covid isn't real, it's all fake, it doesn't exist, there is no such disease, it's all a government conspiracy to control people, this is all a government hoax"*_ etc... The airing of this episode was nothing more than a flagrant attempt by hollywood to associate everyone who doesn't like wearing a mask, or didn't get the vaccine, no matter the reason, with the woman in this show; to portray each and every one as some kind of right-wing whacko conspiracy theorist out of touch with reality. Their message was;  Not getting the Wuhan-covid vaccine = you believe the virus doesn't exist.


----------



## IrisSenior (May 2, 2021)

While I would admit that these kind of posts do illicit some response and if you have nothing to do and no where to go...well...it could be entertaining.


----------



## Nathan (May 2, 2021)

digifoss said:


> The airing of this episode was nothing more than a flagrant attempt by hollywood to associate everyone who doesn't like wearing a mask, or didn't get the vaccine, no matter the reason, with the woman in this show; to portray each and every one as some kind of right-wing whacko conspiracy theorist out of touch with reality. Their message was;  Not getting the Wuhan-covid vaccine = you believe the virus doesn't exist.


Sort of a public service announcement  delivered in a fictional account.


----------



## digifoss (May 2, 2021)

Nathan said:


> ...  fictional ...


and misleading....


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

Nathan said:


> @JonDouglas , you seem to be an intelligent, educated person, you also seem to like "stirring the pot" with posts containing controversial(your words) material.   So...be happy with and enjoy the reaction that you asked for.


I ask questions and am not afraid of controversy like some here.  Those that went off on Attkinsson must be a little mystified to find out she has company in her questions about the source of covid, namely the current administration, the former head of MI6 and others.  It would seem she isn't the one who is "slanted".  I knew Attkinsson wasn't the only person investigating the Wuhan Lab theory but posted her first to see who would holler foul.  Well, I found out.  Thank you.


----------



## Sunny (May 2, 2021)

> Their message was;  Not getting the Wuhan-covid vaccine = you believe the virus doesn't exist.


That may sound insane now digifoss, but many of the same people who are refusing to get the vaccine did deny a year ago that the virus was real, or that the disease was serious.  Not all, of course, and there are all sorts of reasons that people have for not getting the vaccine. (But those of us who did get it have an enormous sense of relief!)

There were not really all sorts of reasons for believing that the virus was not serious. People believed it because that's what they were told. At least, that bit of nonsense has mainly gone away. The death figures do not lie.

BTW, there is no such disease as Wuhan-covid, and no vaccine by that name. That's rabble-rousing politics once again. How about just calling the disease covid, or covid-19?  Maybe then we could have a serious discussion about it.


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

Sunny said:


> That may sound insane now digifoss, but many of the same people who are refusing to get the vaccine did deny a year ago that the virus was real, or that the disease was serious.  Not all, of course, and there are all sorts of reasons that people have for not getting the vaccine. (But those of us who did get it have an enormous sense of relief!)
> 
> There were not really all sorts of reasons for believing that the virus was not serious. People believed it because that's what they were told. At least, that bit of nonsense has mainly gone away. The death figures do not lie.
> 
> BTW, there is no such disease as Wuhan-covid, and no vaccine by that name. That's rabble-rousing politics once again. How about just calling the disease covid, or covid-19?  Maybe then we could have a serious discussion about it.


If I recall correctly, covid-19 isn't serious for most people but can be extraordinarly serious for the compromised and elderly.  Separating media sensationalism from reality, as hard as it can be sometimes, adds perspective.  Most of the people I know who've had the vaccine, including me, do not have an enormous sense of relief, mostly because we weren't all that anxious to begin with.


----------



## Mr. Ed (May 2, 2021)

All the evidence of a great post, contrary responses, anger, human emotions and continued discourse.


----------



## Nathan (May 2, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I ask questions and am not afraid of controversy like some here.  Those that went off on Attkinsson must be a little mystified to find out she has company in her questions about the source of covid, namely the current administration, the former head of MI6 and others.*  It would seem she isn't the one who is "slanted"*.  I knew Attkinsson wasn't the only person investigating the Wuhan Lab theory but posted her first to see who would holler foul.  Well, I found out.  Thank you.


The fact that Attkinsson's slanted reporting wasn't the issue with me, the main concern was your attempt to present such material as factual.



JonDouglas said:


> I knew Attkinsson wasn't the only person investigating the Wuhan Lab theory but posted her first to see who would holler foul.  Well, I found out.  Thank you.


How clever, apparently in your mind you thought you had set some kind of trap, that's amusing. 

By the way- your welcome.


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

Nathan said:


> The fact that Attkinsson's slanted reporting wasn't the issue with me, the main concern was your attempt to present such material as factual.
> 
> 
> How clever, apparently in your mind you thought you had set some kind of trap, that's amusing.
> ...


No intended trap. Attkinson was first on my list, simply because she seemed the most dogged.  Post responses are revealing.  If nobody had gotten their political panties in a wad, we'd probably be having a different conversation.

Added Note:  As a matter of course, I see who gets upset at things I post.


----------



## Irwin (May 2, 2021)

I love a good debate and have changed my mind on some topics in the past when I saw someone else's point of view or some verifiable facts that I was unaware of.

The problem with most conspiracy theorists, though, is they have their own set of "facts" that have no grounding in reality.


----------



## JonDouglas (May 2, 2021)

Irwin said:


> I love a good debate and have changed my mind on some topics in the past when I saw someone else's point of view or some verifiable facts that I was unaware of.
> 
> The problem with most conspiracy theorists, though, is they have their own set of "facts" that have no grounding in reality.


That, of course, begs the question as to what's real, what isn't and who is the judge of what is or isn't.  Can you tell us your answer to that?


----------



## Judycat (May 2, 2021)

I don't want to talk to them.


----------



## Nathan (May 3, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> No intended trap. Attkinson was first on my list, simply because she seemed the most dogged.  Post responses are revealing.  If nobody had gotten their political panties in a wad, we'd probably be having a different conversation.
> 
> Added Note:  As a matter of course, I see who gets upset at things I post.


I had never heard of Attkinson, but I must say the video was long on allegations and short on facts.   While that type of journalism appeals to the uninformed and gullible, there are those of us who demand a bit more substance.

In case you've forgotten which thread you've posted in, it's the "How to talk to believers of COVID-19 conspiracy theories"...which I posted as a necessary measure in dealing with authors such as yourself.  
As you mention- "Post responses are revealing"....it doesn't take a crystal ball jockey to see the motivation behind posts of a controversial nature.


----------



## Nathan (May 4, 2021)

Irwin said:


> People in this forum have posted crazy conspiracy theories as "facts." I prefer not to have any interaction with them, whatsoever. The same goes for real life. I have a neighbor that believes the crap propagated on cable "news." I hate to be rude, but he's annoying as hell, and I've gotten to the point where I just walk away rather than try to be "nice."


Agreed, the desire to set the record straight tends to get smothered in the process of attempting to cut through the intricate web of FAKE reality that such conspiracy addicts have cloaked their brain cells with.    Walking away is just easier on the blood pressure....


----------

