How do we respond to irrational people?

[EGarrett]

You know... I feel sorry for people who are embarrassed when their silly beliefs are exposed by people like Richard Dawkins. Does anyone have any ideas of how we can better console them, and help them get through the trying time known as "growing up"?

Seriously, it is just sad how adults can be so gullible and foolish, and how difficult it is for them to come to terms with their mistakes. They start by attacking the messenger, of course. How do we get them to move past that, and into a space where they understand that they can admit their mistakes? Heck, we'll be proud of them if they joined the ranks of the rational... how can we help them get there?I've had this question on my mind also. If people don't respond to reason, you might want to try honeycoating the reason with positive statements etc.

However, if that doesn't work...there is nothing else you can do. The only proper response to irrationality is to leave them be...then outwit, outproduce, and outlast them. Once they're staring in the face of your blatantly superior achievement...they'll have to listen to you or perish, either by their own ineptitude or your own greater might. But even then the spell may not break, and all you can do is let them chant their BS right into the grave. I know this seems cold, but that's the way it's always been when it comes to irrational people against scientific and progressive people.

The Mongols didn't spread meritocracy by just telling people it was a good idea...they used it to create a superior army and overwhelm the inefficient monarchies around them.

Democracy is not defeating communism by outdebating it...we're simply waiting and prospering and letting communism destroy the economy and quality of life of every country that tries it...until they fold under the weight of their own poor decision-making.

And so on and so forth.

[JoeEllison]

We're not allowed to kick them in the head. Evidence can't seem to get through to them. Appeals to emotion don't seem to really work either. Sugar-coating it seems to give them the impression that it is acceptable to pick and choose what you want to believe based on emotion and nothing else.

I think this is what people mean when they call religion a form of "child abuse": it makes children grow up believing instead of thinking, and often closes their minds to the idea that when reality and belief collide, it is preferable to accept reality.

[athon]

'Responding' to irrational folk should be different to attempting to change their view. Take our most recent troll for instance, plumjam. He, like many irrational people, lacks an understanding of how scientific discourse functions on a basic level. He starts with an assumption that science enters a discussion at a late stage and does so with a closed mind. He has trouble differentiating science from those who practice it, has a semi-formed understanding of the logic which goes into the scientific process and starts with a belief that something is true and needs to be disproven rather than something being unestablished. They also feel that phenomena explained through human misperception comes last, and therefore any evidence - no matter how weak - will suffice in establishing some other cause before it. Lastly, such irrationals have a poor evidence weighting structure, lending undue weight to anecdotal and poorly examined evidence.

These things cannot be undone and redressed in simple responses, especially as this way of thinking has been cemented over years of isolated reinforcement by those who share their thinking.

So what does one do if one can't demonstrate to them that their thinking is fundamentally flawed? You don't. You demonstrate to those who are evaluating their irrationality why it is flawed. For every irrational there are several fence sitters who sense that such thinking is irrational but can't see the details. It's a case of both the rational and irrational thinker placing all the cards on the table dispassionately and showing why your argument is stronger.

Arguing with a woo in a closed room without an undecided audience is akin to the whole teaching a pig to sing concept. Using the pig as a tool to show others why pigs can't sing is much more useful.

Athon

[Big Les]

"If it bleeds, we can kill it". No, wait, that's lethal alien hunters.

Athon has it - you have to simply make an example of them, let them demonstrate how entrenched and belief-based their position is. Hoist them by their own petard. One day, they might look back on their own behaviour and think "nuts, I was wrong". But you can't make that happen for them, not by ridicule, not by subtle wit, and certainly not by gentle persuasion.

[baron]

Sometimes it's best to give up. On Thursday in the pub a colleague of mine asked me if I believed aliens had ever visited earth. I said no, I didn't. The conversation continued something like this ~

HIM: Why not?
ME: There's no evidence.
HIM: That doesn't mean they didn't.
ME: No, it means I have no reason to believe they did.
HIM: [pause] But they might have done.
ME: Yes.
HIM: So why don't you think they did?
ME: [deep breath] Because there's no evidence to indicate it.
HIM: Yes, but the government has evidence.
ME: How do you know?
HIM: Because it's them that hid the evidence from us.
ME: What evidence?
HIM: Evidence of the aliens.
ME: What aliens?
HIM: The aliens who've visited earth, thousands of years ago.
ME: I thought we've just said there's no evidence of aliens.
HIM: [another pause] That's because the government has covered it up.
ME: Do you have any evidence of a government cover-up?
HIM: No, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened...

... and so it went on

No amount of invisible dragons or teapots convinced him, and in the end I just gave up.

[Big Les]

Can't say I blame you there, good grief. Reminds me of this:

[Jesse and Chester have tattoos on their backs that say "dude" and "sweet."]
Jesse: Dude! You got a tattoo!
Chester: So do you, dude! Dude, what does my tattoo say?
Jesse: "Sweet!" What about mine?
Chester: "Dude!" What does mine say?
Jesse: "Sweet!" What about mine?
Chester: "Dude!" What does mine say?
Jesse: "Sweet!" What about mine?
Chester: "Dude!" What does mine say?
Jesse: "Sweet!" What about mine?
Chester: "Dude!" What does mine say?
Jesse: "Sweet!" What about mine?
Chester: "Dude!" What does mine say?
Jesse: "Sweet!" What about mine?
[later]
Chester: [angry] "Dude!" What does mine say?
Jesse: [screaming] "Sweet!"

[Civilized Worm]

I tend to respond with with despair, frustration and hitting my head on the nearest hard surface.

[Reed]

Sometimes it's best to give up. On Thursday in the pub a colleague of mine asked me if I believed aliens had ever visited earth. I said no, I didn't. The conversation continued something like this ~

HIM: Why not?
ME: There's no evidence.
HIM: That doesn't mean they didn't.
ME: No, it means I have no reason to believe they did.
HIM: [pause] But they might have done.

I like Richard Feynman's take on the problem:

I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that’s true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it’s possible or not but whether it’s going on or not.

So instead demonstrate that 'possibility' is a silly justification for belief. Find a topic about which the irrational person is dogmatic and turn the tables.

For example, if the person is an evangelical ask "Isn't it possible that Jesus went to Japan after faking his death?" After each objection they offer, respond with 'but isn't it possible?' Eventually they should get the point.

[TjW]

But don't count on it.

[EGarrett]

I like Richard Feynman's take on the problem:

I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that’s true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it’s possible or not but whether it’s going on or not.

So instead demonstrate that 'possibility' is a silly justification for belief. Find a topic about which the irrational person is dogmatic and turn the tables.

For example, if the person is an evangelical ask "Isn't it possible that Jesus went to Japan after faking his death?" After each objection they offer, respond with 'but isn't it possible?' Eventually they should get the point.Yup. They confuse possibility with probability. Another classic fallacy.

[T'ai Chi]

Contrast Tyson's approach (superior) with Dawkins'.

[Civilized Worm]

We get the point Tai.


Edit: Are you agreeing that religious people are irrational?

[Reed]

But don't count on it.

Agreed. These things are never certain.

As mentioned by other posters above, this is at best at incremental process where years might be required to help the woo-laden person overcome his or her poor thinking skills.

The aforementioned approaches of ignoring, crushing, outlasting or ridiculing that person are of course options. However, don't they strike you as just a bit elitist and cynical?

Can't we do better?

[Slimething]

I think the best you can do is to plant the seed of doubt. A life of belief engrains the mind to accept bull and that doesn't stop merely because a skeptic talks sense to it. However, if you make it queston itself, it will soon start doubting its assumptions. In a fertile mind, the seed will germinate but it won't in the fallow mind.

In many cases, I've had woos come to me after the penny has dropped and thanked me for being so patient with them. It's a good feeling to know that you've prepared someone to deal with a world full of charlatans waiting to take advantage of them.

[rustytunes]

I have been slowly working on my very woo ex-wife, giving her my thoughts on CAMs, reiki, astrology etc, whenever it comes up in conversation, taking it one step at a time. I show her articles from science publications, point her toward relevent websites, especially when it comes to her always wanting to give the kids vitamin supplements etc, or take them to a naturopath. I'm not cynical and I always respect her beliefs.

Yesterday she said that she has a book she wants me to read, "What The Bleep Do We Know?" So I guess I'm never going to win. I told her I would read her book provided she reads one of mine, and I gave her a copy of "Unweaving The Rainbow", by Richard Dawkins. At least she may now understand the difference ebetween science and pseudoscience...

[EGarrett]

Agreed. These things are never certain.

As mentioned by other posters above, this is at best at incremental process where years might be required to help the woo-laden person overcome his or her poor thinking skills.Interesting. I can't think of many people, if any, who were "argued into" their atheism. Everyone I know of read and compared the various ideas, then the 'seed' grew in their own head.

I believe that you can only tell the person why they're wrong, and if it doesn't "click" with them after maybe two tries (you either grasp that a logical fallacy is plainly idiotic and wrong or you don't)...they have an inept, hopelessly screwed up or otherwise fallow brain that isn't worth the time.

The aforementioned approaches of ignoring, crushing, outlasting or ridiculing that person are of course options. However, don't they strike you as just a bit elitist and cynical?

Can't we do better?I don't believe it's cynical, because I don't think you can reach some people. The human mind is capable of creating all kinds of illogical workarounds in order to believe what it wants to believe...including purposefully complicating an issue to the point that it loses track of the whole thing and thus can fall back on what it wants to be true.

I've found that the logical mind is always competing with wishful thinking and preprogrammed instinct to dictate what the person does and decides. In some people, the logical mind (i.e. the intelligence) just isn't strong enough to overcome that, and the wishful thinking and animal instinct force the logical mind to give way.

Examples: Two ends of the spectrum. The child or retarded person, who of course are extremely emotional, crying all the time etc., versus many extremely intelligent people who are described as cold, detached or computer-like.

[Mpmagi]

Just explain to them what about them is irrational. Sooner or later (much) they will realize they were mistake and go "Hey MPmagi was right....". Other than holding a gun to their heads there isn't any other way.

[articulett]

I like mockery. For the ones who come here, I mean.

[Dan O.]

Could we help them by helping to create an outline of their argument?

Arguing in a forum is much like arguing in a conversation. The argument can duck the details where the real difficulty lies and just keeps skipping around on the surface (often in circles) making no progress. If instead, the argument is put in an outline, the weakest links are exposed and can be attacked. If these links are critical to the argument and cannot be defended the argument will fail. Maybe not in the eyes of an irrational believer, but the goal is to defeat the argument not the arguer.

If the argument is preserved in a tree structure that can be updated at any time, it won't be necessary to reargue the same points over and over. Only when stronger evidence is brought in to reinforce a point or the argument is revised to avoid a broken link would you need to revisit that point and construct new counter arguments and evidence.

[articulett]

You presume they have an outline. Their tactic is more like the defense lawyer of a guilty client--cast doubts and aspersions upon others--

search this forum for woo "flowchart" and you will see what we mean. They move the goal posts as they go and fling out one nonsensical claim after another so you are so busy addressing and refuting those tangential claims that you lose the point. When woo speaks-- you feel like you understand them and everything else, less than ever.

Talk Origins has such points... so does skepticwiki... and the skeptdics dictionary... and climate.org (?) The arguments are all addressed--but I would start by asking them what would make them change their mind...if they answer obliquely or don't answer-- you've got a faith based claim. And tell them exactly what kind of evidence would make you change your mind... even if you know such evidence doesn't exist.

But beliefs that arise via faith and feelings-- don't change with logic. Asking questions can be fun however. But then they return the volley with loaded stupid questions for which there is no good answer but one designed to allow for inferences on their part and goal post moving.

And if you can't talk to them--then you can talk about them...(here) ...at least let others share your pain and have a giggle.

[Dan O.]

You presume they have an outline. Their tactic is more like the defense lawyer of a guilty client--cast doubts and aspersions upon others--

I'm just saying, if you are going through the bother to argue with them, put the argument into a permanent growing document. Don't let them run away when they are getting beat just to come back and start over.

They move the goal posts as they go and fling out one nonsensical claim after another so you are so busy addressing and refuting those tangential claims that you lose the point. When woo speaks-- you feel like you understand them and everything else, less than ever.

If they make a claim are you going to let that claim stand unrefuted where the general public might pick it up and accept it? It won't be a never ending task. Once the source has developed a track record for making bogus claims you can let that record speak for itself. But you can't just assume that everybody will know that record. It needs to be documented somewhere that you can easily point to with the facts to back up the claim for anyone that wants to verify it.

Talk Origins has such points... so does skepticwiki... and the skeptdics dictionary... and climate.org (?) The arguments are all addressed--but I would start by asking them what would make them change their mind...if they answer obliquely or don't answer-- you've got a faith based claim. And tell them exactly what kind of evidence would make you change your mind... even if you know such evidence doesn't exist.

For some, it may not be a matter of changing their mind but drying up the well they hope to tap with their videos and books. Create a resource where all questions can be addressed and answers can grow as new evidence is gathered. I've only briefly looked at those other sites so can't really comment about them. I had hopes that skepticwiki would be more than just another wikipedia wannabe.

[Reed]

Interesting. I can't think of many people, if any, who were "argued into" their atheism. Everyone I know of read and compared the various ideas, then the 'seed' grew in their own head.

That's my experience as well, but I would extend it to apply towards any belief into which one has an emotional investment. Direct argument on those topics is likely to be counter-productive in your relationship with the person, as any criticism may be taken personally. It risks salting the earth where no seed will grow.

I don't believe it's cynical, because I don't think you can reach some people.

That may well be true, at least for specific people on the most stubborn of gris-gris.

However, don't you find that we skeptics are too often dismissive when we should instead be talking to the person to find some common ground?

For example, it may be pointless to engage a young-earth creationist on ID, but you both might have a productive conversation on homeopathy and the importance of randomized clinical trials.

[articulett]

Reed, that is a proven method for changing minds-- delineate areas of agreement, flatter their ability to reason, and as them questions for which the answers might lead them the tiniest step in your direction. (e.g. "would you want to know if you could know for certain whether (woo) really work?)

A lot of times people are unaware even that you can test things. They are unaware of the common mistakes people make in thinking. Sometimes, they need to see how they can be tricked (as Randi) does to learn that, yes, even they can be fooled.

But sometimes I just stick my ear buds in my ears and listen to my assorted geek/skeptic podcasts/comedians/and music and use the background people as scenery.

You can really throw them when you shut up and/or just agree. "Interesting" is a good comment. or "I see". If you don't know what to say and you want to keep the lines of communication open--just sum up what they said... paraphrase it so they know you understand what they are saying and they hear the words coming out of someone else's mouth. People had to be prodded into thinking someone bullied them into reason-- they love to think they came up with a "clue" all by their intelligent selves. Flatter their curiosity...their interest in the truth. Or just let them talk until they run out--it's hard to make a fire when you have no fodder to keep the flames alive.

I guess it depends on your goal. But it helps to plan ahead and practice (on these forums) because woo is everywhere.

[EGarrett]

That's my experience as well, but I would extend it to apply towards any belief into which one has an emotional investment. Direct argument on those topics is likely to be counter-productive in your relationship with the person, as any criticism may be taken personally. It risks salting the earth where no seed will grow.Yes, but my position here is that if it gets to the point where you have to argue (instead of just giving the basics of why the point of view is wrong), then that person's mental earth was already not capable of growing a seed. The evidence being that I don't know of any times when a person who didn't reach atheism on their own was able to get there through being outdebated.

Most great ideas these days are simply spoonfed to people from the moment they enter school. The earth revolving around the sun, the idiocy of racism etc. Think about it, how many people do you know that are ACTUALLY of capable of explaining or arguing for these concepts with their OWN words? They don't have the level of understanding, nor the time and effort to get there even if they could understand the concepts with the right information.

Atheism and skepticism are actually two more of those concepts that don't happen to be in the spoonfeeding dishes right now. And most people aren't going to arrive there by being argued. It'd be like trying to explain to a stone-age king why he should switch to capitalism or democratic election. Most people's minds aren't strong enough to get there.

Thus, to spread the idea, you must leave the idiots to themselves, try to find the other smart people who get it...and put the superior idea into action. That's how the United States was created. The Founding Fathers read about democracy, freedom etc., put their correct ideas together...then clubbed the English King over the head (not outdebated him mind you), kicked him out of their lives...implemented the superior ideas and built a country that quickly outperformed all others.

That being said though, science is slowly making it obvious that religion is full of crap. But it's still only pushing people who realize for themselves.

That may well be true, at least for specific people on the most stubborn of gris-gris.

However, don't you find that we skeptics are too often dismissive when we should instead be talking to the person to find some common ground?

For example, it may be pointless to engage a young-earth creationist on ID, but you both might have a productive conversation on homeopathy and the importance of randomized clinical trials.We could do that. I admit that I haven't done any serious test of asking religious people what they think of other woo, but the basic principals behind why creationism etc. are wrong (burden of proof, recognizing lack of evidence etc.), are such basic thinking skills...that the type of person that lacks them in the creationism area will probably lack them all around.

I could easily go to a religion board and ask them what they think of homeopathy, or psychics etc. I would predict though, that the majority of responses will be some vague garbage along the lines of "who knows what's really possible?"