Taking on the 5G nutjobs

[Cerebus]

OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.


Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.

My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:

To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.

The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.

Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.  ) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.

[DrG]

OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.


Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.

My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:

To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.

The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.

Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.  ) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.

First, I expected more from you than a pathetic attempt to bolster your argument by attacking me over your interpretation of a completely different thread that has nothing at all to to do with you - but as the old saying goes, the hurt dog whelps. To his credit, he did not delete my post nor did he ban me and I stand by what I posted and your opinion on the matter is less important to me than the corn in the shit that I just took.

You are not used to having people stand up to your bullying and actually hold you accountable for your professed beliefs, e.g., your so-called only way to stop these people. That is why you have now repackaged your extreme ideas into a much more palatable and less confident and less offensive approach. Good for you.

Here is the bad news, you are not the first freaking nerd to ask why people believe in conspiracy theories. In fact this has been asked by scientists for many years and many theories have been offered and none, IMO, with much evidence. I have even posted links to such literature (and at least one video) on this very site.

You have decided that you know why I am here (I'm not here for the hunt as you said). Let me tell you why I am here so that you will be less confused. I am here to learn more about electronics and particularly computer programming and electronics. Something that I have loved for a very long time and only in recent years have had the appropriate amount of time to spend on just that.

I have learned a good deal from reading and following many threads here (and elsewhere) and that is a good thing. Along the way, I have tried to help others when I could. Yes, I will also give my opinion on other threads, particularly CoVid, but also like this one. I will also stand up for myself. If I am wrong I will admit it, but I will always stand up for myself and I do that knowing that people like you are likely going to get angry.

You know how you came across (and I remember your posts from old CoVid threads where I did not think you were a clown at all)? Let me tell you that also. You came across as a clown who thinks he knows just exactly how you can control human behavior. I read your "stuff" and thought, this guy has no clue about anything to do with the behavioral sciences and probably has never even taken an Intro Psych class. Yet you are expounding on how we have to use visceral techniques, there is no other way, and don't you dare call it emotional manipulation, call it visceral techniques, because that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. That is the only way to convince these conspiracy theory followers that they are wrong.

More bad news, you have no clue how to do that - you are not a politician and my guess is that you score very low on any legitmate sociopathy test. You are spewing what you want to believe and anybody who dares to question you must suffer your wrath. Fuck your wrath. Learn to stand up for yourself and not live off validation from others when people challenge you because it is just possible that they could know more about it than you.

You want to hate me, pity me - fine, get in line. Show me that you are tolerant of other peoples opinions and that you have some kind of well thought out and educated opinion to express. Try to be an authority on something that you know almost nothing about and you will get called out and I am not about to apologize for that.

NOW we understand each other.

[SilverSolder]

[...] What does this group of people believe? [...]

They believe that there is something wrong with their lives - they do not feel happy and fulfilled as human beings - and they believe this is caused by factors external to themselves, factors that they have no control over.  These two factors are key:  unhappy + external cause.

[...] Why does this group of people believe this? [...]

The particular "thing" they are attacking (foreigners, 5G towers, etc.) is just a symptom of their emotional anchor that something must be wrong with the world to make them feel this way.  Some of them attack 5G towers, others think building a wall will make them happy, still others lash out at their local trade bloc, etc. etc. - the specific thing they have chosen to strike out at in their rage and frustration isn't actually that important.  The important part, and the driver, is their unhappiness and the belief that there is nothing they can do themselves.

[...] What makes them want to believe it? [...]

It is very difficult to see the limitations that you, yourself, put on the level of happiness that you are able to achieve.  Most people do have at least a sense that they can be their own worst enemy at times (indeed, some go too far in that direction), but there is absolutely a significant subset of people that cannot process the idea that they might be doing something sub-optimal at all.  They so strongly need to protect their ego that they only look for causes external to themselves.  No matter how crazy those causes are, they beat having to own up to any explanation that involves themselves.

[...] What is being done to make them believe this? [...]

Some people instinctively understand how the frail ego people think, and "help" them by feeding them with plausible sounding (to a non expert) beliefs.  The "victims'" payoff is that by being a member of a group of people who subscribe to the same belief, each individual is not required to question the beliefs but can instead point to the leader or his writings, and/or the fact that many others believe the same thing, if they are ever asked to justify what they are saying or doing.

[...] What is the motivation of the people proseletising this? [...]

The proselytisers are generally in it for their own gain...  financial gain (YouTube views?),  votes,  fame, wine, women, and song, depending on the personality and needs of the person doing the proselytising.   There are even proselytisers that do it because they believe it themselves, and believe they are genuinely doing good by helping others "see the light".


These kinds of spiritual problems are not easy to alleviate or solve, since learning to cope with life's challenges (both internal and external factors) takes a long time and a lot of often unpleasant experiences.

[Cerebus]

OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.


Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.

My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:

To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.

The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.

Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.  ) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.

First, I expected more from you than a pathetic attempt to bolster your argument by attacking me over your interpretation of a completely different thread that has nothing at all to to do with you - but as the old saying goes, the hurt dog whelps. To his credit, he did not delete my post nor did he ban me and I stand by what I posted and your opinion on the matter is less important to me than the corn in the shit that I just took.

You are not used to having people stand up to your bullying and actually hold you accountable for your professed beliefs, e.g., your so-called only way to stop these people. That is why you have now repackaged your extreme ideas into a much more palatable and less confident and less offensive approach. Good for you.

Here is the bad news, you are not the first freaking nerd to ask why people believe in conspiracy theories. In fact this has been asked by scientists for many years and many theories have been offered and none, IMO, with much evidence. I have even posted links to such literature (and at least one video) on this very site.

You have decided that you know why I am here (I'm not here for the hunt as you said). Let me tell you why I am here so that you will be less confused. I am here to learn more about electronics and particularly computer programming and electronics. Something that I have loved for a very long time and only in recent years have had the appropriate amount of time to spend on just that.

I have learned a good deal from reading and following many threads here (and elsewhere) and that is a good thing. Along the way, I have tried to help others when I could. Yes, I will also give my opinion on other threads, particularly CoVid, but also like this one. I will also stand up for myself. If I am wrong I will admit it, but I will always stand up for myself and I do that knowing that people like you are likely going to get angry.

You know how you came across (and I remember your posts from old CoVid threads where I did not think you were a clown at all)? Let me tell you that also. You came across as a clown who thinks he knows just exactly how you can control human behavior. I read your "stuff" and thought, this guy has no clue about anything to do with the behavioral sciences and probably has never even taken an Intro Psych class. Yet you are expounding on how we have to use visceral techniques, there is no other way, and don't you dare call it emotional manipulation, call it visceral techniques, because that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. That is the only way to convince these conspiracy theory followers that they are wrong.

More bad news, you have no clue how to do that - you are not a politician and my guess is that you score very low on any legitmate sociopathy test. You are spewing what you want to believe and anybody who dares to question you must suffer your wrath. Fuck your wrath. Learn to stand up for yourself and not live off validation from others when people challenge you because it is just possible that they could know more about it than you.

You want to hate me, pity me - fine, get in line. Show me that you are tolerant of other peoples opinions and that you have some kind of well thought out and educated opinion to express. Try to be an authority on something that you know almost nothing about and you will get called out and I am not about to apologize for that.

NOW we understand each other.

Well, we understand that you are spoiling for a fight, and are self centred enough to distract from a thread that is trying to do something good, I hope, in the real world. We also understand that you're good at taking my attempt at communicating a strategy for debunking this that is going to sink in to the intended recipient and insert all sorts of insinuations of what I've said that my own words don't bear, including the ridiculous claim that I'm bullying you or that I'm plotting some sort of Machiavellian strategy to manipulate people. If you think I am bullying you, you are always free to report it to the Mods. It was certainly not my intent but I suspect that my real crime in your eyes is to disagree with you - uneducated fool without a psychology degree that I am. Now, why don't you give it a rest. Funnily enough, this isn't about you (or me for that matter) but you seem not to get that.

[DrG]

OK, now you just seem to be arguing for argument's sake, like talking about "manipulation" which is something you're introduced and I have never suggested. I don't see continuing that line of discussion as fruitful. I'm particularly persuaded by watching you deliberately goad Dave in another topic that "You're not here for the hunting" as the old joke has it.


Let us be clear, the point here is not intellectual self stimulation, or to mock the 'crazy people', or to feel sorry for them, it's to devise some practical responses to mitigate the blight of 5G conspiracy theories. Lest we forget, the 5G conspiracies have already led to direct and indirect harm to people, even as extreme as highly violent assaults and arson.

My argument, as far as debunking this is concerned, which I will restate is:

To regard this problem, of people who have become embroiled in 5G conspiracy theories, as one where merely providing people with the facts is an adequate solution would be wrong.

The problem is not one of lacking access to facts, nor of not being able to properly process those facts. The problem is the result of a particular emotional response having been invoked in these people - one that is likely to have led to the creation of a self-supporting belief system. We're not dealing with simple lack of understanding, but something more akin to a religion or a cult.

Any attempt at countering this problem has to be viewed in that light. Simple presentation of the facts will fail, one has to take into mind the mindset of the people you are trying to convey the facts to. That mindset includes the emotional reasons why they want to believe this stuff - without understanding that you are likely to fall at the first hurdle.

Yes, there will be people to whom 5G, biology and other technology is 'magic' (cf Arthur C Clarke) but don't confuse ignorance with stupidity. (And for safety's sake: Don't confuse knowledge with wisdom.  ) The idea that 5G can spread a viral disease is arrant nonsense, but to express it that way with a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" to the people we'd like to dissuade from that idea would be, to put it mildly, counterproductive.

Before one can set about formulating a strategy for debunking this one has to answer several questions:

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

There's a completely different track to be followed as regards "shutting down" the likes of Anthony Steele, who seems to be a candidate for incarceration rather than persuasion of the error of his ways.

First, I expected more from you than a pathetic attempt to bolster your argument by attacking me over your interpretation of a completely different thread that has nothing at all to to do with you - but as the old saying goes, the hurt dog whelps. To his credit, he did not delete my post nor did he ban me and I stand by what I posted and your opinion on the matter is less important to me than the corn in the shit that I just took.

You are not used to having people stand up to your bullying and actually hold you accountable for your professed beliefs, e.g., your so-called only way to stop these people. That is why you have now repackaged your extreme ideas into a much more palatable and less confident and less offensive approach. Good for you.

Here is the bad news, you are not the first freaking nerd to ask why people believe in conspiracy theories. In fact this has been asked by scientists for many years and many theories have been offered and none, IMO, with much evidence. I have even posted links to such literature (and at least one video) on this very site.

You have decided that you know why I am here (I'm not here for the hunt as you said). Let me tell you why I am here so that you will be less confused. I am here to learn more about electronics and particularly computer programming and electronics. Something that I have loved for a very long time and only in recent years have had the appropriate amount of time to spend on just that.

I have learned a good deal from reading and following many threads here (and elsewhere) and that is a good thing. Along the way, I have tried to help others when I could. Yes, I will also give my opinion on other threads, particularly CoVid, but also like this one. I will also stand up for myself. If I am wrong I will admit it, but I will always stand up for myself and I do that knowing that people like you are likely going to get angry.

You know how you came across (and I remember your posts from old CoVid threads where I did not think you were a clown at all)? Let me tell you that also. You came across as a clown who thinks he knows just exactly how you can control human behavior. I read your "stuff" and thought, this guy has no clue about anything to do with the behavioral sciences and probably has never even taken an Intro Psych class. Yet you are expounding on how we have to use visceral techniques, there is no other way, and don't you dare call it emotional manipulation, call it visceral techniques, because that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. That is the only way to convince these conspiracy theory followers that they are wrong.

More bad news, you have no clue how to do that - you are not a politician and my guess is that you score very low on any legitmate sociopathy test. You are spewing what you want to believe and anybody who dares to question you must suffer your wrath. Fuck your wrath. Learn to stand up for yourself and not live off validation from others when people challenge you because it is just possible that they could know more about it than you.

You want to hate me, pity me - fine, get in line. Show me that you are tolerant of other peoples opinions and that you have some kind of well thought out and educated opinion to express. Try to be an authority on something that you know almost nothing about and you will get called out and I am not about to apologize for that.

NOW we understand each other.

Well, we understand that you are spoiling for a fight, and are self centred enough to distract from a thread that is trying to do something good, I hope, in the real world. We also understand that you're good at taking my attempt at communicating a strategy for debunking this that is going to sink in to the intended recipient and insert all sorts of insinuations of what I've said that my own words don't bear, including the ridiculous claim that I'm bullying you or that I'm plotting some sort of Machiavellian strategy to manipulate people. If you think I am bullying you, you are always free to report it to the Mods. It was certainly not my intent but I suspect that my real crime in your eyes is to disagree with you - uneducated fool without a psychology degree that I am. Now, why don't you give it a rest. Funnily enough, this isn't about you (or me for that matter) but you seem not to get that.

*yawn*

[Cerebus]

Guys, I'm going to drop out of this thread.

It's pretty clear that DrG has decided to try and have a punch up with me  and will persist while I'm still contributing to it if I dare to wander into subject matter that he's decided is his sole province - I think we all know his type. If I can avoid polluting this thread by removing his target then that seems the best strategy for not giving him a excuse to carry on. Sorry chaps, was trying to be helpful by toddling along and pitching in on the subject but well, good intentions and all that...

No doubt he'll crow to himself that he's 'won' some sort of victory and 'made the bully turn tail' but I'll happily take that on the chin to hopefully give you some peace and quiet. I know that enough of you know what I'm actually like that I can be quite confident of the judgements you're making at the moment.

Pretty much as expected I can see that he's posted yet another riposte while I'm typing this. Well, isn't that a surprise. I haven't bothered reading it. Ho hum, another one for the ignore list.

[bd139]

Well that went off the rails quickly 

[tszaboo]

Debunking and education don't work. That's hard for a bunch of engineers, scientists and other rationalists to hear.

Absolutely, people just need to believe in something. It can be "5G is bad", "government is bad", conspiracy theories, imaginary super friends, or that not easing meat will make you healthier. They are just going to do it, otherwise it is just chaos and disarray, and that's fine. Even people who say they dont believe, they believe in something.
That can be science and that can be the ethics, and moral obligation to do good.
We probably ended up with this due to evolution. If you wouldn't believe in things that are told you, you end up too much of your precious time on fact checking, and not hunting deer or collecting seeds. But evolution is a slow process, and the emergence of internet is fast. Nobody prepared our primitive cognitive system for this. In the ancient times, you met like 50 people in a month. Now kids watch 50 tiktok video in an hour.

[bd139]

If providing idiots with misinformation works, then not providing them with misinformation will also likely work.

[Specmaster]

The thing is, that he was bad enough last time on YT with his dissection of a standard street light fitted with a radio transmitter to transmit error signals back to a maintenance dept on YT when he only had a small group of followers. Now he has grown to 1,000s of followers and is publicly inciting people get prepared, to go to their own home towns and recruit more followers, to do what?

We have already seen massive damage done existing 5G infrastructure by fire damage etc and now we are seeing personal attacks on people engaged in installing 5G equipment, even when that is just installing Fibre cabling, which while maybe carrying data to 5G stations, could also be carrying other things as well such as landlines and TV services etc.

Guys, if you have not yet watched his videos on the YT channel then please visit the site 5g awareness and watch the videoson there, many by Mark Steele. He has even been in Denmark promoting action against 5G and now even Covid-19 and now there is website as well https://www.5gawareness.com/. He is not alone in his beliefs there are other sites as you will discover from watching the banned  YT video on the aforementioned website, but the arguments put forward there are more rational and thought out and IMO not as dangerous as those that Mark Steele / Anthony Steele are which seem to incite people.

                                                                                                           

[Specmaster]

@bd139 Thanks for the thank you, but I had not finished updating the post, there is additional info there now.

[bd139]

Cool reading now 

[Simon]

...................

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

.......................

...............................

.........................

*yawn*

Does that mean your done? just state your opinion, no need to correct!

[DrG]

...................

• What does this group of people believe? (I think we already have some pretty clear, if broad, answers to this.)
• Why does this group of people believe this?
• What makes them want to believe it?
• What is being done to make them believe this?

with a side-order of

• What is the motivation of the people proseletising this?

.......................

...............................

.........................

*yawn*

Does that mean your done? just state your opinion, no need to correct!

Not sure I understand exactly what and who you are asking. If to me and the question is me being done with the thread, well no, my answer is that I am not.

My opinion is that a concerted effort to evaluate what SMEs (and I am not talking about myself) have to say about why people follow conspiracy theories would be a very good idea, if you are truly interested in how one might change their minds, if that is possible. Such would be a good starting point but not a recipe to accomplish the task.

Further, it is my opinion that one might have to face the possibility that for some followers, maybe even most followers, you may not be able to realistically "change their minds" and it might also be a good idea to think about mitigation through discouraging new followers.

[DrG]

She is/was a graduate student at the time. This is simplistic but a decent treatment and entertaining. Simplistic in the sense that any part of the biological processes that she talks about could be discussed for many years.

A Neuroscientist Explains What Conspiracy Theories Do To Your Brain | Inverse

[DrG]

https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/explaining-science-wont-fix-information-illiteracy.html

An interesting editorial by a science writer (not a scientist). While I strongly disagree with this person because I think that the job of scientists is to do science (which is presumably what they do well) and not PR (which they have no training in). I think it is well written for pop science, has a number of important study links, and makes a couple of relevant points to the issue at hand....


"Kahan added a twist: He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.

The takeaway is clear: Increasing science literacy alone won’t change minds. In fact, well-meaning attempts by scientists to inform the public might even backfire. Presenting facts that conflict with an individual’s worldview, it turns out, can cause people to dig in further. Psychologists, aptly, dubbed this the “backfire effect.” "

So, education on the issue (e.g., 5G) can backfire and make people dig in. BUT, the author's conclusion is short-sided. Even if true, there is no attempt to study the impact of that education on potential conspiracy followers - that is an important point I think.

A second point made relates to the appeal to emotion (again, and obviously, I don't care for that approach) but it is relevant to the discussion.

They may have more luck communicating if, in addition to presenting facts and figures, they appeal to emotions. This could mean not simply explaining the science of how something works but spending time on why it matters to the author and why it ought to matter to the reader. Research also shows that science communicators can be more effective after they’ve gained the audience’s trust.

The citation there is to another pop science article...
It’s Time to Give Up on Facts Or at least to temporarily lay them down in favor of a more useful weapon: emotions. https://slate.com/technology/2017/02/counter-lies-with-emotions-not-facts.html

Again, not agreeing with what is written there, but it is not a novel idea.

[DrG]

Second: humans are very bad at (statistical) probabilities.
Example: lots of people are gambling lottery.

Yes and no, I think. Humans, and other animals, are actually very good at accurately perceiving and acting upon probabilities, but only to the extent that is useful in a natural selection sense. IOW, it is a great advantage to learn the different likelihoods of receiving food at different locations. They will spend their time at the "better" places in a proportionally "correct" manner.

But when the task is discriminating .0001 from .000001 not so much, again IMO.

A little book came out in 1988, Innumeracy, which is a pretty good treatment and made some good points
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innumeracy_(book) not sure what is going on with that link but it is there eventually
https://www.amazon.com/Innumeracy-Mathematical-Illiteracy-Its-Consequences/dp/0809058405

I still have my copy.

[DrG]

A few more pop science / main media articles specifically about 5G and conspiracy theories. Not going to do them justice by short comments, but relevant to the topic.

https://theconversation.com/four-experts-investigate-how-the-5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-began-139137
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/05/great-5g-conspiracy/611317/
https://www.bbc.com/news/53191523
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pke7yv/5g-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-origin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/01/5g-conspiracy-theory-coronavirus-misinformation/

[DrG]

Why do you NOT believe 5G conspiracy theories?

Is it because you believe that it is irrational to do so? That there is no evidence supporting them? No known process that could allow you to believe such nonsense? All that stuff describes why I don't believe in them and I would speculate that view is shared by many here.

Take a step further an imagine that you want to convince someone who is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia that they are wrong about their beliefs. I don't think one can have much success using education, appeals to reason or appeals to emotion. There is no visceral convincing. The condition is characterized as a gross thought disorder and none of those tools work. In fact not much less than pharmacologics can make a dent in that condition (although people do sometimes get better on their own and other forms of therapy can also have benefit).

I am not saying that conspiracy believers are all paranoid schizophrenics (some could be), but take a step back and consider how your approach to change their mind would be modified in that case. You might come to the conclusion that you just can't do that. No matter how much you want to, the techniques are just not there. (To be sure, some people will say they believe in conspiracy theories when they really don't but being part of that "group" speaks to their needs in some complicated way.)

If that is the case, then a rationale approach may just be not to try to change their minds, but to impact those who are not that steeped in the beliefs. Simply put, that comes close to how I am feeling about the issue and why I am convinced that appealing to fostering critical thinking as the major tool for mitigation. The target, again, is not those "too far gone", it is those that are not.

[SilverSolder]

In the "olden days" there were magazines like Popular Science, Popular Electronics, etc. etc. that attempted to foster an interest in real science and technology (and conversely, discourage the descent into witchcraft).  There were also various TV programmes that did the same thing.  Kooks like some of the ones we see on Youtube would never have received air- or print time. 

So, I think a coherent argument could be made that Youtube and other forms of social media (Facebook et al) tend to act as BS amplifiers in the sphere of science and technology, just like they do in politics.

[Simon]

I think it's partly a decline in interest that has possibly been spurred on by the other easier interests. I used to buy an electronics magazine in italy, by the time I stopped buying it it had become a computer magazine.

[AVGresponding]

Ruling any approach in or out at this point seems somewhat premature, to me.

However, while I would agree there is a general lack of the ability to perform critical thinking nowadays, which must surely primarily be a result of the changes to the education systems, and parenting methods in recent decades, I fail to see how improving that situation can have any impact save in the long term.
It just isn't something that can be taught overnight, nor even in a week, to pick an arbitrary timeframe.

As for trying to solve it by getting individual videos or channels taken down, I suspect this will have the effect of limiting the influence of the promoters of this nonsense in the short term, though it's not a long term solution as far as I can see.
Indeed, I've no doubt that every time a video/channel gets taken down, this will just be used as "evidence" of the "conspiracy.

I think it likely that there is no single thing that will work to cure this epidemic of misinformation and paranoia, rather many and all ideas may well be needed.

[Simon]

As I have said before the only way to stop this is laws, let them howl about censorship and free speech, if it's factually wrong then it should not be up. Those that go to great length to produce videos should be sued. The problem is that our legal system seem to care about money than anything else. If people can sue for defamation why can't science sue for defamation?

[james_s]

That wouldn't fly here, people take freedom of speech very seriously. Trying to silence someone like that would create an uproar and backfire by amplifying their message greatly.

[SilverSolder]

The technological changes that have made e.g. the EEVblog possible, have also made it easier for proselytising kooks to get published.   

The gullible have always been with us, but in the past would have been somewhat more protected from proselytising kooks by the existence of magazine editors and other people "of good standing" that reviewed material prior to publication.

Nowadays, this editing process has to be replaced by something else.  I don't like the idea of things having to be approved in advance...   but the idea of "taking out the garbage" and prevent fly tipping in the digital commons is something we are going to increasingly need to get to grips with.

With the "right" kind of proselytising kook, a truly dangerous situation could be created.