How to handle parents who believe fake news?

[Catica]

How do you know they are wrong and you are right?  Maybe you are both wrong.

It's not about wrong or right. In fact without seeing it first hand, can anyone be sure they are wrong or right? It's baseless claims with no credible source. If they formed beliefs based on proper information then that's fine. There are established ways of determining if information is credible. They aren't new. I actually enjoy being open to new ideas.

But seeing them completely lose all fact checking and critical thinking is.... Idk... Sad.  I thought maybe some early dementia at first, but everything else is a ok and I doubt 1/8 the country has developed early dementia all at once...

Could you define "proper information" for me?
Please give me examples of an established way of determining if the information is credible.
One could argue that a belief in some divinity is baseless, would you call all of these people noncredible therefore having dementia? That's about 90% of humanity (percentile can be desputed).

You still didn’t define “proper information” and  didn’t give any examples. I’m not sure what link you are referring to. I’m taking an arbitrary stance, I’m trying to clarify your proclamation of facts as credible and how you derived at them. It’s rather preposterous to proclaim that your sources or your understanding of the world is factual and others is not. My reference to the devine is about where evidence is more nuanced, we don’t have all the answers and evidence. It’s the same in science where the facts of today become non-facts tomorrow. It could be that a lot of misunderstanding lies in a subjective understanding of morality and ethics. So any evidence that supports your subjective perspective will be selected to validate your point. The evidence is grounded in a perceived fact but it is not necessarily factual, meaning still debatable. I don’t care what your parents believe and what you believe, I’m curious why you are so authoritarian. You seem to pathologize your parents based on their inability to differentiate perceived facts and holding different perspectives than yours. Is it worth to jeopardize your relationships with your parents over something that in the end might be very trivial?

[bmjohnson35]

We live in strange times indeed.  I generally try to avoid political discussions with certain family and friends.  Between social media, the internet in general and non-stop media impersonating the news, it's where we are these days.  It's hard not to be cynical these days. 

Lately, I have been simply trying to keep my daily interactions with others respectful and positive and try not to let the "noise" affect my well being.

[SunnyDays]

I've had to talk about "possible" vs. "probable" with some people.  That at least gets them thinking.  Also had to explain Occam's Razor, as it's a similar concept.  I don't know that it's changed anyone's mind, but it gives them a different yardstick to measure things by.

[HMman]

How do you know they are wrong and you are right?  Maybe you are both wrong.

It's not about wrong or right. In fact without seeing it first hand, can anyone be sure they are wrong or right? It's baseless claims with no credible source. If they formed beliefs based on proper information then that's fine. There are established ways of determining if information is credible. They aren't new. I actually enjoy being open to new ideas.

But seeing them completely lose all fact checking and critical thinking is.... Idk... Sad.  I thought maybe some early dementia at first, but everything else is a ok and I doubt 1/8 the country has developed early dementia all at once...

Could you define "proper information" for me?
Please give me examples of an established way of determining if the information is credible.
One could argue that a belief in some divinity is baseless, would you call all of these people noncredible therefore having dementia? That's about 90% of humanity (percentile can be desputed).

You still didn’t define “proper information” and  didn’t give any examples. I’m not sure what link you are referring to. I’m taking an arbitrary stance, I’m trying to clarify your proclamation of facts as credible and how you derived at them. It’s rather preposterous to proclaim that your sources or your understanding of the world is factual and others is not. My reference to the devine is about where evidence is more nuanced, we don’t have all the answers and evidence. It’s the same in science where the facts of today become non-facts tomorrow. It could be that a lot of misunderstanding lies in a subjective understanding of morality and ethics. So any evidence that supports your subjective perspective will be selected to validate your point. The evidence is grounded in a perceived fact but it is not necessarily factual, meaning still debatable. I don’t care what your parents believe and what you believe, I’m curious why you are so authoritarian. You seem to pathologize your parents based on their inability to differentiate perceived facts and holding different perspectives than yours. Is it worth to jeopardize your relationships with your parents over something that in the end might be very trivial?

I'm not the OP, but I personally use two metrics to help evaluate the general "properness" of information - positive incentives and internal consistency. I'll use a hopefully non-controversial example from my past to demonstrate.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian family, and was taught that the account of Genesis was the literal truth of the creation of the world. The universe as a whole was only about 6000 years old, evolutionary theory was a hoax, and a different perspective on the available fossil and historical evidence showed that they could be explained as the products of a world-wide flood. I was a pretty well-read kid growing up, as my parents encouraged the study of all sorts of non-evolutionary science - after all, the natural world is the greatest proof of a creator in and of itself! And, for most of my young adulthood, I believed this.

However, the more I learned about biology, the more confused I got about how evolutionary theory could be a blatant lie. So, I started (covertly!) reading about evolutionary theory, and was shocked at how robust the evidence was for it. So many threads from the sciences that I already understood weaved neatly into place, and the internal consistency of my understanding of the sciences and of evolutionary theory convinced me that it was the most reasonable explanation.

Another, concurrent realization that I had in addition to the self-consistency, was that the idea that evolutionary theory was a big conspiracy seemed amazingly implausible. Conspiracies are hard. There's no incentive for educated biologists to be propping up a shoddy theory, and strong incentive for biblical-minded authors to maintain that there's a biological controversy, as denying evolution is a necessary support for their faith.

I think there are similar dynamics in what @Kroaler is talking about. There are certain segments of the media that are pushing information that doesn't agree with the preponderance of evidence (e.g. rampant U.S. election fraud) and also are incentivised to do so (e.g. their paycheque is linked to propping up Trump, via their brand or by Trump having the ability to fire them). If you're not a part of those echo chambers, it's perfectly reasonable to be "authoritarian" about pushing back on those opinions - they directly threaten trust in the U.S. electoral system and in the idea of free and fair elections. That hardly seems trivial, to me.

I'd also just like to add that just because there are two or more points of view, that doesn't automatically mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle - again, think of evolution and "Teach the Controversy". An enlightened position doesn't entertain hogwash. Sometimes people are completely misinformed, and that's okay, but misinformation needs to be countered.

[mozar]

I wont go out with my mom any more cause she has a thing she does where she likes to see how far she can get into a business before someone ask her to wear a mask.

Your mom is a Karen. Don't engage with Karens. Don't go into stores with her anymore.

My dad has been like this my whole life. Except on the left side. When he gets on the conspiracy theory track I ask him "what are you going to do about it?"
That usually shuts him down. I don't agree that ignoring it helps. I repeat what he says word for word, which sometimes helps him see how ridiculous he's being.

My theory (haha!) as to why people are behaving this way is because they actually fear uncertainty. Conspiracy theories are straightforward and easy to understand. Life, science, "evidence," are all very nuanced. If you are scared, a conspiracy might seem worth holding onto.

 

[former player]

I wont go out with my mom any more cause she has a thing she does where she likes to see how far she can get into a business before someone ask her to wear a mask.

Your mom is a Karen. Don't engage with Karens. Don't go into stores with her anymore.

And perhaps ask her whether her mother didn't teach her better manners than that.

[stoaX]

I've had to talk about "possible" vs. "probable" with some people.  That at least gets them thinking.  Also had to explain Occam's Razor, as it's a similar concept.  I don't know that it's changed anyone's mind, but it gives them a different yardstick to measure things by.

Talking about possible versus probable seems to me to be a polite, non- inflammatory approach.  I like it!

If you are patient you can always wait a few years and bring up whatever issue your conspiracy theory believing relatives are talking about, once it's clear how things turned out.  For example in 2009 you could have said "well Aunt Edna, it looks like George Bush didn't start WW3 after all". Or in 2017 you could have said "hey uncle Phil, looks like Obama never got around to taking away your guns after all".

[friedmmj]

How do you know they are wrong and you are right?  Maybe you are both wrong.

It's not about wrong or right. In fact without seeing it first hand, can anyone be sure they are wrong or right? It's baseless claims with no credible source. If they formed beliefs based on proper information then that's fine. There are established ways of determining if information is credible. They aren't new. I actually enjoy being open to new ideas.

But seeing them completely lose all fact checking and critical thinking is.... Idk... Sad.  I thought maybe some early dementia at first, but everything else is a ok and I doubt 1/8 the country has developed early dementia all at once...

Could you define "proper information" for me?
Please give me examples of an established way of determining if the information is credible.
One could argue that a belief in some divinity is baseless, would you call all of these people noncredible therefore having dementia? That's about 90% of humanity (percentile can be desputed).

You still didn’t define “proper information” and  didn’t give any examples. I’m not sure what link you are referring to. I’m taking an arbitrary stance, I’m trying to clarify your proclamation of facts as credible and how you derived at them. It’s rather preposterous to proclaim that your sources or your understanding of the world is factual and others is not. My reference to the devine is about where evidence is more nuanced, we don’t have all the answers and evidence. It’s the same in science where the facts of today become non-facts tomorrow. It could be that a lot of misunderstanding lies in a subjective understanding of morality and ethics. So any evidence that supports your subjective perspective will be selected to validate your point. The evidence is grounded in a perceived fact but it is not necessarily factual, meaning still debatable. I don’t care what your parents believe and what you believe, I’m curious why you are so authoritarian. You seem to pathologize your parents based on their inability to differentiate perceived facts and holding different perspectives than yours. Is it worth to jeopardize your relationships with your parents over something that in the end might be very trivial?

You've sound like you have been hanging out with Kellyanne Conway and are espousing the concept of "alternative facts".

[mathlete]

I wish I knew the answer. I pushed back on it for a while but as accused of "getting political". I just unfriended my dad (who shares garbage) on social media and I don't bring it up fake news at family gatherings. If he or someone else does, I'll push back. It's fair game. But usually everyone is just happy to see each other.

It's sad because I think at the heart of this is just a bunch of baby boomers who are bored and crave community, but they're too set in their ways to seek it out the healthy way. Scrolling Facebook or watching cable news is almost effortless though.

[Fomerly known as something]

I was listening to a sports “psychologist” or whatever you call the person who talks to athletes about the mental side of sports.  He talked while it’s harder to change negative thinking into positive thinking.  Read I’m not going to run today to I’m going to run today; but it’s much easier to not voice the negative though, how a voiced negative though makes it much more likely to occur. 

It makes me think, can one response when politics are brought up be, Dad I know this whole thing upsets you, let’s talk about how the Lions blew another game instead.

[Catica]

How do you know they are wrong and you are right?  Maybe you are both wrong.

It's not about wrong or right. In fact without seeing it first hand, can anyone be sure they are wrong or right? It's baseless claims with no credible source. If they formed beliefs based on proper information then that's fine. There are established ways of determining if information is credible. They aren't new. I actually enjoy being open to new ideas.

But seeing them completely lose all fact checking and critical thinking is.... Idk... Sad.  I thought maybe some early dementia at first, but everything else is a ok and I doubt 1/8 the country has developed early dementia all at once...

Could you define "proper information" for me?
Please give me examples of an established way of determining if the information is credible.
One could argue that a belief in some divinity is baseless, would you call all of these people noncredible therefore having dementia? That's about 90% of humanity (percentile can be desputed).

You still didn’t define “proper information” and  didn’t give any examples. I’m not sure what link you are referring to. I’m taking an arbitrary stance, I’m trying to clarify your proclamation of facts as credible and how you derived at them. It’s rather preposterous to proclaim that your sources or your understanding of the world is factual and others is not. My reference to the devine is about where evidence is more nuanced, we don’t have all the answers and evidence. It’s the same in science where the facts of today become non-facts tomorrow. It could be that a lot of misunderstanding lies in a subjective understanding of morality and ethics. So any evidence that supports your subjective perspective will be selected to validate your point. The evidence is grounded in a perceived fact but it is not necessarily factual, meaning still debatable. I don’t care what your parents believe and what you believe, I’m curious why you are so authoritarian. You seem to pathologize your parents based on their inability to differentiate perceived facts and holding different perspectives than yours. Is it worth to jeopardize your relationships with your parents over something that in the end might be very trivial?

I'm not the OP, but I personally use two metrics to help evaluate the general "properness" of information - positive incentives and internal consistency. I'll use a hopefully non-controversial example from my past to demonstrate.

I was raised in a very conservative Christian family, and was taught that the account of Genesis was the literal truth of the creation of the world. The universe as a whole was only about 6000 years old, evolutionary theory was a hoax, and a different perspective on the available fossil and historical evidence showed that they could be explained as the products of a world-wide flood. I was a pretty well-read kid growing up, as my parents encouraged the study of all sorts of non-evolutionary science - after all, the natural world is the greatest proof of a creator in and of itself! And, for most of my young adulthood, I believed this.

However, the more I learned about biology, the more confused I got about how evolutionary theory could be a blatant lie. So, I started (covertly!) reading about evolutionary theory, and was shocked at how robust the evidence was for it. So many threads from the sciences that I already understood weaved neatly into place, and the internal consistency of my understanding of the sciences and of evolutionary theory convinced me that it was the most reasonable explanation.

Another, concurrent realization that I had in addition to the self-consistency, was that the idea that evolutionary theory was a big conspiracy seemed amazingly implausible. Conspiracies are hard. There's no incentive for educated biologists to be propping up a shoddy theory, and strong incentive for biblical-minded authors to maintain that there's a biological controversy, as denying evolution is a necessary support for their faith.

I think there are similar dynamics in what @Kroaler is talking about. There are certain segments of the media that are pushing information that doesn't agree with the preponderance of evidence (e.g. rampant U.S. election fraud) and also are incentivised to do so (e.g. their paycheque is linked to propping up Trump, via their brand or by Trump having the ability to fire them). If you're not a part of those echo chambers, it's perfectly reasonable to be "authoritarian" about pushing back on those opinions - they directly threaten trust in the U.S. electoral system and in the idea of free and fair elections. That hardly seems trivial, to me.

I'd also just like to add that just because there are two or more points of view, that doesn't automatically mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle - again, think of evolution and "Teach the Controversy". An enlightened position doesn't entertain hogwash. Sometimes people are completely misinformed, and that's okay, but misinformation needs to be countered.

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

[mathlete]

Skimming the thread, I feel like one thing needs to be said,

News and current events are complicated and there are often many sides to every issue. But lots of statements are flat out lies or objectively wrong.

It is okay (and necessary) to acknowledge that and it shouldn't jeopardize your status as an open-minded person.

[mathlete]

Something I've also learned as I've gotten older; if I get down the road in a conversation with someone and the following two things happen;

1.) It becomes clear that I've outread this person on this topic by a factor of 100
2.) They call me closed-minded because I'm very confident in my opinion on the topic,

Then I don't really need to concern myself with this person's opinion on my open-mindedness.

[Arbitrage]

I made it clear to them that I and my family have no wish to discuss politics with them.  Unfortunately, the stepfather in particular can't help himself from interjecting comments all too often, but we generally refuse to engage or just make a simple, noncommittal statement.  I challenged him several times when his political idiocy was threatening my mother's safety while they were staying at our house early in the pandemic, but they live far away and we have not seen them since. 

There's no point in my trying to have logical, reasonable discussions with stepf about it; he's bathed in Fox News and Trump's twitter feed 18+ hours per day.  It's possible they will also decide that Fox is too liberal and go down the NewsMax/OAN/Trump cult route.  They're planning another visit early next year, and I'm going to make the boundaries very clear...I don't care what his political beliefs are, I'm going to prioritize my family's safety.  Honestly, that part shouldn't at all be political - it's not about what the government is/should be telling you to do; it's about what I want to do to keep my family safe and prevent further spread.

Obviously, the toddler-in-chief has made even that part political.

[former player]

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

I think you fell into the wrong academic journal.

[tipster350]

Skimming the thread, I feel like one thing needs to be said,

News and current events are complicated and there are often many sides to every issue. But lots of statements are flat out lies or objectively wrong.

It is okay (and necessary) to acknowledge that and it shouldn't jeopardize your status as an open-minded person.

Exactly.

We're living in a time when many believe there are "alternative facts", but in many cases there is an objective truth with no possibility of  two, equally valid sides. I'm not going to waste my time trying to see the other side, when a clearly proven lie is presented.

As a (late end of the generation) Baby Boomer, it is painful to read my entire generation being painted as, basically, too old and too lazy to think logically and critically, lol, or be able to tell fact from conspiracy theory.

Just want to say there are plenty of us who are still functional :0

My 92 year old mother, who passed a few months ago, was blind and physically failing yet kept up with all the current events, and was extremely disturbed and disheartened by the state of affairs in our country. She understood the trouble we are in as a nation, how close we are to losing our fragile democracy.

Fortunately although my parents are both deceased, we were 100% aligned in our thinking about politics and current affairs. I would have a difficult time maintaining a relationship with them if they supported those who lock babies in cages and look the other way at sexual assault. If I wanted to maintain the relationship, after voicing my counterargument to the lies and propaganda a few times, i'd refuse to discuss the crazy and dangerous ideas altogether. I'd set a hard boundary around topics of discussion, because if we've learned anything in the past few years, it's that when people have fallen down into the vortex of lies and propaganda on Fox, Breitbart, OANN, etc. they are not in a place where they can be reasoned out of it.

[friedmmj]

Skimming the thread, I feel like one thing needs to be said,

News and current events are complicated and there are often many sides to every issue. But lots of statements are flat out lies or objectively wrong.

It is okay (and necessary) to acknowledge that and it shouldn't jeopardize your status as an open-minded person.

Well stated.  Too often, calling out blatant lies and worse, calling out lies that are spewed intentionally for the purpose of misleading people is somehow conflated with "espousing your side of the issue" or something that should be debated as if it were a subjective matter.

[Pennsylvanian]

How to handle this? There is no way to handle it. People will believe what they want to believe and the current environment allows any kooky or dangerous theory to gain traction if it is promoted and spread. Hello QAnon? People eating babies? Votes coming on ships from North Korea? Germany? Nuts. You cannot combat these kind of crazed beliefs by trying to explain anything. The only available comparisons are people who are hooked on drugs or in a cult. The behavior won't stop until they decide to help themselves.

If you can completely avoid the topics and still have a relationship, I'd say go that route.

If they are assholes about it and can't stop trying to evangelize their lies, cut ties and be honest about why.

Those are your only options. Ask me how I know!

I wish you the best. If you find the key to deprogramming your parents and share it out, you'll surely change the world.

[CCCA]

Tough situation and I hope it turns out okay in the end.


I think the hard part about saying they are going through denial is that in normal cases, people can keep up denial for a very long time.  And that's without an echo chamber reinforcing the fact that they are, in fact, correct, and it's everyone else in the world who is in denial.  i.e. it's not a given that people will eventually move on from denial.

[jlcnuke]

Just tell them "sure, you believe that the election was rigged? Ha, that's only because the reptile overlords that were controlling this administration WANT you to think that since they haven't been able to clone Biden and replace him yet! Fools, I can't believe you fell for the reptile overlord's plans!"

[RetiredAt63]

Skimming the thread, I feel like one thing needs to be said,

News and current events are complicated and there are often many sides to every issue. But lots of statements are flat out lies or objectively wrong.

It is okay (and necessary) to acknowledge that and it shouldn't jeopardize your status as an open-minded person.

Exactly.

We're living in a time when many believe there are "alternative facts", but in many cases there is an objective truth with no possibility of  two, equally valid sides. I'm not going to waste my time trying to see the other side, when a clearly proven lie is presented.

As a (late end of the generation) Baby Boomer, it is painful to read my entire generation being painted as, basically, too old and too lazy to think logically and critically, lol, or be able to tell fact from conspiracy theory.

Just want to say there are plenty of us who are still functional :0

My 92 year old mother, who passed a few months ago, was blind and physically failing yet kept up with all the current events, and was extremely disturbed and disheartened by the state of affairs in our country. She understood the trouble we are in as a nation, how close we are to losing our fragile democracy.

Fortunately although my parents are both deceased, we were 100% aligned in our thinking about politics and current affairs. I would have a difficult time maintaining a relationship with them if they supported those who lock babies in cages and look the other way at sexual assault. If I wanted to maintain the relationship, after voicing my counterargument to the lies and propaganda a few times, i'd refuse to discuss the crazy and dangerous ideas altogether. I'd set a hard boundary around topics of discussion, because if we've learned anything in the past few years, it's that when people have fallen down into the vortex of lies and propaganda on Fox, Breitbart, OANN, etc. they are not in a place where they can be reasoned out of it.

Yeah, I'm early Boomer and I know how to evaluate information.  And how to reassess if new info comes to light.  And the difference between spin and news.

OP, blow your parents' minds and tell them there is a whole world of info out there.  CBC, BBC, Al Jazeera.  Sometimes foreign coverage can be really informative because it looks at things from an outsider's perspective.

And sounds like they will be eligible for the Covid vaccine fairly early.  I hope they will get it.  I certainly will be.

[HMman]

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

I'm not saying that you're not neutral - if anything, your position seems to be *extremely* neutral, and that confuses me. To the OP's original points, do you disagree that there was a secret military operation in Germany, for example? Your initial post about the possibility of both the OP and their parents being both wrong makes it sound like you're willing to entertain that possibility for the sake of neutrality, whether or not there's any evidence for it.

Just so it's clear, too, I'm not saying and haven't said that the U.S. electoral system is perfect, and can't be improved. I must have not wrote clearly if that's how you read it - my apologies.

[SwordGuy]

If you find the key to deprogramming your parents and share it out, you'll surely change the world.

This lady found a way.   It's awesome.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6447821/Political-dominatrix-uses-mind-games-turn-right-wing-men-socialists.html

[Catica]

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

I'm not saying that you're not neutral - if anything, your position seems to be *extremely* neutral, and that confuses me. To the OP's original points, do you disagree that there was a secret military operation in Germany, for example? Your initial post about the possibility of both the OP and their parents being both wrong makes it sound like you're willing to entertain that possibility for the sake of neutrality, whether or not there's any evidence for it.

Just so it's clear, too, I'm not saying and haven't said that the U.S. electoral system is perfect, and can't be improved. I must have not wrote clearly if that's how you read it - my apologies.

Fair enough. Let me explain what I meant by "neutrality".  It seems to be impossible to find time and resources to validate truth in the barrage of information we are exposed to on daily basis. What did strike me the most was the propensity of the OP to pathologize his own parents. It could be that he is right and they are wrong in some particular instance. I can't really arbitrate who is right or wrong. I sense proclivity to taking a higher ground by the OP, which in the larger picture him pathologizing his own parents or some group of people over some unverified or verified facts is rather alarming. This exponential polarization over some weaponized facts and hyperbolized labels is very destructive and polarize the society more, killing the due process of rational debate and Socratean thinking, ultimately in the end feeding the frenzy of the Hegelian dialectic. Very sad.

[Cranky]

I dunno. The boomers I know - and I’m one - have been on the internet for a long time and are pretty left leaning. The guy down the street with the “Purify and Purge” signs in his yard is 30-ish.. so I don’t know that it’s all generational.

[Sibley]

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

I'm not saying that you're not neutral - if anything, your position seems to be *extremely* neutral, and that confuses me. To the OP's original points, do you disagree that there was a secret military operation in Germany, for example? Your initial post about the possibility of both the OP and their parents being both wrong makes it sound like you're willing to entertain that possibility for the sake of neutrality, whether or not there's any evidence for it.

Just so it's clear, too, I'm not saying and haven't said that the U.S. electoral system is perfect, and can't be improved. I must have not wrote clearly if that's how you read it - my apologies.

Fair enough. Let me explain what I meant by "neutrality".  It seems to be impossible to find time and resources to validate truth in the barrage of information we are exposed to on daily basis. What did strike me the most was the propensity of the OP to pathologize his own parents. It could be that he is right and they are wrong in some particular instance. I can't really arbitrate who is right or wrong. I sense proclivity to taking a higher ground by the OP, which in the larger picture him pathologizing his own parents or some group of people over some unverified or verified facts is rather alarming. This exponential polarization over some weaponized facts and hyperbolized labels is very destructive and polarize the society more, killing the due process of rational debate and Socratean thinking, ultimately in the end feeding the frenzy of the Hegelian dialectic. Very sad.

I am dealing with parents who openly doubt that people are dying of COVID-19 everyday. Or believe that Biden created the virus. They think Obama was Muslim and was born in Africa somewhere and they call him in all seriousness an evil man, then they turn around and defend Hitler. They think there was widespread fraudulent voting in the most recent election which caused Biden to win. My mom is starting to express anti-vaxxer beliefs. I've heard that Jews are involved in a conspiracy to take over the financial system (yet they can't define what they mean when they say financial system), the Muslims are plotting to destroy America, and the Mexicans are lazy bums who deserve to have their children taken away. I got to listen to the rant about how unfairly Trump is being treated by the press, at least until I hung up. I hear that it's a good thing that children have been separated from their parents and thrown into cages, except oops 2 minutes later I'm told that they don't believe it ever happened.

You say you can't arbitrate who is right and who is wrong. But there are things are not a matter of opinion. There are basic FACTS which are being disregarded and disbelieved, combined with a depressing breakdown of critical thinking. And it's happening to my parents, and a lot of other people too. Previously reasoned people are now saying and sincerely believing these things, and frankly my mom isn't spouting off a good chunk of the crazy that is out there.

You say you're worried about rational debate and yet rational debate is NOT POSSIBLE with someone who is no longer thinking rationally, for whatever reason. How can you possibly have a rational debate when the other party refuses to even consider that what you say might have validity? When any questioning of their preferred information source is met with a tirade about how corrupt everyone and everything is, except their preferred information source.

If it sounds illogical, that's because it is. Logic and reason don't work, there's a different rule book that is being followed, one which is perfectly ok with inconsistencies and illogical beliefs - as evidenced by the crap I hear from my parents on a regular basis. So please stop trying to apply reason and logic and neutrality, because all it does is annoy me and piss me off and show me that you have no idea what I or anyone else is seeing and hearing from these people.

[Sandi_k]

How to handle this? There is no way to handle it. People will believe what they want to believe and the current environment allows any kooky or dangerous theory to gain traction if it is promoted and spread.

If you can completely avoid the topics and still have a relationship, I'd say go that route.

It's no longer about topics: it's about death. My ILs think that they are "safe" because they are only going to work or out for groceries. They don't understand the issue of a "bubble" only being as small as their son - who works with my FIL. The son is out and about to people's homes, refuses to mask, thinks that CV-19 isn't worse than the flu.

I refused to go to their home for Thanksgiving. Now, with Xmas, for the first time since 1981, my DH and I will spend Xmas apart - because he feels that he needs to spend it with his parents. I would never over-ride that. But he's going on his own, and will be isolating for 10 days when he comes home.

It's no longer about politics and Fox News. It's about life and death.

[bbqbonelesswing]

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

I'm not saying that you're not neutral - if anything, your position seems to be *extremely* neutral, and that confuses me. To the OP's original points, do you disagree that there was a secret military operation in Germany, for example? Your initial post about the possibility of both the OP and their parents being both wrong makes it sound like you're willing to entertain that possibility for the sake of neutrality, whether or not there's any evidence for it.

Just so it's clear, too, I'm not saying and haven't said that the U.S. electoral system is perfect, and can't be improved. I must have not wrote clearly if that's how you read it - my apologies.

Fair enough. Let me explain what I meant by "neutrality".  It seems to be impossible to find time and resources to validate truth in the barrage of information we are exposed to on daily basis. What did strike me the most was the propensity of the OP to pathologize his own parents. It could be that he is right and they are wrong in some particular instance. I can't really arbitrate who is right or wrong. I sense proclivity to taking a higher ground by the OP, which in the larger picture him pathologizing his own parents or some group of people over some unverified or verified facts is rather alarming. This exponential polarization over some weaponized facts and hyperbolized labels is very destructive and polarize the society more, killing the due process of rational debate and Socratean thinking, ultimately in the end feeding the frenzy of the Hegelian dialectic. Very sad.

I believe the entire point of OP's post was that his parents were the ones not engaging in "rational debate". To blame OP for "killing the due process of rational debate and Socratean thinking" is quite ridiculous, when he is actually the one party asking for advice as to how to get his parents to engage in such discussion.

[SwordGuy]

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

I'm not saying that you're not neutral - if anything, your position seems to be *extremely* neutral, and that confuses me. To the OP's original points, do you disagree that there was a secret military operation in Germany, for example? Your initial post about the possibility of both the OP and their parents being both wrong makes it sound like you're willing to entertain that possibility for the sake of neutrality, whether or not there's any evidence for it.

Just so it's clear, too, I'm not saying and haven't said that the U.S. electoral system is perfect, and can't be improved. I must have not wrote clearly if that's how you read it - my apologies.

Fair enough. Let me explain what I meant by "neutrality".  It seems to be impossible to find time and resources to validate truth in the barrage of information we are exposed to on daily basis. What did strike me the most was the propensity of the OP to pathologize his own parents. It could be that he is right and they are wrong in some particular instance. I can't really arbitrate who is right or wrong. I sense proclivity to taking a higher ground by the OP, which in the larger picture him pathologizing his own parents or some group of people over some unverified or verified facts is rather alarming. This exponential polarization over some weaponized facts and hyperbolized labels is very destructive and polarize the society more, killing the due process of rational debate and Socratean thinking, ultimately in the end feeding the frenzy of the Hegelian dialectic. Very sad.

If anyone isn't sure, this is a great example of "Gaslighting".

[Much Fishing to Do]

I think this is really all an end of where we are politically, nothing more.

Everyone thinks (or at least talks like) absolutely EVERYTHING is black and white with no reason to discuss.  Truth and Falsity is used like I've never seen before.

I'm seeing Trump saying stuff that is ridiculous. I'm  seeing news headlines like "Trump Falsely claims he has succeeded in defeating virus",  non-sensical statements that are logically neither true nor false.  These are all things that we used to have an opinion page for.

Everything is absolutely obviously true or false depending on what side of the aisle you are on.  Abortion?  That's easy of course life is definitely defensible the second after a baby is born and not the second before, or of course the baby is alive the moment the heart starts beating, etc.  Even specific laws.  Regulation requiring a minority person serve on a board?, if you support it you are either righteous or racist on one side or if you deny it you are uneducated or a racist on that side.

We get to the point the absoluteness becomes obviously ridiculous, e.g.:

The American presidential election results is by definition correct and all who say otherwise are idiots (this is what the democrats say as pure undeniable truth in 2020 and republicans deny),
The American presidential election results is by definition corrupted (this is what democrats say is undeniable truth in 2016 and republicans deny) .

Anti-Vaxers were called uneducated idiots until 2020 by the same people don't now trust the "Trump vaccine".  You could say of course antivaxers are insane, but then those same people claim to believe the government violated blacks in Tuskegee, which a lot of people believe. (isn't that all worth an investigation or at least a conversation as opposed to the one side looking down upon the other).  I watch Fox news and I say what idiots if they really believe that, and then I watch MSNBC and Mika talking down to people differently depending the party it matters to (of course the US election is undeniable as long as you are talking about 2020 and not 2016, of course every person ever killed because of race was a black man killed by a white man)

Heck, There are still tons of people out there that say the towers were bombed by the Bush government in order to bring the middle east war that otherwise condemn conspiracy theorist. No democrat ever calls that a Falsity because it doesn't suit the theme.

People used to have the opinion that whatever is in their parties interest to believe is the correct opinion.  Now they say it is fact.  Its weird there is even an opinion page anymore.

That means everyone in the other party is evil or an idiot.

This is basically showing  96% of americans are dupes (those that always support their party line, whatever it is), and why all responsible intelligent discussion (and any real bipartisan workings) are gone forever now.

[partgypsy]

Only partly related, but there is an older lady in my office (mid-late 50's or early 60's) who is undergoing chemotherapy treatment, and mentions both her husband and her recently got Covid. Her husband apparently has both COPD and other co-morbdities. Was in the hospital for 5 days, got an experimental treatment, and is still on steriods. She says "We were going out to restaurants all the time but from now on, we're not.  I said "indoor or outdoor seating" and she replies indoor seating,  at least once a week.

I don't get it. Both her and her husband are in high risk categories and they were still eating in restaurants on a regular basis?

OTOH my mother is in the opposite camp. She is overdue for her annual checkup and her doctor will not re up her meds without an annual. so she is going to get her a1c tested at a pharmacy, check her bp, and do a phone/video appt.

[marty998]

How about we start with science?  There are experts in various fields of study such as Dr Fauci with decades of experience in various subject matters and/or have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. 

Then we can move onto facts and evidence that would hold up in a court of law.  That is another objective standard to apply.

Regarding religious belief, it's best not to challenge peoples' faith and worship beliefs unless those happen to infringe on the rights and safety of others.

This is interesting. Science is ever evolving and there are many people who have better credentials than Fauci who disagree with him. 
I didn't think the original post was about that.

Ahh the old “many people” nonsense that DT keeps going on about without specifically saying who.

For better or worse Fauci and his team of officials are the ones who are in the unenviable position of trying to manage the public message here on behalf of the government.

If you think Fauci and his polite advice to wear masks and keep basic hygiene and maintaining a reasonable distance from others to prevent the spread of what, at it’s most basic form, is a generic communicable disease is crackpot nonsense then just come out and say it.

[Catica]

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

I'm not saying that you're not neutral - if anything, your position seems to be *extremely* neutral, and that confuses me. To the OP's original points, do you disagree that there was a secret military operation in Germany, for example? Your initial post about the possibility of both the OP and their parents being both wrong makes it sound like you're willing to entertain that possibility for the sake of neutrality, whether or not there's any evidence for it.

Just so it's clear, too, I'm not saying and haven't said that the U.S. electoral system is perfect, and can't be improved. I must have not wrote clearly if that's how you read it - my apologies.

Fair enough. Let me explain what I meant by "neutrality".  It seems to be impossible to find time and resources to validate truth in the barrage of information we are exposed to on daily basis. What did strike me the most was the propensity of the OP to pathologize his own parents. It could be that he is right and they are wrong in some particular instance. I can't really arbitrate who is right or wrong. I sense proclivity to taking a higher ground by the OP, which in the larger picture him pathologizing his own parents or some group of people over some unverified or verified facts is rather alarming. This exponential polarization over some weaponized facts and hyperbolized labels is very destructive and polarize the society more, killing the due process of rational debate and Socratean thinking, ultimately in the end feeding the frenzy of the Hegelian dialectic. Very sad.

I am dealing with parents who openly doubt that people are dying of COVID-19 everyday. Or believe that Biden created the virus. They think Obama was Muslim and was born in Africa somewhere and they call him in all seriousness an evil man, then they turn around and defend Hitler. They think there was widespread fraudulent voting in the most recent election which caused Biden to win. My mom is starting to express anti-vaxxer beliefs. I've heard that Jews are involved in a conspiracy to take over the financial system (yet they can't define what they mean when they say financial system), the Muslims are plotting to destroy America, and the Mexicans are lazy bums who deserve to have their children taken away. I got to listen to the rant about how unfairly Trump is being treated by the press, at least until I hung up. I hear that it's a good thing that children have been separated from their parents and thrown into cages, except oops 2 minutes later I'm told that they don't believe it ever happened.

You say you can't arbitrate who is right and who is wrong. But there are things are not a matter of opinion. There are basic FACTS which are being disregarded and disbelieved, combined with a depressing breakdown of critical thinking. And it's happening to my parents, and a lot of other people too. Previously reasoned people are now saying and sincerely believing these things, and frankly my mom isn't spouting off a good chunk of the crazy that is out there.

You say you're worried about rational debate and yet rational debate is NOT POSSIBLE with someone who is no longer thinking rationally, for whatever reason. How can you possibly have a rational debate when the other party refuses to even consider that what you say might have validity? When any questioning of their preferred information source is met with a tirade about how corrupt everyone and everything is, except their preferred information source.

If it sounds illogical, that's because it is. Logic and reason don't work, there's a different rule book that is being followed, one which is perfectly ok with inconsistencies and illogical beliefs - as evidenced by the crap I hear from my parents on a regular basis. So please stop trying to apply reason and logic and neutrality, because all it does is annoy me and piss me off and show me that you have no idea what I or anyone else is seeing and hearing from these people.

Did your parents break a law by having these views? Did they physically hurt anyone? They are just having views that you don't like. Are you being emotionally disturbed?  If so, see a psychologist immediately to help you out with how to deal with the opinions of your parents. What's your solution? Since your parents are irrational according to your beliefs and facts, do you want to lock them up in a mental institution?  Do you want to medicate them or euthanize them or goose-step them to a crematorium? Clearly you call your parents "these people", that's not different than Cheka apparatchiks or any sturmfuhrer was eager to do with anybody who interpreted the facts differently than them. I'm sure you would make a good securocrat. You would be a good candidate to run a Stazi reprogramming. Stop venting just deal with it. I'm dealing with family members with opposing points of view and I'm not being annoyed and pissed off at them, but you are more than welcome to continue being pissed of and being annoyed.

[Catica]

I'm sensing a certain bias from what you deduced from my post.
Again, I'm neutral but you want to portray me that I'm not, and I somehow have to take a stance in defense of neutrality. Your story is unconvincing in a scope of highly complex understanding where authority is. Your assumption that the US elections are somewhat axiomatically perfect is dumbfounding. Historically speaking, there is a massive evidence of dysfunctional methodologies involved, and there is plenty of room for advancing the current voting system. To take a higher ground and to proclaim it as axiomatic system is authoritarian. What's next, are you going to claim that the so called democracy has no flaws simply by aligning yourself to either left or right?  That is in principal highly undemocratic reasoning, to choose to see flaws only in one ideology. No ideology should have authority as all ideologies are evolving concepts and they have hundreds of manifestations historically and contemporaneously. We can debate on certain traits within ideologies, liberal, conservative, social democratic, etc. and how they manifest themselves and how they are being perceived and interpreted in different parts of the world. But none of them have delivered on all fronts for the benefit of all. And my neutrality is highly entrenched in the benefit of all. If your argument is that you only want to benefit your ideology, then I have no quandary with you, as I'm not interested where you stand and how that shapes your perception of facts and evidence.

I'm not saying that you're not neutral - if anything, your position seems to be *extremely* neutral, and that confuses me. To the OP's original points, do you disagree that there was a secret military operation in Germany, for example? Your initial post about the possibility of both the OP and their parents being both wrong makes it sound like you're willing to entertain that possibility for the sake of neutrality, whether or not there's any evidence for it.

Just so it's clear, too, I'm not saying and haven't said that the U.S. electoral system is perfect, and can't be improved. I must have not wrote clearly if that's how you read it - my apologies.

Fair enough. Let me explain what I meant by "neutrality".  It seems to be impossible to find time and resources to validate truth in the barrage of information we are exposed to on daily basis. What did strike me the most was the propensity of the OP to pathologize his own parents. It could be that he is right and they are wrong in some particular instance. I can't really arbitrate who is right or wrong. I sense proclivity to taking a higher ground by the OP, which in the larger picture him pathologizing his own parents or some group of people over some unverified or verified facts is rather alarming. This exponential polarization over some weaponized facts and hyperbolized labels is very destructive and polarize the society more, killing the due process of rational debate and Socratean thinking, ultimately in the end feeding the frenzy of the Hegelian dialectic. Very sad.

I believe the entire point of OP's post was that his parents were the ones not engaging in "rational debate". To blame OP for "killing the due process of rational debate and Socratean thinking" is quite ridiculous, when he is actually the one party asking for advice as to how to get his parents to engage in such discussion.

So according to you the solution is for the parents to change their point of view?  Would you consider that a "rational debate"? How about avoiding topics of controversy, how is that so hard? To put it bluntly, if I'm a believer and you are not, and you are holding your opinion so strongly, you would never talk to me and deem me irrational?  Where do you people come from? No wonder there are not enough psychologists in this country and we are on a brink of a civil war.  Are you dying for censorship and a thought crime and preventing people to have any kind of beliefs? How are you going to eradicate the so called irrational thinking? Will you criminalize it? Are you pro deprogramming as someone here suggested? What's your solution? Have you heard of Voltaire? Maybe that should be a start for you.

[partgypsy]

Catica, I'm not sure if you are just in an argumentative mood, (or what)... but the op states that the parents believe in things that are quite verifiably false information. That they feel so to speak the world is ending, and are stressed. And that his siblings are also concerned. Maybe it is their business? I guess there are some false beliefs that don't hurt anyone (I have this lucky rabbits foot that protects me). There are also some false beliefs that can be clearly damaging or even  dangerous. While this isn't as bad as believing you can fly, or that the only way you can exorcise your neighbor is by cutting off his head, it is still distressing to see your parents scared, angry, upset for no good reason. If you don't have anything helpful to say, maybe not say anything at all? 
Some good advice has already been given. To focus on local concrete news, particularly positive things. To do participatory activities, and steer away from these discussions. To put it another way, even if the news is "real", focusing on unpleasant distressing information over which we have no locus of control, to the exclusion of things within our control or bring us joy and comfort and fulfillment is a recipe for misery and unhappiness. Psychological symptoms and behavior Are clinically significant if it impacts the person's social, emotional, occupational life in a negative or harmful way.

[Sibley]

Catica is not posting in good faith, nor do they seem to have any clue as to what the rest of us are talking about. I am not engaging with them any further. And I very much hope that they learn some empathy and compassion, but based on this thread I won't hold my breath.

Fuck off.

[Catica]

Catica, I'm not sure if you are just in an argumentative mood, (or what)... but the op states that the parents believe in things that are quite verifiably false information. That they feel so to speak the world is ending, and are stressed. And that his siblings are also concerned. Maybe it is their business? I guess there are some false beliefs that don't hurt anyone (I have this lucky rabbits foot that protects me). There are also some false beliefs that can be clearly damaging or even  dangerous. While this isn't as bad as believing you can fly, or that the only way you can exorcise your neighbor is by cutting off his head, it is still distressing to see your parents scared, angry, upset for no good reason. If you don't have anything helpful to say, maybe not say anything at all? 
Some good advice has already been given. To focus on local concrete news, particularly positive things. To do participatory activities, and steer away from these discussions. To put it another way, even if the news is "real", focusing on unpleasant distressing information over which we have no locus of control, to the exclusion of things within our control or bring us joy and comfort and fulfillment is a recipe for misery and unhappiness. Psychological symptoms and behavior Are clinically significant if it impacts the person's social, emotional, occupational life in a negative or harmful way.

You must have missed where I recommended that the OP doesn't engage in controversial topics and does not jeopardize his relationship with his parents over some ridiculous interpretation of facts.

[partgypsy]

Catica, I'm not sure if you are just in an argumentative mood, (or what)... but the op states that the parents believe in things that are quite verifiably false information. That they feel so to speak the world is ending, and are stressed. And that his siblings are also concerned. Maybe it is their business? I guess there are some false beliefs that don't hurt anyone (I have this lucky rabbits foot that protects me). There are also some false beliefs that can be clearly damaging or even  dangerous. While this isn't as bad as believing you can fly, or that the only way you can exorcise your neighbor is by cutting off his head, it is still distressing to see your parents scared, angry, upset for no good reason. If you don't have anything helpful to say, maybe not say anything at all? 
Some good advice has already been given. To focus on local concrete news, particularly positive things. To do participatory activities, and steer away from these discussions. To put it another way, even if the news is "real", focusing on unpleasant distressing information over which we have no locus of control, to the exclusion of things within our control or bring us joy and comfort and fulfillment is a recipe for misery and unhappiness. Psychological symptoms and behavior Are clinically significant if it impacts the person's social, emotional, occupational life in a negative or harmful way.

You must have missed where I recommended that the OP doesn't engage in controversial topics and does not jeopardize his relationship with his parents over some ridiculous interpretation of facts.

maybe you need to read your posts again to see what you said, including offensive name calling and making baseless accusations of the op including "euthanizing" his parents. I'm not going to post again because you are trolling and a waste of time.

[KarefulKactus15]

Catica is not posting in good faith, nor do they seem to have any clue as to what the rest of us are talking about. I am not engaging with them any further. And I very much hope that they learn some empathy and compassion, but based on this thread I won't hold my breath.

Fuck off.

I think I quit reading after the first reply. Maybe it reflects poorly on me but I would have needed a dictionary to read some of the replies from Catica.

All the other post from Catica I didn't reply to cause you never know what kind of day someone had. The tone from Catica in this thread seems out of character compared to previous post.

Anywho - it seems alot of people have the same issue as me. Maybe it will sort itself out in time.  One can only hope.

[gooki]

I’m with Fish Sweat. It might seem like being a jerk, but make it into a fun game. Make up some false news that fits their world view. Keep feeding them ever more and more ridiculous ideas until they realise their own stupidity.

[former player]

Catica is not posting in good faith, nor do they seem to have any clue as to what the rest of us are talking about. I am not engaging with them any further. And I very much hope that they learn some empathy and compassion, but based on this thread I won't hold my breath.

Fuck off.

I think I quit reading after the first reply. Maybe it reflects poorly on me but I would have needed a dictionary to read some of the replies from Catica.

All the other post from Catica I didn't reply to cause you never know what kind of day someone had. The tone from Catica in this thread seems out of character compared to previous post.

Anywho - it seems alot of people have the same issue as me. Maybe it will sort itself out in time.  One can only hope.

Catica's statements (I can't call them replies as they don't relate to any of the conversation on this thread) remind me of the worst sort of minor academic: wordy, abstruse, negative, irrelevant and pointless other than to rack up another publishing credit.

[damnedbee]

This is a really tough situation. My dad has been a conspiracy theorist for a long time (full-blown denial of the Holocaust and 9-11, that sort of thing). It got to the point where I couldn't even talk to him anymore because every conversation would devolve into the latest absurdity he read on the internet. It terrifies me to see half of the country becoming like him, without any apparent solution.

A lot of this boils down to psychology. It helped me to try to understand why some people, even intelligent "normal" thinkers, could be more prone to certain beliefs than others. Conspiracy theories generally take root in times of uncertainty (hello, global pandemic, climate disasters, economic crisis), and people are more prone to latch onto a conspiracy theory when they feel powerless and disenfranchised by society. It's their way of exerting control and helping to feel like they have some influence in scary times, or that they are more clever than the "sheeple." Couple that with the modern rise of social media, deliberate spread of false information by people in power, rise of the 24/7 entertainment "news" cycle, and collapse of critical thinking and media literacy, and we have a perfect storm. I particularly worry about the rise of junk infotainment like Newsmax and OANN.

You can't really combat someone's thinking around a particular conspiracy theory; they will only dig in deeper, and it's a waste of your time and energy to try to debunk anything. In general, the only thing that has ever worked for me to defuse a conversation is to use humor and generalities. When someone starts ranting about Government Conspiracy X, I might casually remark that I find it hard to believe that the same human beings involved in running your friendly local department of motor vehicles are capable of orchestrating a vast plot to overthrow the world. Or I might say that there is so much floating around that it's hard to know what to believe, so I try to read a variety of reputable news sources to make sure I'm seeing all angles. The idea is just to plant the seed of critical thinking without forcing it on the other person or making them feel defensive or judged.

[KarefulKactus15]

I like what you say about comparing it to local government.

"Do you really think Chief Green down at the local city police office is part of the grand scheme? What about Linda over at the tax office?"

But usually it re directs to big government.  At which point I say something like "Big government can barely conspire to make a cup of coffee on a good day. Did you see the response to (Insert disaster here)"


But at a higher level. Even if we can explain the suspense in critical thinking, what about the personality change that my parents and so many others have experienced?

Kind Christian values people, suddenly filled with hate and rage for their fellow Americans. Idk about your part of the world, but around here in the South, a lot of folks I know are legit enthused by the idea of a civil war, they been preparing for a long time.... My Parent support civil war at this moment - and it ain't just them.   And you say, "well its easy to hate something without assigning a face to it".   My Mom has made comments about the "Mexicans" ruining our country in front of my girlfriend who is a Hernandez. . . . .  (We had a little talk after that one...)

Anyway here is my conspiracy theory:
 Were in a war with our foreign enemies trying to destroy us from within, and the majority of the population isn't aware. From what I see - Our enemies are still advancing every day. Hopefully something is done before they win...

[mozar]

My dad thinks it's a conspiracy that cell phones and other devices start breaking down fairly quickly.  But I haven't been able to explain to him the concept of planned obsolescence. He doesn't seem to understand that people/companies don't have to collude to get an undesirable outcome.

There are a lot of shitty things that do happen that are true, but for reasons I don't understand conspiracy theorists ignore those.

[LaineyAZ]

I understand the motivation, but I disagree with the tactic which encourages people to disbelieve conspiracies because government employees are too incompetent to carry out such a conspiracy. 
By saying that, we are unfortunately furthering the idea that all government is bad, a waste of our tax dollars, etc.  Which then leads to the rise in pushback when e.g., our government health professionals want everyone to wear a mask, limit un-needed contact, etc. because that's "taking away our freedom."  The underlying belief is caused by the constant denigrating of our government employees.
Instead, my tactic is to say that the conspiracy is not plausible because humans can't keep a secret.  One example is the TWA 800 flight to Paris that broke apart off of the NY coast - there was an immediate rumor that it was actually shot down by the U.S. military and not a mechanical failure.  Simple math would show, if true, at least several hundred people would have to have engaged in a cover-up - does it sound plausible that every one of them would have been able to keep their mouth shut all this time? 

[Poundwise]

Maybe there are cognitive issues going on with the Boomers/Greatest Generation. My mother's friend, who used to be very sharp, got taken in by a phone scam for several thousand dollars. It's not a coincidence that these scams target the elderly.

[apologies to our friends who are actually Boomers/seniors and have not fallen prey to this epidemic of gullibility. I would be interested to see whether the conspiracy theorist elderly show dementia earlier than those who don't.]

[RetiredAt63]

Maybe there are cognitive issues going on with the Boomers/Greatest Generation. My mother's friend, who used to be very sharp, got taken in by a phone scam for several thousand dollars. It's not a coincidence that these scams target the elderly.

[apologies to our friends who are actually Boomers/seniors and have not fallen prey to this epidemic of gullibility. I would be interested to see whether the conspiracy theorist elderly show dementia earlier than those who don't.]

Hmm, all my friends seem to be fine, but then we get the crazy stuff second-hand.  The anti-mask demonstrators here are NOT Boomers, from the pictures they are the 20-45 crowd.

[BNgarden]

Apparently trust goes up in senior years, for many.  Not necessarily related to dementia, if I recall the study correctly.

[Metalcat]

I have a few conspiracy theorists in my family.

Thankfully, they believe in covid and despise Trump, so I don't have to put up with any of this particular brand of conspiracy nonsense right now, which is great.

However, I have a few decades under my belt of navigating conspiracies and handling them with patients, so I'll share my strategies.

First Step: Validate Validate Validate
-This is the first step for all conflict management, make sure their feelings and concerns are validated. Before rejecting their position, take a keen interest in understanding the feelings that are motivating them to seek out this type of information. Validate those feelings.
Ex:
You: "mom, it sounds like you're really afraid of what's going on with the government right now, I want to know what you're feeling most afraid of"
Mom: *says something that makes it clear that she doesn't trust her own democratically elected government*
You: "I totally understand. Politics have gotten so crazy these days, I've had a lot of similar feelings at times. It's really stressful"

Second Step: Explore the things they are probably right about
-There *is* an enormous amount of bias in a lot of media these days, you can cite facts that news outlets used to be more objective, non partisan, you can bond over the fact that watching the 6 o'clock News wasn't a bold political statement back in the day. It *is* hard to just trust the news anymore and that's legitimately stressful.

At this stage it would be really useful to have some solid examples of so-called leftist media bias that bother you. Ex: Obama is a media darling, but no one ever seems to talk about his role in fracking, or something like that.

For me, I really bonded over disliking CNN. I was watching American news early in Trump's presidency, and the coverage on CNN constantly made it sound as if he was moments away from being charged with something, and this was way before that was even close to being a possibility. I so wanted to understand what was going on, but it was so sensationalized it was impossible to parse anything meaningful.

Step Three: Push That Further
-As you build trust, as they feel you understand them and respect their distrust of media and even share it to a degree, you can extend the logic to include their own media.
Show how no media is immune to corruption, look at how they used to trust Fox News implicitly. Open them up to the concept that all news sources are fallible.

Step Four: Start working together to establish what types of sources of information might be valid
-Work collaboratively to determine what fact checking they would be comfortable with, maybe you can become a trusted fact checker?

At the end of the day, these people are scared and looking for reassurance. By rejecting their concerns and supporting the very media they fear, you just add yourself to the things they'll worry about.

They are desperately seeking sources of information they can unquestioningly trust, which is ironic considering the genesis of the problem is not trusting information. But the paradoxical thinking is also your access point for redirecting what they have faith in.

I myself am a former scientist and a medical professional, and my family has been heavily involved in politics my entire life. Because of my extensive experience in the above industries, I don't trust any of them.

I actually genuinely understand where the mistrust comes from in these people, so I don't attack their mistrust, I instead challenge their irrational faith in whatever nonsense media they're consuming. I utilize their own drive to mistrust in order to devalue their news sources instead of trying to promote the value of mine. It's then no longer partisan.

It's extremely uncomfortable to not trust any major sources of information, but that's where I bring them to with baby steps. Either they will eventually find comfort in evaluating each piece of information on their own, or they will be so desperate for a new arbiter of truth that I can slot myself into that position for them, which makes my life easier.

You cants "fact check" anyone unless they believe you to be someone who has access to facts.

[rmorris50]

How do you know they are wrong and you are right?  Maybe you are both wrong.

It's not about wrong or right. In fact without seeing it first hand, can anyone be sure they are wrong or right? It's baseless claims with no credible source. If they formed beliefs based on proper information then that's fine. There are established ways of determining if information is credible. They aren't new. I actually enjoy being open to new ideas.

But seeing them completely lose all fact checking and critical thinking is.... Idk... Sad.  I thought maybe some early dementia at first, but everything else is a ok and I doubt 1/8 the country has developed early dementia all at once...

Could you define "proper information" for me?
Please give me examples of an established way of determining if the information is credible.
One could argue that a belief in some divinity is baseless, would you call all of these people noncredible therefore having dementia? That's about 90% of humanity (percentile can be desputed).

If the person holding the religious belief isn’t admit to acknowledge that it’s a belief they chose to hold and there is not proof for their belief and thus they could be wrong, then yes they are deluding themselves.

Perception is  reality and Trump knows this, that’s what makes him so dangerous and why Trump embraces fake news.

On the other hand tho; I tell my family they have to remember the President has much less power than people think. Most the platforms the President runs on is really controlled by congress. The President rally only has half a dozen or so critical functions. So again how does a President gain power? By manipulating perceptions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk