Enough with the individual strategies, let's make a top 10 list of argument maps

[DanDanDan]

...or something like that.

What is the actual, sanctioned-by-profesional-deprogrammers, step by step technique for disillusioning a person of a vested belief in a fundamentally bad idea? What is the protocol for turning a person around when they're removed from a cultish environment? Lawyers do it with juries, so how do I do it with my denialist friend?

Granted, I'm being lazy here by not using my own google-fu, but there are actual, proven "deprogramming" techniques out there, right?

For example, I was just listening to yet another discussion on the pod about how frustrating it is to deal with a person that is parroting talking points on global warming denial that were obviously cooked up by a PR team working for an oil company. As Steve said, "literally, dude, somebody in a back room thought that up to deceive you." And then they go on to give a smattering of basic, individual pieces of advice on things to do and not to do, as they have on many occasions.

I love you guys (on the podcast [and the forum too!]), but enough already! Just point me to a "sanctioned" step-by-step method that I can use already! I don't care if it's way more that a 12 step list, and I don't care if I have to read a whole book on the subject to get a detailed understanding of the steps, but there must be an actual process that works out there somewhere. Please, help me out here by recommending some reading on the subject at the very least, if you can't just point me to the resource after saying, "here this is how it's done."

I've always been of the opinion that people are far more simple that most of us like to think. I strongly suspect that the answer to this issue is probably more straight forward than we suspect. After all, this is what the science of psychology exists for, and this is why lawyers create argument maps.

What's the skeptic's argument map, or tool chest of maps?

Grr.

Came back to add this part: what are the top 10 argument maps (i.e. argument techniques) that lawyers all over the world have been using since the days of Archbishop Richard Whately, when he "gave probably the first form of an argument map"?

[arthwollipot]

Bad news, I'm afraid. There is no actual step-by-step process, sanctioned or otherwise. There are books that can give you general advice (including the SGU book) but there is no "one crazy trick", twelve-step process or even complex series of hundreds of steps, that is guaranteed to work on everyone. All people are different, and different approaches will work differently. It's an art, not a science. And sometimes art turns out ugly, even though you did everything right. That's why it's so hard.

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

I wonder if there's any applicable military field manuals?  Like HUMINT or PSYOP stuff.

edit:

Like this but, "CRUSH THE DENIERS:"

And without the 'psychological warfare / psychic warfare' mix up

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

You know what, I read too much news.  A much less weird suggestion is sales.  Sales is all about targeted, goal-oriented manipulation. 

[Soldier of FORTRAN]

This is an interesting article

Article: There's a Strategy to Persuade Climate Change Deniers
From: Vice
Date: 2017 NOV 08

...

Appeal to the other person's values.

...

[...] "There's an idea called moral foundations theory that hypothesizes that liberals and conservatives prioritize different values," says Asheley Landrum, assistant professor of science communication at Texas Tech University. "Research has found that liberals tend to place a higher value on compassion and fairness, while conservatives favor purity, obeying authority, and loyalty, so you can't keep targeting conservatives with liberal tropes—talking about caring or compassion with them will likely be ineffective."

...

[...] if you're with a conservative, it's wise to change up your approach—science has found that personalized climate-related messages work better. A study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology reported that when conservative participants were presented with messages about how a pro-environmental agenda maintains the purity of America or how taking responsibility for yourself and the land you call home is patriotic, they were more likely to support that agenda. Another study found that framing a recycling effort as an obligation to adhere to authority and be part of a group—by showing a state's increase in recycling participation over the year—actually increased recycling efforts in conservative households.

Start with trust, not facts.

[...] "People don't like to be the target of a persuasive effort, so they are likely to shut down if you start throwing out evidence," says Liz Barnes, a PhD student who focuses on evolution education research at Arizona State University. One 2010 study found that correcting people could lead them to further double down on their own misperceptions, something researchers called the "backfire effect."

...

Instead, ask questions about their views and how they came to be. What influences their current ideas about climate science? What makes them uncertain that climate change is happening?

...

And be realistic: "Maybe you won't change their mind that particular time but you might come off in a different, more approachable way than other people who have tried to sway them," she adds. "People are so used to coming into these conversations with a battle mindset, when you show that you're not there to prove them wrong, they'll be more open to you the next time. You can plant a seed and grow it."

Let the skeptics know that there is a consensus among scientists.

...

[...] "Despite what frequently floats around in the media, around 97 percent of climate scientists believe that climate change is happening, that it is human-caused, and is worrisome."

...

Helping people understand that experts are on the same page about melting ice caps and climbing temperatures could actually sway them—in fact, researchers refer to this perceived acceptance as the "gateway" to getting people on board with climate change. In a 2015 study published in PLOS One, Maibach and colleagues found that telling people that experts agreed on climate change increased the chances that those individuals would accept that climate change was happening, was human-caused, and presented a real threat. Extra encouraging: That strategy was also particularly influential on Republicans, though liberals might also need a nudge. According to a recent Pew Research poll, only 55 percent of liberal Democrats believe that nearly all experts agree that humans are responsible for climate change.

These results are important to consider, since other studies have found that when the public gets a whiff of even a small amount of disagreement among experts, they're less likely to support environmental policies.

Focus on what's already happened and keep it local.

There are two things humans aren't really particularly good at: thinking about the future and caring about what's happening outside of their bubble. (Do we have to remind of what went down in November 2016?)

How does this relate to climate change? Well, often both researchers and lay people attempt to school other individuals about climate science using projections about what's going to happen in the coming years. Things like "By 2040, sea levels will rise X amount" or "In 15 years, we won't be able to farm X crops because it will be so hot." While data like that can have some shock value, people might not take it seriously. "When we look at projections going forward it's pretty easy to discount that data, not because they are wrong, but it's just that we all know our local meteorologists doesn't get the three-day forecast right, so we tend to be leery of a three decade or ten-decade prediction," says Maibach. Similarly, throwing out statistics about what is happening in Bangladesh or even in another part of the country is likely to be ineffective, unless someone happens to have personal interests in said place.

Instead, Maibach suggests offering data from the past, focusing on changes that have already happened, "which gives people less incentive to distrust them, since it's a historical fact."
Next, keep it local, because things tend to stick better when people have learned from experience, something called experiential learning. In a 2012 study published in Nature Climate Change, Maibach found that people who are less engaged with the issue of climate change (which is a whopping 75% of Americans) are more likely to be influenced by experiential learning. So gently and respectfully talk to them about what's changed in their community. Chat about the increased coastal flooding or data about the stronger heat waves that have occurred in the last 10 years. Have they noticed that the first frost comes later or that summers are longer? As people experience global warming, they are more likely to acknowledge it is happening.

Dish out neutral sources.

...

[...] Maibach suggests the National Climate Change Assessment, National Academy of Sciences, and American Association for the Advancement of Sciences websites, which all have very digestible reports written in simple English.

Give them examples of climate change-accepting role models

Some people are so wrapped up in their political identity that they may have a fear that if they accept climate change, they are no longer a Republican, Landrum says. "So, you want to show them that supporting climate change doesn't conflict with Republican values."

[...] Try citing conservative leaders who support climate change. Jerry Taylor is a great example of a conservative who switched sides. Bob Inglis, Lynn Scarlett, and Hank Paulson are also on board. [...]

[...] "The biggest misconception, even in scientists, is that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, but that's not the case. With a religious, evolution-supporting role model, we hoped to show students that they could be compatible," she adds. And it worked: along with discussions about religion and evolution, they were able to reduce students' perceived conflict between the two by 50 percent.

Two items I've had some luck with online (I don't know any deniers irl):

• Where have all the bugs gone? -- The Windscreen Phenomenon.  There aren't as many bugs as there used to be. Humans are indeed changing the environment.  Global warming is part of that.
  
• Changes have already started.  -- A North American Climate Boundary Has Shifted 140 Miles East Due to Global Warming.  One good example is that our main farming region is shrinking.

Neat graphic from that second item:


Here's another article concerning major changes in geography happening right now.

[brilligtove]

There are very well established programs for tearing a person apart and then reassembling the parts into a coherent whole that is fit to purpose. It's called 'boot camp'. I'm not entirely sure that it can be applied to this kind of situation though.

[daniel1948]

If there was a simple, step-by-step method for deprogramming people from wrong ideas, the SGU would have it posted prominently on their web site and put it in their book, and would have it as the closing of every episode of the show. Sort of like Sawbones always ends "Don't drill a hole in your head."

People's minds can be changed, but it's not simple or step-by-step. Madison Avenue is very good at it. Goebbels learned it from America and used it effectively. And the oil industry is using it to turn people away from the evidence. It's called advertising. Your problem, Dan, is that those guys have much more access to your dentist friend than you do. They "own" your friend's brain during all the time your friend is watching tv or listening to talk radio.

A pal of mine at FPC Yankton was fond of saying that people's minds are changed by emotions, not by reasons. His line was something like "Pepsi does not write a white paper on why Pepsi is better than Coke. They pay Michael Jordan to sing about it." So here's my "simple, step-by-step" prescription for changing your friend's mind: Hire their favorite pop singer to sing a song about how humans are changing the climate and how wonderful it would be to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to solar and wind and other sustainable energy sources."

[DanDanDan]

This is an interesting article

Article: There's a Strategy to Persuade Climate Change Deniers
From: Vice
Date: 2017 NOV 08

...

Appeal to the other person's values.

...

[...] "There's an idea called moral foundations theory that hypothesizes that liberals and conservatives prioritize different values," says Asheley Landrum, assistant professor of science communication at Texas Tech University. "Research has found that liberals tend to place a higher value on compassion and fairness, while conservatives favor purity, obeying authority, and loyalty, so you can't keep targeting conservatives with liberal tropes—talking about caring or compassion with them will likely be ineffective."

...

[...] if you're with a conservative, it's wise to change up your approach—science has found that personalized climate-related messages work better. A study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology reported that when conservative participants were presented with messages about how a pro-environmental agenda maintains the purity of America or how taking responsibility for yourself and the land you call home is patriotic, they were more likely to support that agenda. Another study found that framing a recycling effort as an obligation to adhere to authority and be part of a group—by showing a state's increase in recycling participation over the year—actually increased recycling efforts in conservative households.

Start with trust, not facts.

[...] "People don't like to be the target of a persuasive effort, so they are likely to shut down if you start throwing out evidence," says Liz Barnes, a PhD student who focuses on evolution education research at Arizona State University. One 2010 study found that correcting people could lead them to further double down on their own misperceptions, something researchers called the "backfire effect."

...

Instead, ask questions about their views and how they came to be. What influences their current ideas about climate science? What makes them uncertain that climate change is happening?

...

And be realistic: "Maybe you won't change their mind that particular time but you might come off in a different, more approachable way than other people who have tried to sway them," she adds. "People are so used to coming into these conversations with a battle mindset, when you show that you're not there to prove them wrong, they'll be more open to you the next time. You can plant a seed and grow it."

Let the skeptics know that there is a consensus among scientists.

...

[...] "Despite what frequently floats around in the media, around 97 percent of climate scientists believe that climate change is happening, that it is human-caused, and is worrisome."

...

Helping people understand that experts are on the same page about melting ice caps and climbing temperatures could actually sway them—in fact, researchers refer to this perceived acceptance as the "gateway" to getting people on board with climate change. In a 2015 study published in PLOS One, Maibach and colleagues found that telling people that experts agreed on climate change increased the chances that those individuals would accept that climate change was happening, was human-caused, and presented a real threat. Extra encouraging: That strategy was also particularly influential on Republicans, though liberals might also need a nudge. According to a recent Pew Research poll, only 55 percent of liberal Democrats believe that nearly all experts agree that humans are responsible for climate change.

These results are important to consider, since other studies have found that when the public gets a whiff of even a small amount of disagreement among experts, they're less likely to support environmental policies.

Focus on what's already happened and keep it local.

There are two things humans aren't really particularly good at: thinking about the future and caring about what's happening outside of their bubble. (Do we have to remind of what went down in November 2016?)

How does this relate to climate change? Well, often both researchers and lay people attempt to school other individuals about climate science using projections about what's going to happen in the coming years. Things like "By 2040, sea levels will rise X amount" or "In 15 years, we won't be able to farm X crops because it will be so hot." While data like that can have some shock value, people might not take it seriously. "When we look at projections going forward it's pretty easy to discount that data, not because they are wrong, but it's just that we all know our local meteorologists doesn't get the three-day forecast right, so we tend to be leery of a three decade or ten-decade prediction," says Maibach. Similarly, throwing out statistics about what is happening in Bangladesh or even in another part of the country is likely to be ineffective, unless someone happens to have personal interests in said place.

Instead, Maibach suggests offering data from the past, focusing on changes that have already happened, "which gives people less incentive to distrust them, since it's a historical fact."
Next, keep it local, because things tend to stick better when people have learned from experience, something called experiential learning. In a 2012 study published in Nature Climate Change, Maibach found that people who are less engaged with the issue of climate change (which is a whopping 75% of Americans) are more likely to be influenced by experiential learning. So gently and respectfully talk to them about what's changed in their community. Chat about the increased coastal flooding or data about the stronger heat waves that have occurred in the last 10 years. Have they noticed that the first frost comes later or that summers are longer? As people experience global warming, they are more likely to acknowledge it is happening.

Dish out neutral sources.

...

[...] Maibach suggests the National Climate Change Assessment, National Academy of Sciences, and American Association for the Advancement of Sciences websites, which all have very digestible reports written in simple English.

Give them examples of climate change-accepting role models

Some people are so wrapped up in their political identity that they may have a fear that if they accept climate change, they are no longer a Republican, Landrum says. "So, you want to show them that supporting climate change doesn't conflict with Republican values."

[...] Try citing conservative leaders who support climate change. Jerry Taylor is a great example of a conservative who switched sides. Bob Inglis, Lynn Scarlett, and Hank Paulson are also on board. [...]

[...] "The biggest misconception, even in scientists, is that religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, but that's not the case. With a religious, evolution-supporting role model, we hoped to show students that they could be compatible," she adds. And it worked: along with discussions about religion and evolution, they were able to reduce students' perceived conflict between the two by 50 percent.

Two items I've had some luck with online (I don't know any deniers irl):

• Where have all the bugs gone? -- The Windscreen Phenomenon.  There aren't as many bugs as there used to be. Humans are indeed changing the environment.  Global warming is part of that.
  
• Changes have already started.  -- A North American Climate Boundary Has Shifted 140 Miles East Due to Global Warming.  One good example is that our main farming region is shrinking.

Neat graphic from that second item:


Here's another article concerning major changes in geography happening right now.

"Bam!", as Bob would say. That's the sort of thing that I knew must exist.

However, I'd like to see that put into a logical argument map (Google "logic argument map" for more info on what that is) that the rogues should,  IMO, include in their next book.

More specifically, I'd like to see the top 3 or 4 argument maps that all skeptics should memorize.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[Billzbub]

Sort of like Sawbones always ends "Don't drill a hole in your head."

What is this?

Hire their favorite pop singer to sing a song about how humans are changing the climate and how wonderful it would be to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to solar and wind and other sustainable energy sources."

I am still of the opinion that if we could just convince Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, then every republican would fall into line.  As long as Hannity or Rush still feel that it is a hoax perpetrated by scientists to get funding, then most republicans will not budge no matter what you do.  They assume those guys are smarter than them and smarter than you, and will have faith that no matter how reasonable it sounds, those two guys must know something more that makes climate change fake.  I do the same thing sometimes with Steve, where if Steve says something and I'm too lazy to research it myself, I just assume he's correct.  I told my wife and kids the other day that chameleons change color based on mood, not based on their surroundings, based 100% on what Steve said without looking it up myself.  They called BS, and I was like, nope, Steve said it so it must be true.

/sigh.  I'm a terrible skeptic.

[John Albert]

what is the actual, sanctioned-by-profesional-deprogrammers, step by step technique for disillusioning a person of a vested belief in a fundamentally bad idea?

Stay away from "professional deprogrammers." Those people are abusive, violent criminals.

[Ah.hell]

Sort of like Sawbones always ends "Don't drill a hole in your head."

What is this?

Hire their favorite pop singer to sing a song about how humans are changing the climate and how wonderful it would be to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to solar and wind and other sustainable energy sources."

I am still of the opinion that if we could just convince Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, then every republican would fall into line.  As long as Hannity or Rush still feel that it is a hoax perpetrated by scientists to get funding, then most republicans will not budge no matter what you do.  They assume those guys are smarter than them and smarter than you, and will have faith that no matter how reasonable it sounds, those two guys must know something more that makes climate change fake.  I do the same thing sometimes with Steve, where if Steve says something and I'm too lazy to research it myself, I just assume he's correct.  I told my wife and kids the other day that chameleons change color based on mood, not based on their surroundings, based 100% on what Steve said without looking it up myself.  They called BS, and I was like, nope, Steve said it so it must be true.

/sigh.  I'm a terrible skeptic.

I think you would need more than just them but it would help.  I'm not convinced either of them believe their BS though.  Hannity is and always has been a schill for the GOP.  Rush may have been genuinely just a conservative at some point. 

[DanDanDan]

If there was a simple, step-by-step method for deprogramming people from wrong ideas, the SGU would have it posted prominently on their web site and put it in their book, and would have it as the closing of every episode of the show. Sort of like Sawbones always ends "Don't drill a hole in your head."

People's minds can be changed, but it's not simple or step-by-step. Madison Avenue is very good at it. Goebbels learned it from America and used it effectively. And the oil industry is using it to turn people away from the evidence. It's called advertising. Your problem, Dan, is that those guys have much more access to your dentist friend than you do. They "own" your friend's brain during all the time your friend is watching tv or listening to talk radio.

A pal of mine at FPC Yankton was fond of saying that people's minds are changed by emotions, not by reasons. His line was something like "Pepsi does not write a white paper on why Pepsi is better than Coke. They pay Michael Jordan to sing about it." So here's my "simple, step-by-step" prescription for changing your friend's mind: Hire their favorite pop singer to sing a song about how humans are changing the climate and how wonderful it would be to stop burning fossil fuels and switch to solar and wind and other sustainable energy sources."

Uh, dentist friend? Are you referring to somebody that I referred to in a past post, or am I missing the point of an analogy, or something? Ah, you meant my denialist friend. Better late than never.

Second, Daniel, go back and read my post. I didn't say that the answers I seek are simple, I said that people are basically simple. Huge difference and if I communicated that poorly, my bad. Plus, something can be both simple and difficult.

As I alluded to earlier the very existence of law school proves your point wrong. I don't doubt for one moment that an actual lawyer could point me to actual text books that focus on such narrow subjects. In fact, and yes I am hypothesizing at this point, I'm willing to bet that lawyers are taught specific techniques that have specific names, that can be traced back to specific ancient philosophers. Logic and debate have existed for a looooong time.

Here's the wikipedia link to the subject of argument maps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_map

And here's a link to purchase a book that is specifically referenced in that article.
https://www.amazon.com/Virtual-Arguments-Assistants-Information-Technology/dp/9067041904

Granted, that's one book, but if artificial intelligence can be used to help train lawyers, the sort of algorithms I'm asking for must exist.

Basically, I'm crowdsourcing this issue because I'm not a lawyer, nor was I on a debate team. So I need guidance, and I'm willing to bet that there are professionals out there that know waaaay more on the subject than I do.

Lastly, It's a mistake to argue that the SGU is an authority that would have included such ideas in their book, or to use the "I would have heard of it" argument in this case. So, Daniel, and to those who actually believe that such formalized "step-by-step method(s) for deprogramming people from wrong ideas" don't exist, I think I've identified an idea you have that needs deprogramming.

Still, truly, thanks for the feedback!

[DanDanDan]

If anybody knows any lawyers, professors, or other professional debaters, please point them to this discussion. Maybe we can come up with a list of top argument techniques to complement the list of top logical fallacies.

It might not be easy to do, but I think it's worth doing!

[arthwollipot]

Sort of like Sawbones always ends "Don't drill a hole in your head."

What is this?

Sawbones is a podcast, on the subject of medicine. I haven't listened to it, but this looks like it's probably an in-joke with its source in a discussion of trepanning at some point in the show's history.

[daniel1948]

Sort of like Sawbones always ends "Don't drill a hole in your head."

What is this?

Sawbones is a podcast, on the subject of medicine. I haven't listened to it, but this looks like it's probably an in-joke with its source in a discussion of trepanning at some point in the show's history.

Yes. Sawbones is one of my favorite podcasts, and I highly recommend it. It bills itself as "A marital tour of misguided medicine," and it's mostly about the history of medicine: How people long ago treated various maladies. Sometimes it strays into contemporary issues. Sydnee McElroy (which they pronounce MACKelroy) is a practicing doctor, and is the main presenter, and her husband Justin plays the clown and makes jokes. The show flows very well. They and their family have several other podcasts, all of which in my opinion are crap. But this one works. It's informative and entertaining.

I think there was a doctor in the distant past who drilled a hole in his own head for some wacky reason, and they always close the show with, "Don't drill a hole in your head" perhaps because that's one of the crazier things that people have done in the past.

Again, I recommend it.