Three Guidelines if You Want to Debate with Conspiracy Theorists on Social Media

Avoid triggering cognitive dissonance; discuss methodology instead of conclusions; and accept small wins

"cognitive dissonance" by tcd123usa is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Being active on social media will bring us into contact with a very wide range of friends, family members, colleagues, acquaintances and random people. Some of the beliefs you will see will clash with your own. Social media makes it very easy to enter sterile debates, with neither side listening to the other and each trying to have the last word. I have done this more than most and I have come to realize that it is a very poor way of changing the world. What should you do instead if you see someone spreading speculative opinions that you consider to be dangerous and unfounded?

While slowly developing the Sharpen Your Axe project in my spare time, I came up with three guidelines on social media debates that I would like to share with you in this post. First of all, avoid triggering cognitive dissonance at all costs. Cognitive dissonance is the unpleasant feeling we all experience in the face of being contradicted. It should be obvious that semi-hostile debates, with each side plotting quick comebacks, are counter-productive because we both double down on our starting positions. Instead, try listening deeply to the other person. Invite them to explain their views, maybe on a call instead of a social media platform. Look for points of common ground. It often helps to split the other person’s views in two, so you can agree with a general point or two (“it is great that you are doing your own research and distrusting elites is definitely a healthy attitude”) without commenting on specific theories. Also, teach the other person about cognitive dissonance and how to recognize it. A little self-awareness on both sides can prevent debates spiralling out of control.

Secondly, talk about methodology instead of conclusions. This blog contains lots of material about suspending judgement, weighing probabilities and the value of reading multiple news sources. If the other person doesn’t have much to say about methodology, I have also provided material on the dangers of trusting your instinct, looking for explanations to save a one-size-fits-all worldview from contradictory evidence, disregarding the news media, listening to gurus who are totally assured of their views, trying to work backwards from causes to events or misquoting sources. If the other person pushes back against this focus on methodology, try and find some common ground with a defence of contrarianism. You can set rival methodologies against each other by proposing a bet. Which methodology yields better results in the real world?

Thirdly, accept small wins. Nobody will stop being a conspiratorial anti-globalist after losing just one bet. You have just planted a single seed. It will take time to grow. If you insist on total victory, you will trigger cognitive dissonance, which means you just lost. The next time you speak to your friend, go back to the first point again. Look for common ground, talk a little more about methodology and propose another bet. Nobody will ever concede fully in the middle of a debate, but they might come back to you in months or years and thank you for putting them on a new course.

I discuss these points in greater depth in Chapter 18 of Sharpen Your Axe, my free book on critical-thinking tools for ordinary people. It discusses some other approaches for debating without triggering cognitive dissonance, such as Rapoport’s rules, as well as some guidance on becoming an amateur researcher. It is the final chapter of the book, so next week I will share the bibliography and some additional materials. If you haven’t subscribed yet, please do so so you don’t miss another update. Also, I decided to make this material free so that it could spread as widely as possible. If you can share it on social media, it would be greatly appreciated.

If you missed the beginning of the project, here are the links to Chapter One, Chapter Two, Chapter Three, Chapter Four, Chapter Five, Chapter Six, Chapter Seven, Chapter Eight, Chapter Nine, Chapter Ten, Chapter 11, Chapter 12, Chapter 13, Chapter 14, Chapter 15, Chapter 16 and Chapter 17. See you next week!

[Updated on 10 March 2022] Opinions expressed on Substack and Twitter are those of Rupert Cocke as an individual and do not reflect the opinions or views of the organization where he works or its subsidiaries.