When someone asserts to be true something you find ridiculous...

[ygolo]

How do you respond? Why?

How would you like to respond? Why?

If "it depends" what does it depend on?

The context I am thinking of is either in a public forum, or a conversational setting where someone is purporting to inform others of the truth.

---------

I have, in the past, responded saying "that's ridiculous" or something equivalent to it. I realize that this is not the best response.

Often, I ask questions to clarify what the other person was saying, so that my own conception can (hopefully) be adjusted to something more reasonable. This too seems like an inadequate response, because more often than not, I still continue to find their conception of facts ridiculous.

I have considered letting things be, and have, let it be, at times. This feels like I am letting them continue to delude themselves and continue to misinform others. I could pick topics (global warming, the value of vaccination, co-opting scientific notions to reach ridiculous conclusions, ...), but I am sure more than a handful of the people on the forum have been frustrated by similar situations.

I am trying to formulate a new set of better habits, which of course would mean finding out what to do in these situations.

Thoughts?

----

Edit: I made a test topic which may or may not be an interesting thread in itself:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...rituality/71965-transgressing-boundaries.html

 

[á´…eparted]

Generally, I don't waste my time with crazies and folks who make insane statements. If it is something that I can easily shoot down, I will try. If they don't yield some, I look at how they are coming to their conclusions. If it is something I couldn't do anything with, I make a statement saying I am done, and almost never engage with them ever again.

My rule is, don't waste energy on people you can't change.

 

[ygolo]

Generally, I don't waste my time with crazies and folks who make insane statements. If it is something that I can easily shoot down, I will try. If they don't yield some, I look at how they are coming to their conclusions. If it is something I couldn't do anything with, I make a statement saying I am done, and almost never engage with them ever again.

My rule is, don't waste energy on people you can't change.

Seems like a policy that can preserve my sanity. I do worry about them going around an misinforming people leading to harm. A lot of times, these people are quite charismatic.

I was trying to find some example of ridiculousness that wouldn't immediately create a flame war, and I thought of something. It could be a good test. I will edit my op to cross-link it once done (could be an interesting discussion in itself).

 

[á´…eparted]

Seems like a policy that can preserve my sanity. I do worry about them going around an misinforming people leading to harm. A lot of times, these people are quite charismatic.

I was trying to find some example of ridiculousness that wouldn't immediately create a flame war, and I thought of something. It could be a good test. I will edit my op to cross-link it once done (could be an interesting discussion in itself).

When those people are well liked and spreading misinformation I can get into fits. In those cases I either smear their image or address it behind the scenes to cut off their ability to do so. Usually it takes little effort as they most are aware of the issues and just need a little encouraging to start putting them in their place.

Not the most ethical thing to do, but I see it as for the greater good so it's justified.

Of course, that only works if you are with many people.

 

[prplchknz]

When those people are well liked and spreading misinformation I can get into fits. In those cases I either smear their image or address it behind the scenes to cut off their ability to do so. Usually it takes little effort as they most are aware of the issues and just need a little encouraging to start putting them in their place.

Not the most ethical thing to do, but I see it as for the greater good so it's justified.

Of course, that only works if you are with many people.

what about when the misinformation is from another source and they think it's legit? I would be kinder to them over someone just trolling. just trolling i have no problem fucking up their image, someone who is being sincere i'd try to educate them if that doesn't work then i just say screw it everyone can die because carrot juice isn't going to cure throat cancer.

 

[ygolo]

When those people are well liked and spreading misinformation I can get into fits. In those cases I either smear their image or address it behind the scenes to cut off their ability to do so. Usually it takes little effort as they most are aware of the issues and just need a little encouraging to start putting them in their place.

Not the most ethical thing to do, but I see it as for the greater good so it's justified.

Of course, that only works if you are with many people.

I've had the impulse to do this myself. But, often (certainly not always), I like the person. I usually don't want to harm them or their image.

Besides, my skills in directing my social clout are not well refined. If I tried something that sneaky, it is sure to backfire on me anyways.

 

[á´…eparted]

what about when the misinformation is from another source and they think it's legit? I would be kinder to them over someone just trolling. just trolling i have no problem fucking up their image, someone who is being sincere i'd try to educate them if that doesn't work then i just say screw it everyone can die because carrot juice isn't going to cure throat cancer.

I'd assume I have already tried to explain things and prove it wrong. I have little tollerence for it because of my mother who spreads bad sources all the time. It is not an excuse.

I've had the impulse to do this myself. But, often (certainly not always), I like the person. I usually don't want to harm them or their image.

Besides, my skills in directing my social clout are not well refined. If I tried something that sneaky, it is sure to backfire on me anyways.

If I like the person 99% of the time we can come to some sort of agreement. I sort of just naturally attract and am drawn to people of like mind. I have a few friends where we diverge a bit on political things, and we both simply avoid all of it for the sake of our friendship.

 

[Bush]

I usually only intervene when (a) it affects me and/or (b) I think the person will actually be receptive. I have no problem throwing my weight around when I need to be understood or when someone's going to act dangerously.

If someone's gonna believe what they're gonna believe, then it's not my business. If they're not going to listen to dissenting opinions, then it's not worth my time.

 

[ygolo]

If I like the person 99% of the time we can come to some sort of agreement. I sort of just naturally attract and am drawn to people of like mind. I have a few friends where we diverge a bit on political things, and we both simply avoid all of it for the sake of our friendship.

Ah, I see.

For whatever reason, I seem to be drawn to people who believe quite different things from myself...maybe having been brought up in an Eastern tradition in a Western nation, along with continued strong interest in the spiritual, symbolic, and to some extent, the supernatural, despite having years of scientific and technical training.

Maybe I'm just hyper-aware of people's conscious beliefs because I was exposed to so many different belief systems at a young age. Maybe this hyper-awareness of conscious belief makes me focus on the differences when they come up.

I'm not sure.

 

[á´…eparted]

Ah, I see.

For whatever reason, I seem to be drawn to people who believe quite different things from myself...maybe having been brought up in an Eastern tradition in a Western nation, along with continued strong interest in the spiritual, symbolic, and to some extent, the supernatural, despite having years of scientific and technical training.

Maybe I'm just hyper-aware of people's conscious beliefs because I was exposed to so many different belief systems at a young age. Maybe this hyper-awareness of conscious belief makes me focus on the differences when they come up.

I'm not sure.

Interestingly I was exposed to a ton of different belief systems when I wad growing up and often wanted everyone to get along. The beliefs I wad raised with (which I have since left behind) had a big element of "everyone is right" so I sought to bridge gaps. Not so much anymore.

Also, I am ENFJ. We don't really like befriending and making circles with people we don't have a lot in common with . I want common ground and harmony. I don't see the point without it. Well, I do see it, but that's not for me.

 

[Flâneuse]

How I respond depends on how harmful the belief seems. If it seems pretty benign, I usually leave them alone. If not, I at least try to state my differing opinion and why I think their conclusion is wrong. (Politely, because then I have a better chance of being listened to.)

On here if I see someone making assertions I disagree with, I usually don't directly address the person who stated it - I just post my own opinion about the truth, then leave.

 

[Amalie Muller]

I usually laugh my skull off at first.

Then I replace my skull, do a bit of research, and play Devil's Advocate a little (defending the craziest ideas in the world just for the fun of it).

Then I get bored, and look for another nonsense belief.

(The article in your other thread is, of course, a masterpiece of its "genre", and deserves a huge amount of respect, in my opinion.)

 

[93JC]

I used to let people "have their say", genuinely believed that everybody was "entitled to their opinion", and I enjoyed "setting people straight" and playing Devil's advocate. As I get older I find my patience for people wearing thinner and thinner.

If someone asserts something absolutely ridiculous to be true I try my best to ignore them. Interacting with them is a waste of my time.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I am dismissive if I do not have free time to spend on such endeavors.

But if I do feel I have free time (which I think would be the case in the setting you chose), I enjoy the occasional debate with someone who believes something I find insane. Usually when someone first asserts such beliefs, I feel a reaction, a desire to perhaps laugh or cry an interjection, but I hold that back and attempt, as civilly as I can, to engage in a discussion about it, asking what I think are the pertinent questions and elaborating what I think is incorrect about their position. Unless they themselves become rude or agitated, I can generally remain polite (and even if they do, I will typically remain polite much longer than them). While I enjoy this, I do not have any hopes of changing the other person's mind. I do it for entertainment, I do it for practice, and I do it to inform the audience if there is an audience to the discussion.

I honestly don't feel that how I'd want to react and how I do react are very different [very modest of me, right?]. I'd just like to be quicker on my feet in discussions, debates, and arguments, I suppose. Also, while I think I control my temper better than most, I'd still like to do so even more. I want to be completely immune to peoples' inflammatory behavior, but that may not be possible.

 

[Tellenbach]

My response would depend on the person. If the person is a brainwashed, low-information type, there really isn't much one can do, but if the individual possesses some critical thinking skills and he seems to be sincere in seeking knowledge, I'd be happy to point out the errors in his thinking by recommending some books or some other reference source.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink without doing stuff to it.

 

[Polaris]

I like it when people say things I find to be ridiculous. It's an opportunity for me to get all self-righteous and indignant, which is something everyone loves to do, although most people won't admit it. Either that, or more commonly, I just laugh in good-natured amusement. You're taking yourself too seriously if you think you have to be all serious and voice your disagreement every time someone says something you know is wrong.

 

[Hitoshi-San]

If I think what they're saying it complete and utter bullshit and I know if I open my mouth then it'll end in a fight, then I just sort of ignore them or leave the conversation in a different direction. Otherwise, if I think they might actually have a valid point in there somewhere or I want to know why they believe that or if we can turn it into a small debate, I ask them questions about it, like how they came to that or why they are saying it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I've gotten a lot of mileage out of the saying "different strokes for different folks".

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

How do you respond? Why?

How would you like to respond? Why?

If "it depends" what does it depend on?

The context I am thinking of is either in a public forum, or a conversational setting where someone is purporting to inform others of the truth.

---------

I have, in the past, responded saying "that's ridiculous" or something equivalent to it. I realize that this is not the best response.

Often, I ask questions to clarify what the other person was saying, so that my own conception can (hopefully) be adjusted to something more reasonable. This too seems like an inadequate response, because more often than not, I still continue to find their conception of facts ridiculous.

I have considered letting things be, and have, let it be, at times. This feels like I am letting them continue to delude themselves and continue to misinform others. I could pick topics (global warming, the value of vaccination, co-opting scientific notions to reach ridiculous conclusions, ...), but I am sure more than a handful of the people on the forum have been frustrated by similar situations.

I am trying to formulate a new set of better habits, which of course would mean finding out what to do in these situations.

Thoughts?

----

Edit: I made a test topic which may or may not be an interesting thread in itself:
http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...rituality/71965-transgressing-boundaries.html

I usually debate them or challenge them in some fashion. Apparently that makes me look like an asshole, even when I'm not really trying to make them look foolish. It's probably not the best course of action. I like to ask questions that reveal the ambiguities and include things they haven't encountered before. If someone tries to sidestep my question, usually I take it to mean that I have a point.

It's probably not the wisest course of action.

 

[Kullervo]

How do you respond? Why?

I don't usually care that much, people can believe what they want and will learn the error of their ways through experience. I especially feel this way politically, as trends suggest that the scenarios I warn about will become a reality in the not too distant future. I look forward to some displays of leftist hypocrisy.

I will debate online from time to time if I'm bored and want something to do.

How would you like to respond? Why?

I would like to be more calm and smooth in public, especially around new people or a large group of people. I am not a very good public speaker due to my anxiety, so tend to avoid heated debates.

If "it depends" what does it depend on?

Well, it mainly depends on how involved I am...a political meeting or public debate I will let lie, but if somebody comes up and asks me what I think of an issue directly, I will not hold back.