• CADmonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I have a cousin who is 100% convinced that the US government or someone is hiding anti-gravity from everyone. Something about wheel manufacturers having a chokehold on the world.

  • Sabin10@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Reminds me of a guy I worked with. He even started the occasional sentence with “contrary to fact” before telling me you can order super powerful quantum computers on Ali express that can run your entire steam library concurrently.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      That’s not how quantum computers work. They’d be terribly bad at doing the things that transistor-based computers do. They are run in a completely different way.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      run your entire steam library concurrently.

      What’s hilarious about this assertion, is what the intersection of quantum computing and conventional gaming would look like. Quantum is, roughly, all about taking a vast array of possible outcomes for a system and collapsing all of that into a single, highly probable, result*. So running a game through a quantum computer would effectively “solve” it. So, enjoy watching the most statistically likely ending for every AAA game out there - no controller required.

      (* “In linear time.” Which is fancy computer science talk for “many orders of magnitude faster than the conventional way.” But you still have to stack the math to make this work, which isn’t always easy or possible.)

      • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s not what a “game” is. A “game” has interactivity and would not be solved by the computer automatically

  • Hikermick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    About 13 years ago I had a debate with a friend about some political thing. He repeated something from the media (AM radio) I knew was BS so I told him I’d email him evidence to the contrary, he told me he’d send evidence in support. I sent him a mountain of evidence but never heard from him. The next time we met I brought it up he told me he didn’t have time to read my email, his body language said otherwise. That’s when I realized it was a cult

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Something I find funny - uncanny even - is how easily the roles swap. If someone sent you a mountain of ‘evidence’ for a flat earth or magnetising vaccines, and you threw it out saying obviously it’s BS and you can’t be bothered to read it, the internet would agree and laud you for common sense.

      But OP-of-the-tweet sends her friend two ‘sources’ and we all agree the friend is an idiot for not believing the ‘facts’.

      I suppose what it means is, quantity of evidence isn’t useless, but is only part of the search for knowledge.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Belief is social. If you can appeal to a group they have membership in, they’re more likely to switch. If it sounds like you’re a member of an out group, you’re going to struggle.

      So like if you’re trying to get a evangelical to stop littering, framing it as like Jesus told us to shepherd the earth will probably work better than saying anything about scientists.

      Also if you’re trying to get someone to, like, stop believing in qanon, you’re probably going to need to get them to leave that group. If they keep hanging out on those forums and groups, the brain is going to treat you coming with facts similar to how it would treat a threat to its physical safety. The brain really strongly prioritizes group membership. Probably because in prehistory, getting kicked from the group was extremely dangerous. If you can get them to no longer see the other cultists as their primary group, the transition is easier.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      If the past 10 years have told me anything, by being a large hard-right media conglomerate consistently pounding the same facts as the reason for everyone’s fear, unifying desperate people against a windmill you propped up yourself.

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      One of the biggest general things is giving them a graceful out.

      One of the biggest markers of an intelligent person is the ability to accept they were wrong about something and update their world view. This leads them to finding the best understanding they currently can, rather than the first that stuck.

      For most people this is extremely hard. If you also put them in a position where they feel like an idiot if they agree with you, many will just dig their heels in. Once this happens, the more you push the more they dig in. It has become part of their identity, and you are attacking it.

      Unfortunately, the details about how to guide someone through are different depending on the person. Generally you want to align your new knowledge with their mindset, give them a good reason why they held their previous view, and how updating it improves them.

      It’s analogous to clearing sand with a hose Vs a sledge hammer. The sledge hammer will often compact the sand, rather than move it. Water can wash it away, but the process is slower. It also gets harder if it’s previously been pounded with the hammer.

      And rereading my word salad, I’ve got no idea how helpful it actually is as advice, but I’ll post it anyway, in case it’s actually useful to someone.

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    But if he did change his mind after reading your sources he would have disproved the sources.