The communication conundrum

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Whilst reading through my newest issue of Skeptical Inquirer (which I have to find at Borders since B&N carries neither it, nor Skeptic) I stumbled across this nugget of epiphany that seem most relevant to the discussion that go on in this subforum. Its from the Comment and Opinion section:
The Art of Persuasion in Politics (and Science) Benjamin Wolozin

...
It is often perplexing that science's critics appear to be immune to the tremendous amount of data driving our conclusions and instead seem to rely on weak or dubious facts criticizing each subject. Whether the topic is evolution, global warming, stem cells, or abortion, how often have we had the experience of trying to persuade someone why our view of the world is accurate, only to have the arguments dismissed? How can the public ignore the overwhelming evidence?
...
Lakoff's basic idea is the powerful role cognitive frameworks exert in our understanding of the world. He summarizes research showing that individuals develop cognitive frameworks to help them organize the information in the world around them. ... We use such cognitive frameworks to interpret the many facts confronting us every day. We attend to facts that integrate easily with the cognitive framework and tend to dismiss facts that are not consistent with our views.
...
Lakoff argues that appreciating the role of cognitive frameworks in human behavior is essential in engaging in public debates, because it explains how people take in information and why people tend to dismiss facts that conflict with their views.
The book's fundamental message is that to be persuasive, speakers must address the underlying cognitive framework first, and they must provide an alternative framework willing to be considered by the listener before mentioning any facts. Unless the listener accepts the new framework, the listener will dismiss any facts that disagree with their existing cognitive framework and all arguments will fail.
...
Lakoff urges us to practice using terms that frame the issue and cognitive constructs that support our point of view.
...
Some people will never accept an alternate model, but even those who might accept one can't be expected to automatically accept a new point of view. The key, according to Lakoff, is to provide a "wedge issue" that confronts the listener with a situation that challenges her or his existing model.
...

 

[David Wong]

The thing about the "wedge issue" has always been key for me when dealing with conspiracy nuts. In other words, you have to work on the common ground of what the CTer believes.

On our many 9/11 threads, we've seen mountains of data presented that's outside the bounds of expertise of the CTer. So it's meaningless. Presenting 15,000 pages of charts and graphs about structural intergrity and freefall speeds and melting points of metals means nothing to a person without the background, thus the response, "I don't buy that" or "I know a professor named Judy Wood who disagrees."

Because they don't have the basis of knowledge to differentiate one source from another, it's just noise to them.

So when discussing any of these I personally always went right for the "think about how many people have to keep quiet" angle because that's something everyone can understand. And it's right at the heart of any large Conspiracy Theory, the sheer contradiction in human nature that has to take place when millions of people can be involved with ZERO defections, with ZERO accidental disclosures, with PERFECT loyalty to the cause at every level, with NO factions from within that would make the conspiracy collapse, with NO changed minds or haunted consciences.

That to me is the most striking for the average person. To use the 9/11 thing as an example, it's not just that lots of people were involved and kept it a secret... it's that no one who they approached turned down the deal (for none came forward) and that no one blew the lid later on out of pure greed (fame and a book deal and riches). That runs counter to everything we know about people.

So it creates a "wedge" in their mind between the Conspiracy Theory and things they already know about the world through their common sense. These are cynical people, but cynical people know on some level you can't command 100% loyalty for any cause, by any means, regardless of whether that cause is for good or evil. So you set up that conflict in their minds.

But trying to educate these people on architecture and building materials and flight trajectories... for most this takes them so far out of their depth that it doesn't really impact them. If you want a really dramatic example of that, take Dylan's constant confusion over "millions" of dollars in gold versus "trillions." For a person who isn't good with numbers, those words all mean the same thing ("lots of gold"). When you correct Dylan on that, they just say, "what difference does it make?!?! It's lots of gold, that's what matters!"

It just comes off as hair splitting, to someone who doesn't grasp how grossly wrong these people have been about the science of it.

 

[David Wong]

If my post results in THIS thread turning into another 9/11 thread, I urge the moderators to delete those posts and my post and to punish me in the harshest way allowed. I just used those examples because they're so plentiful here but they can be applied to any conspiracy, from the Apollo Moon Landing to the Illuminati or any other.

 

[Crazycowbob]

I propose a new strategy, let the wookie win