Ask HN: How to deal with loved ones that are affected by fake news? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: How to deal with loved ones that are affected by fake news?

23 pointsGRBurst49 comments

Hey,

I continuously have discussions with loved ones, that are affected by fake news regarding the current covid-19 pandemic.

It is really difficult do argue with them, because they are well informed in their bubble and have a lot of arguments that are hard to counter. I don't have the time to counter-proof every single fallacy.

I observed that all these people frequently get new posts and even longer videos. They use these to let me 'understand' their point of view. Watching these videos to have a basis to discuss on is time consuming, too. There are fewer videos to counter these - and in my experience just sending back counter videos does not help to convince them.

Have you experienced similar problems? Did you find a practical solution for your situation?

View on HN

What makes you so sure you have all the right answers, since you mention their arguments are hard to counter? I don't think the truth is partisan at the moment, and throughout history it's in moments like these, when people are extremely sure of the truth being partisan, that horrible things are allowed to happen. I mostly doubt when skepticism itself is demonized and made out to be the problem, and that seems to have be case lately.

One possiblity for those hard to counter points is unfalsifiability - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsi...

Just because you can't immediately disprove something doesn't mean that it isn't bullshit.

Does skepticism take into account factual knowledge gained through rigorous study? ? Because there are many emperical facts that these so-called skeptics are not only ignoring but calling out as fake.

Rigorous study would be years of research. We had months and it was rushed. We're still learning. What we have now is a best attempt.

Actual facts would be something like washing your hands or boiling water preventing diseases. Nobody questions it anymore but they once did. But for the same reason, it's important to let people question. It was once doctors who opposed the idea of sanitation.

> Actual facts would be something like washing your hands or boiling water preventing diseases. Nobody questions it anymore...

People are questioning exactly these things. Germ theory itself is under attack. Masks have been used for many years in healthcare settings to hinder the spread of airborne pathogens, yet now we hear they are useless...

> We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18) [1]

The effectiveness of masks is complicated. It is not a black or white situation.

[1] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...

"The design of most trials assessed whether masks protected the wearer."

The very next line:

> Four trials were cluster-RCTs, with all participants in the intervention clusters required to wear masks, thus assessing both source control and personal protection

> In two [of the four] trials the clusters were households with a member with new influenza; neither of these studies found any protective effect

> In two [of the four] trials the clusters were college dormitories during the influenza season; neither study found any reduction

I wouldn't go as far as saying that masks do not work. At the same time, I wouldn't go as far as saying that they do work.

Reality is messy. If you want to wear a mask, do it. If not, don't.

Nobody wants to wear a mask!

> Reality is messy.

I understand that in this era of "alternative facts" the view is not universally shared, but I do believe that reality contains objective truths if only we can get at them. Either masks hinder the spread of germs (in the prior this has high probability based on logic and the experience of many years) or they don't. We are down to four trials now instead of nine, and only three that count, since one was excluded by these authors for methodological shortcomings. Don't blame it on "reality" that none of these was sufficiently large to establish the truth either way.

Let me rephrase: If you feel the need to wear a mask, do it. If not, don't.

Edit:

> in the prior this has high probability based on logic and the experience of many years

Reality can be counter-intuitive if you put your logic and experience to the test. Famous example: Using diuretics for antidiuretic effects [1]

Even a banal situation like wearing a face mask during surgery leads to inconclusive results [2]. Does it increase or decrease the number of cases of wound infections? There seems to be no clear evidence atm

[1] https://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/15/11/2948

[2] https://www.cochrane.org/CD002929/WOUNDS_disposable-surgical...

> it's important to let people question

it's the implied answers that are the problem, the jumping to conclusions

The problem is that even rigorous studies can be wrong, and it's not immediately obvious. This means people take intention into account as well.

A good example here, is how decades ago the FDA recommended people avoid eating fat (butter, lard, etc). This is how the fat-free movement started, and then it turned out that eating fat is actually benefitial for one's health. This misguided the public and food companies into substituting fat for sugars and carbs, which was very bad for public health.

Its not that I am sure of my answers and I do respect different opinions and I even welcome skepticism - can we ever be sure about something at all? But I wish they would take my skepticism as serious as mine, but I don't feel like this is the case.

These are interesting times that's for sure. There is too much information circulating around for an individual to make sense of it on their own. I'd wager the majority of people are just going with what the people closest to them believe, and smaller subset are choosing sources of information to follow. A small minority will really look into the details, and even then one depends on others to be doing the actual research, which depends on funding from institutions, so even then it's about trusting institutions.

I think what we're seeing is huge disagreements on the validity of the institutions themselves. We just experienced four years of defiance from one side, distrusting government, and now that same side is asking everyone to fall inline. This is what I believe is at the core of the disagreement.

Trying to argue someone out of a position is futile. Consider whether you are as open-minded about your opinions as you are expecting them to be.

An interesting approach worth looking into is motivational interviewing:

> The central premise: Instead of trying to force other people to change, you’re better off helping them find their own intrinsic motivation to change. You do that by interviewing them — asking open-ended questions and listening carefully — and holding up a mirror so they can see their own thoughts more clearly. If they express a desire to change, you guide them toward a plan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/opinion/change-someones-m...

I have one of these people on my wife's side (not specific to covid).

Make your argument and give them your sources, once. If they don't buy it, then just drop it. There's usually no convincing them because they're committed to their position and will just continually defend it. Even pointing out incorrect facts and giving them counterpoints doesn't seem to work.

COVID, climate change, religion… these are topics that people are dug in, about their positions. It is hard to sway them.

Our energy is better spent on people who are on the fence, because their sources are weak (giving them better logic/sources might be enough in some cases). Also because they’re willing to listen, despite their skepticism.

Can you sway a hard core democrat or a hardcore republican to engage in constructive debate with the other side? Likely not, and even if you did, you’d end up spending an enormous amount of time and effort - which would likely be better spent on the people who are on the fence, for better ROI on your time.

Of course it sucks when the people affected by fake news are your friends and family :(

As a big meta-argument, use "The Bottom Line" though experiment: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/34XxbRFe54FycoCDw/the-bottom...

(To share it with anyone you'd probably need to find a more readable version. This one has a lot of idiosyncrasies.)

Some authors decide their conclusion first and then formulate arguments later. This produces content which looks kinda rigorous on its face and it's really hard to beat, because each argument is legit when taken alone.

If you try to respond by writing a balanced version, your story has nowhere the "clarity" plus it takes 10x the time. So you respond in kind by creating an opposite message the same way as the original one was conceived, and thus the cycle completes. All fake news.

We cannot see into the author's mind, so it's not really possible to detect that dirty trick. It is a matter of trust initially, and a matter of reputation later on.

But every message which has a very clear conclusion is suspect, because if you actually gather all the arguments, they can seldom be stuffed into a nice and clear-cut result. Every message, including this one. Every author, including you and me.

All this might get your loved ones into more healthy skepticism. I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I just point out that I get my information from doctors and medical professionals while they get all their Covid news from Facebook posts and random people.

Someone I know said their doctor told them he wouldn’t give the the vaccine if she was his sister for fear of becoming sterile. Sigh, I said it might be time to get a new doctor.

But you just said you got your information from doctors. How do you decide which doctors to believe?

My wife and I spoke to several docs from her OBGYN, 2 docs from my sons pediatrician about the safety of the vaccine during breast feeding, and my doctor. We also spoke to a family member who was a pregnant pediatrician who took the Pfizer vaccine early. They all agreed the vaccine was a good idea. We then looked at the CDC guidelines, my state and county’s public health department guidelines, and the information from the NIAID.

I’ve yet to find a doctor or any guidelines that say you’ll become sterile after taking the Pfizer vaccine. I’d caution against taking advice from a doc who believes there’s a risk of being sterile. Pretty sure the US and EU would’ve caught on to it already.

Here is excellent article that explains hidden reasons behind wide spread phenomenon where people believe certain things or have certain views and you cannot change those using rational arguments:

https://meltingasphalt.com/crony-beliefs/

Spoiler: It is primarily about hidden self interest. But people will never admit it and will argue using any information they can find to support their goal. So it is pointless to attack with logic based counter arguments. Identify and counter actual self interest of the opponent instead.

Yup, same. I tried talking to them, but even broaching the subject got them defensive, spewing absurd generalities and platitudes at me, generally being childish, and saying things that were patently untrue. Now I'm not talking to them and thinking about my life without them in it. They're a danger to themselves and others.

I'm far too disagreeable to perform the empathy dance and they're too old and stubborn and functionally illiterate to boot to listen or understand that they've swallowed propaganda.

I remember reading this article about Daryl Davis the black musician who converts Ku Klux Klan members ( https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/mar/18/daryl-davis-bl... ). If I'm correct one of his trick was to let people talk and ask them questions that would highlight the inconsistencies in their talk.

Funnily enough, I think that strategy works better on strangers that hate your identity group as opposed to familiar people that ostensibly love and respect you. Why? Mere exposure.

I just wish them luck and tell them not to come to my house anymore.

What I did after having argued several times is to straight up let them know that this isn’t true, told one or two examples on why these arguments are fake most of the time and that if they want to find arguments against it, that they would find some. Then I stop talking about such topics with them.

In my opinion, it‘s just not worth after having spent some time trying to discuss it with them. Especially when they don’t provide any backed arguments but just „random“ statements

It is really difficult sometimes, because they are able to find doctors and quotes that do look very sophisticated at the beginning. Only if you dig really deep its possible to show them fallacies and as mentioned, this is really really time consuming

Whether you let it go or not depends on if it is affecting their lives negatively.

This is what helped for me for years: I stopped having discussions regarding opinions based on fake news. I usually just tell them that I don't have an opinion on the matter and that I don't care what their opinion is. I prefer to talk about something else.

In my opinion, I think it's better not to have too many opinions in general. This is one of the few opinions I have. It seems like our brain wants to have opinions on everything. But often the topics we want to have an opinion on are much more complex than we might think they are. To form a good opinion on the topic you must be able to understand a lot of the ins and outs of the topic. That takes a lot of effort. This is what fake news (and probably also correct news) abuses. It tries to form an over-hasty, sometimes completely wrong, opinion on a topic that's very complex to understand. Most people don't take the time to understand the complexity of the topic, and therefore think that this fake news opinion is the correct opinion. For most it takes too much effort to understand exactly how it works to realize that their opinion is not correct. Or even worse, there are many topics that probably don't have a correct opinion: are their more universes, what will the weather be in 10 years, will the stock market go up or down next year? Nobody can tell, even not the experts. I think that the only way to win the argument, is not participating. Just let it pass and let the experts (who have spend their whole life on it) deal with the issue.

For example, do you understand how mRNA vaccines work? How mRNA is transferred in lipi nanoparticles where ribosomes produce viral antigens? How cytotoxic T cells and T helper cells bind to the secretory vesicles to create a viral response? I sure know that I don't understand it, and it will take me months, maybe years, of deliberate practice to understand how mRNA vaccines works. I probably need a PhD in adaptive immune systems to understand this topic completely and for a good opinion. So I decide not to form an opinion about it. I trust the experts, who spend their whole life working on mRNA vaccines, to be right. If someone else has the opinion that mRNA vaccines don't work or are dangerous, fine, they can have their opinion. It's good to be (self-)critical sometimes. But I'm not in a position to argue with them, because I'm not an expert on the matter, nor do I have the time and (probably) the brains to understand this complex topic completely.

The strength it takes to say "I don't know" should be more respected and honored.

I have reached the age that I know it's better not to argue with anyone on anything unless I have an interest in. Life is too short for meaningless arguments. Arguing with family members has the additional "bonus" that you are gonna to break down some long term close relationship.

> not to argue with anyone on anything unless I have an interest in

I have an interest in my dad not dying, however remote the chance might be, from a preventable disease. However, his anti-covid-vaccine stance makes him a danger to himself and others from this imminent threat.

TBH I don't really think it's something easy to do. You will probably have to go around somehow. Arguing about facts seldom works. Maybe he has someone he listens to so it's time to find out whom it is.

> You will probably have to ...

Sorry, I'm done.

> Maybe he has someone he listens to ...

Maybe. But in my experience he has a teflon ego, no humility and no self awareness. Also I've got my own life to live and a burgeoning family.

I find it peculiar that disregarding the context (hacker news) and just focusing strictly on the content of your message I wouldn't be able to figure out which side you're supposed to be on. I could as well be reading this in one of 'their' forums, where one of your loved ones had posted this exact same message, word for word, to ask advice from their group on how to deal with a loved one affected by fake news (== you).

Unfortunately, I don't have any solutions. This seems like a viciously hard problem. I saw a VICE clip[0] about some survivors of covid-19 in an ICU, and even after going through a near-death experience firsthand they were still hesitant about taking the vaccine. This suggests to me that this issue originates somewhere too deep in the lizard brain to just be reasoned with using the real facts.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqUy8915gBg

I agree with what you said, it may be me who is affected... And yeah it is a very hard problem. I think the underlying problem is determine / finding the truth.

TL;DR; My personal advice is to keep talking to your loved ones with an open-minded dialogue.

I'm on a similar situation myself too; in my case my loved ones are well educated (physicists and biologists), and aged (over 60s & 70s).

You need to change your perspective and realise that for them, you are the person that believes on "fake news". During my talks with them, I've tried lots of different approaches to demystify some of their arguments; I made my own plots based on open data for COVID-19, I used well-sourced articles from newspapers or even published white papers, until I realised that the matter is based on opinionated believes rather than a lack of fact-checked information.

Now, I'm treating these conversations similarly to having a political discussion; there are some parts that we both disagree and this is fine, but we also have some grey areas that we can discuss further about. The fact that I'm also "challenging" myself with alternative questions and perspectives, I think it makes me better to do a better data-search for the next time.

Having said that, what I do respect the most on them is the fact that they try to seek their own personal opinion. But "popularised science" in ongoing matters is hard to find, thus the only easy-to-digest content is through groups and videos that carry-on with promoting misinformation; news that are not fact-check but only based on opinions (usually political driven).

So as you mentioned, the main problem is the lack of fact-checking popularised sources & channels. One example that does exist is "TL;DR; News" [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugJkIEfv8vI

I recently agreed that yes, "the vaccines have been tested on millions of sheep"... and now the chickens can get shots.

I didn't get the opportunity to use that in person.. let me know how it goes ;)

When people want the truth, they'll find it. If they don't want it, no amount of effort will guide them to it.

Don't guide them with facts. Guide them to seek the truth. There's a reason they're avoiding truth. Fix that.

In my case, what works is asking them to seek God for advice. If they die from someone's bad advice, then the angels will ask them why they chose to follow that advice when their hearts told them otherwise. If they follow God's advice and died, then it's just their time and they'd be judged as martyrs for following it.

Everyone I've said that to later took the vaccine. It doesn't have to be religious, but appeal to their highest morality, not yours.

Recently listened to a podcast[0] on how to have these conversations in a constructive way.

It's jam packed with information. Hope it helps.

[0] https://youarenotsosmart.com/2021/08/23/yanss-213-how-to-imp...

Tell them we live in a fake world

People that believe the official covid narrative are the ones affected by fake news in my opinion.

I wish people could see how their freedom is being taken away everyday and anything that goes against big pharma is labelled fake news.

I'm certain if you speak out against the CCP killing off Uyghurs in China then that is labeled as "fake news" in China.

I'm almost certain this comment will get flagged. Which will prove my point even more.

If you say something that is 1) false, 2) political, and 3) aggressive in tone, getting flagged does not prove that what you said was in fact true. Don't take the flagging as confirmation of the correctness of your position. It doesn't work that way.

ikr. Reading HN posts based on MSM fake news is "really difficult."

Examples of fake news repeated on HN:

- corona wasn't a lab leak

- Jan. 6 protesters killed 5 people (4 were natural causes, 1 was by Capitol police.)

- Marxism "is the majority" and gives you the right to cancel other people.

- masks prevent corona transmission (the most common masks are only 5% effective.)

So how do we prevent HN from repeating fake news?

Discussing news is just like tech support and I try to avoid berating them over what they know or believe. I have no expectation of one of us changing our beliefs about vaccination risks, or them figuring out how to do firmware updates. We do figure things out, but it depends more on the amount of trust, and less about the soundness of arguments.

Maybe a collection of facebook profiles of people who were publicly skeptic about covid/vaccine and then suffered from the disease would be helpful.

There are quite a few posts like this on reddit, but they often lack in empathy and are simply screenshots that aren't as convincing as a page with history/photos/etc.

I'm wondering if compiling such a list online is feasible from ethical and legal stand points.

... And it would be interesting if those kept their opinion, e.g. stating they had a flu, or whether it changed their opinion

The way I see it is that the covid issue has been integrated into the blue vs red tribalism that started long ago but really came to a boil during Trump's administration.

Additionally, media, both mainstream and alternative, are adding fuel to the fire because it means more clicks.

Normally in a situation where people can't agree I would suggest that you first try to find common ground and build from there. What I did was to find an occurrence where "my side" has been wrong and "theirs" has been right; then we did the opposite.

This was a great starting point for future conversations. And by conversations I mean dialectical ones rather than rhetorical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com