Arguing against an irrational but skilled speaker will only benefit the unreasonable one, specially if you arguments are simple and technical: most people don't understand simplicity or technicalities; but get hypnotized by voice, fear, indignation and a feeling of "if he is that person is right them I'm screwed!"
The best way to counter conspiracists is (I think) leaving them alone and spread rationality among the ones who are still not sick or can be cured.
These folks are still hold jobs, pay their bills, raise kids and then meetup with folks on the weekend who sling conspiracy theories that would have been Poe's Law material on 1990s internet.
Maybe I'm wrong in a different way, but at least that means I still have something new to learn.
Although, I find talking to all sorts of people about their "factual" beliefs about "reality" to be an immensely enjoyable experience. Smart people very often hold the most interesting beliefs.
Most of the problem is anxiety. As with anything new, you'll get over it as it becomes familiar. Be patient with yourself.
The bus is late, again, say 'Not again! Are the other buses always late?'
Their fingernail polish catches your eye, say, 'hey - that's great. I love the color/design/etc.'
People don't always respond, some might even look at you strangely - oh well!
Why do you assume you're someone worth having a random conversation with at all? This is a sincere question.
In my experience of people trying to engage me in conversation, none of them are worth the time. At best I've had a social interaction that basically amounted to being on hold on the phone for five minutes while I struggle to work out what these people want and I'm usually left none the wiser; at worst I've had to listen to idiots segue from discussing the weather to holding forth on a variety of lunatic-fringe causes. Time wasted.
On the rare times I've tried to engage people in conversation they react like I would: impatience that I'm wasting their time, and/or blank looks.
I'd really discourage anyone trying to randomly engage people in conversation unless you're sure you really have some kind of shared interest. IE, you're at a gig, you might imagine then that you could have a meaningful conversation with someone there about the band you are both there to listen to.
I find it relatively easy now to find points of commonality with most people I talk to. Some of this could be explained by the value I place on the intangible feeling of understanding and being understood might be an outlier too.
You're absolutely right too in that if you're repeatedly not clicking with someone it probably isn't worth it to keep the conversation going, but even then there are exceptions. I've seen it take several attempts before a conversation takes flight and sometimes even then it dips back into the mundane only to pick back up again a minute or two later. However, people are much less likely to try to find common points of interest if the person they speak to assumes they're an idiot.
...
> On the rare times I've tried to engage people in conversation they react like I would: impatience that I'm wasting their time, and/or blank looks.
> I'd really discourage anyone trying to randomly engage people in conversation unless you're sure you really have some kind of shared interest.
In my experience, the conversations are almost always very positive. Others report positive experiences and find it worthwhile. That suggests you are sadly missing something. The odd thing is, you seem to want to stop others from having these positive experiences.
I reject any question about my worth or anyone's 'worth'. Perhaps part of the problem is that you are thinking about 'worth', and so judgmentally and dubiously, that people don't respond well. People pick up on those signals; they respond poorly to being judged. Or perhaps you are judging your own worth, which would be sad.
I find that my attitude and emotion greatly influences how the conversations go. Especially, give people space to flourish, be curious about them, and you will be amazed at what is inside - worlds of knowledge, insight and creativity that you never imagined. They are in you too, I'm sure.
Random people coming up to me, usually stating something perfectly obvious that doesn't need stating ("Cool Hat!/Hey it's Hot Today/How about the footy eh?"), and then trying to converse on a variety of boring subjects (the weather/politics/footy/where I bought my hat/vaccines are evil/Jesus Christ is Our Savior) is a colossal waste of my CPU time.
Don't be that annoying person. Live and let live.
Casual conversation with strangers is both complex and subtle, and particularly requires specific face and body language. I think neurotypicals underestimate the complexity because it comes naturally to them.
These days I'm fine at it and have no fear. But getting rid of the fear took getting good at it and doing it enough to compensate for those older experiences.
What you’re saying is essentially ‘meh, don’t just assume you are hallucinating sometimes just because you’re schizophrenic’.
Maybe? but if they think they are, they very well might be right.
Which is to say, they may be divergent. That doesn't do much to suggest that others are "better" at this. Turns out that life is hard for most everyone.
That sounds like you’re complaining that said schizophrenic in the prior example just ‘seems a little crazy’, but life is tough for everyone?
They still are going to grow up, but unlike normal folks, they can’t learn those skills - or if they do, it takes vastly more effort.
Can it be true? Of course. Some folks are also just bad at math.
I say this as someone that would almost certainly be described as neuro divergent. Fake it till you make it is the norm for social interactions. That and repetition.
Is akin to thinking everyone else is a good dancer. I mean, the more practiced dancers will be better, at large. There are relatively fewer folks that can't dance, compared to those that don't dance.
Why not assume that they did try (and still are), and after failing over and over when others did not, realized they have a problem and are being open about it?
You seem to be denying the problem actually can exist, and blame them for not trying - when you don’t seem to know if they are trying or not. It’s quite odd.
I'm wary of most labeling of this as normal versus otherwise in people. That is it. It presumes a lot of unfairness that, while it does happen, is often overstated, as well.