If you decide it is worth it, then continue with caution. Your close relationship can be a benefit—in that you have a better understanding of what makes them tick. But it creates a problem in that your friend (spouse, lover, partner) expects that you will understand, accept, and support them. It becomes especially important to carry out discussions in a constructive and positive manner. Validating their genuine concerns and establishing common understanding initially takes precedence over pointing out where they are wrong and where their sources are wrong. Effective debunking isn’t about scoring points.

When you do come to pointing out mistakes, do it (initially) only with the most neutral and inarguable facts, like the ingredient lists with the cosmetics. With Chemtrails you would avoid subjective arguments like “I think contrails have always been this persistent” and focus on neutral information, like the old books on clouds.

Finally look after yourself. Remember that your friend may look at your beliefs in the same way you look at theirs. They might be disappointed in you, they might get frustrated by you seemingly not taking them seriously, they might begin to attack and criticize you. Do not take this personally. Try to use it as a basis for conversation. If that does not seem to be working, then back off. Consider the importance of your relationship relative to the danger of a hasty response. When helping someone out of the rabbit hole is personal you have to be especially slow and careful. Unless you need to quickly prevent something like an unwise investment, then you should give it a lot of time. Recognize that it might be something you have to deal with for an extended period, but don’t give up.

Morgellons

The word “Morgellons” means different things to different people. To those people who think they have it, then “Morgellons” is a disease with many symptoms, the most notable one being small fibers emerging from their skin. To the majority of the medical profession, “Morgellons” is just a name that some people give to their various medical problems when they are unhappy that the doctors are unable to find exactly what is wrong with them. When the patient is convinced that fibers are emerging from their skin, then the doctor might describe that aspect as “Delusional Parasitosis.”

Morgellons is the most recent version of similar conditions that have been recorded for over 100 years. The modern term was coined in 2002 by Mary Leitao, who was searching for answers for the skin conditions plaguing her son.5 She did some internet research, copied and extended some symptom lists from the National Unidentified Skin Parasite Association, and the Morgellons Research Foundation was born.

The primary problem with Morgellons is that the patients are convinced there is something specific wrong with them, but their doctors are uncertain what it is and often suspect a degree of mental illness is involved. This creates conflict between patient and the doctor.

I spent a couple of years writing about Morgellons and interacting with Morgellons patients online. It’s not exactly a conspiracy theory (although many believers will point a finger at “big Pharma” and there are some more extreme beliefs relating Morgellons to nano-machines and Chemtrails), but there are some similarities in the ways the believers think about the topic—particularly with confirmation bias. Every case is different, but there is some general advice I can give if you want to talk to a Morgellons sufferer.

Defer to doctors. You are (presumably) not a doctor, so do not give medical advice. Ask your friend what the doctor says. If they ask you what you think they should do, then suggest they talk to a doctor. If the doctor prescribes medication, then encourage them to take it as prescribed. Do this in a non-judgmental way.

Avoid discussing mental illness. The quickest way to have a Morgellons patient turn against you is to have them think you are suggesting they are mentally ill. While there are certainly mental issues involved with some patients, it does not help to discuss mental illness as a cause of the symptoms. You can discuss it in a supportive way as a result of the condition—itching causing sleeplessness and stress, for example.

Don’t focus too much on fibers. Fibers are everywhere, so you will find them on your skin. You can explain this, but your friend is emotionally invested in the idea that the fibers are related to their illness. Instead of just dismissing them, you can suggest that at least some fibers are just clothing fibers, but you (honestly) don’t know about all of them.

Discuss symptomatic, palliative care. If they are itching, then treat itching. If they are anxious, then treat anxiety. Accept that the cause of their problems is mysterious and try to shift the focus onto getting the most they can out of life by dealing with the symptoms. A “cure” would be ideal, but in the meantime let’s work with what we have. There’s no shame in treating the symptoms even if you dispute or don’t know what is causing them.

Talk about other things. Many people who have self-diagnosed with Morgellons have some degree of hypochondria or “illness anxiety.” Health issues have become an obsession, which probably translates to spending hours reading things on the internet. Encourage your friend to read about and engage in other things. Avoid enabling their obsession. If they continually discuss health with you, then try not to get drawn in; steer the conversation to other things.

Give it time. Like any problem involving strong beliefs, change can take a while. During that time, it might feel like you are not making progress. Remember it’s a cumulative process, and change can happen slowly over time, or suddenly after months have passed. Improvements might be partial, or very minor.

While these are simply thing I’ve learned from talking to people who think they have Morgellons, they also tally well with common lists of advice given for hypochondria6 and OCD.7 You can read about those topics and apply much of what is written to your friend with Morgellons.

Mental Illness

Most people who believe in conspiracy theories are not mentally ill. Both my personal experience and the current scientific research indicate that conspiracy theorists are just regular people. As Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule put it:

Sunstein and Vermeule wrote that in 2008, and ten years later would probably extend that to “read, hear, and watch.” The average conspiracy theorist is no more mentally ill than the average football fan or the average physics professor. It’s a grave mistake to label someone as mentally ill just because they think the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. They are generally being ordinarily rational with the limited information they have.

But, as with Morgellons, actual mental illness can play a role in conspiracy thinking, both as a root cause, and as a complication. Some people do actually believe in conspiracies because of their mental illness, and some people have their mental illness made worse because of their beliefs in a conspiracy theory.

What generally distinguishes the genuinely paranoid conspiracist from the average conspiracist is the degree to which the conspiracy involves them personally. They might think that they are being followed or that their house is being searched because of their conspiracy activism. They might feel they are a victim of “gang stalking,” where everyone around them is subtly trying to undermine them in some way. These types of delusional beliefs are known as “delusions of reference.”

I have occasionally encountered people on the internet who are potentially mentally ill, and a few times in person. My general strategy when dealing with someone who I suspect is mentally ill is to briefly treat them as if they are not. Assume the best, and see what happens. But as soon it seems likely that they are in fact mentally ill then I will not continue to engage them about conspiracy theories.

I am not a doctor, and I am not a psychiatrist. I’m a debunker, a fact-checker, and a communicator. I do not know how to cure illness, mental or physical. My attempts could quite possibly make the situation worse. If I have debated you on the internet, then take comfort in the fact that I do not think you are mentally ill.

But what if your friend exhibits signs of mental illness, or even if they have been diagnosed with some mental condition? If you cannot walk away, then how should you deal with the role of conspiracy theories in your friend’s situation?

It will vary, but probably your best approach is going to be to avoid discussing conspiracy theories. The problem here is not some misunderstanding of physics or chemistry, or even a “crippled epistemology” that you can repair with large amounts of correct information. The problem here is mental illness. The conspiracy theories might be a result of that, or they might just be making it worse. But discussing something they are obsessed about is probably not going to help your friend.

Instead, be a good friend. Communicate with them about more neutral matters. Encourage them to listen to their doctors. Steer them away from conspiracies. Give it time. If you want to do more, then seek advice from a mental health professional.

Political Debunking

The topic of politics is notoriously fractious, a minefield subject around the Thanksgiving table. It is often recommended that for the sake of family harmony we avoid discussing politics (and religion) at all.

The arguments that people get into over politics are, to a significant extent, low level conspiracy theories. Conservatives think that liberals are conspiring to tax them into oblivion, to take away their guns and property rights, and to rig elections by legitimizing illegal immigration. Liberals think conservative are conspiring to make the rich richer, restrict the voting ability of minorities, collude with Russia, and silence environmental scientists. Both sides think the other is spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories.

The techniques outlined in Chapter 5 have direct relevance here, with some modification. Effective communication, finding common ground, being respectful, validating genuine concerns, and supplying missing information are all great things to strive for. But political discussions have some unique aspects that make them differ from conspiracy theories like Chemtrails.

Firstly, there’s the symmetry of perception. Much like with 9/11, your friend will quite often know a lot of individual facts related to the topic, quite possibly more than you. They probably have a strong belief that you are the person who is misled, and that it’s their job to explain things to you.

This symmetry of perception is usually matched by an asymmetry of knowledge. You will have one idea about the facts of the matter, they will have another. Both of you will generally have significant gaps in knowledge, and specifically you will have gaps in understanding what the other person believes and why. Closing those gaps is a necessary step towards having a discussion.

There are many extreme political conspiracy theories, with varying degrees of plausibility, things like “Pizzagate,” “The Storm,” “QAnon,” and “Russiagate.” But you are unlikely to make much headway by diving into such convoluted examples as these. Before tackling something like that, try to focus on something where you can at least look at the facts behind the theory.

For example, in November 2015, Donald Trump (then the Republican presidential candidate) appeared to mock the disability of reporter Serge Kovaleski. Trump waved his arms around with his hands at an odd angle and said, “Now, the poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy: ‘Uhh, I don’t know what I said. Uhh, I don’t remember.’” Kovaleski suffers from arthrogryposis, a condition which restricts the positions of his hands, and Trump did appear to be mimicking and mocking Kovaleski’s appearance.

To many people looking at the footage of Trump side by side with footage of Kovaleski, this seems like an obvious conclusion. Yet Trump supporters will tell you that it’s a conspiracy, that’s it’s fake news spread by the liberal media, and that the accusation has “been debunked.”

How is this possible? And how can the conversation continue after such polar opposite interpretations have been revealed? Often the discussion will immediately degenerate into anger because the liberal will be disgusted that their conservative friend is letting Trump get away with mocking disability, and the conservative will be disgusted that their liberal friend has blindly followed fake news.

In debunking conspiracy theories I’ve recommended that you first work to establish common ground before moving on to supply missing information. In political discussion these two steps need to be combined into one: mutual sharing of information.

To achieve common ground, you need to understand how the other person has formed their opinion, and they need to understand how you formed yours. With Kovaleski, conservatives feel that the accusation of mocking disability has been debunked because Trump had previously used exactly the same hand motions when mocking his then opponent Ted Cruz, who suffers from no physical disabilities.

Trump opponents might be reluctant to concede this. But the point is not to excuse Trump’s actions, but rather to understand why Trump supporters believe the way they do about the situation. This is missing information on the part of the Trump opponent, who often will simply outright reject claims like “that has been debunked” with disgust, not looking into it because they feel the mocking of a disabled reporter has been proven beyond any doubt.

But both Snopes and PolitiFact (supposed bastions of liberal bias) take a more nuanced view of the situation, with Snopes saying it was “a subject of debate” and PolitiFact saying Trump’s actions were “mocking, whether a disability was involved or not.” This might be missing information to the Trump supporter, as might be the information that Trump and Kovaleski were on first name terms for years, and Kovaleski is certain that Trump would remember his condition.

Unencumbered truth is a rare occurrence in politics. The goal of the rhetoric of politicians and their supporters is to sway public opinion in order to win elections and gain or keep power. Regardless of which side you are on, it is unlikely you have a clear picture of the facts surrounding a topic if you only get your information from sources that you feel are on the right side of your ideology.

At the very least, by restricting your information sources you will be missing out on the spin that has caused your friends to believe what they do. Not having this information will prevent you from finding common ground, which is crucial to moving the conversation forward in a productive manner.

The common concession in debates that “the truth is somewhere in the middle” is a fallacy. The world is not half flat, jet planes are not half spraying poison, the World Trade Center was not half demolished with explosives. But politics differs from these traditional conspiracy theories in that it’s an appeal to the center and not an appeal to an extreme.

Both sides seek to exploit every situation. A Bloomberg poll in August 2016 found that likely voters thought that the mocking of Kovaleski was the worst thing that Trump had done. Trump opponents were not going to let a little nuance get in the way of this valuable tool.

Similarly, the notion of “fake news” was powerful rhetoric that resonated with Trump supporters. The more the liberal media talked about the Kovaleski incident, the more the conservative media could point out they had “debunked” it, and hence support the idea of liberal media bias.

Common ground is not going to be immediately found in the middle. The first piece of common ground to be found is when both you and your friend explain to each other why you hold the position you do, and when you supply each other with information you think is missing. You don’t even have to agree with the validity of the information—just acknowledge that it exists, and that it’s a foundation of your friend’s beliefs.

From there you can get into the nitty-gritty of fact checking. But you might want to take a step back and refocus the discussion on more important topics. Once you both agree upon the basic facts then topics like the Kovaleski case might not be worth pursuing.

Instead use the discussion to encourage your friend to seek out other information sources on other topics and make a commitment to do the same yourself. Look at the spin coming from the other side, but also look at more neutral sources, like people who share your own ideology but are now largely retired from public life. Look to people who might once have been considered political party heroes, like Ronald Reagan or JFK—what did they think on the topic? What has changed?

It might seem like an impossible task, but be polite and respectful. Politics is polarizing because politicians want it to be polarizing. They don’t want there to be any possibility that their followers would get drawn over the line to the other side. To have a fruitful political discussion with your relatives over Thanksgiving you need to sidestep the polarization, the spin, and the conspiracy theories. Instead focus on mutual understanding, focus on facts, and focus on the true differences between you, and the true similarities.