There is no magic bullet. The conspiracy theory rabbit hole is a complicated place, and people are complicated individuals. The reasons why people get sucked into the rabbit hole differ. Once in, their rate and route of descent into the deeper levels of the hole can vary immensely. Similarly, the paths out of the rabbit hole vary by individual. When shown something they believed to be true was actually false, some people simply accept they were wrong and move on. Other people respond in entirely the opposite manner, taking the claimed falsification of evidence as more evidence that they were right all along. Some people get out quickly, some pop out suddenly after years of resistance, and some emerge gradually, almost imperceptibly.
There’s no simple step by step technique you can use that is guaranteed to get your friend out of the rabbit hole. But there are things that have worked for many people, which we can boil down to three areas:
1. Maintain an effective dialogue
2. Supply useful information
3. Give it time
You could quite accurately paraphrase that as, “Talk to them, show them stuff they missed, and don’t rush.” These three areas can be broken down further.
Aspects of maintaining an effective dialogue
• Understand what they are thinking and why
• Be respectful, honest, open, and polite
• Find common ground
• Validate their genuine concerns
• Avoid the backfire effect
Aspects of suppling useful information
• Show them mistakes they have made
• Show them mistakes their sources have made
• Show them things they have missed about the topic
• Show them other information that helps them gain perspective
The final point, “Give it time,” is as simple as it sounds. These things take time. People very rarely just flip a deeply held belief. You might have quite an extensive discussion with a believer on all aspects of the 9/11 controlled demolition theory and it may seem like you are getting nowhere, or even going backwards. You might come back to them in a few days and still find no change at all. You may repeat this for weeks. Not everyone is reachable, but those people who have escaped from the rabbit hole almost always describe it as a lengthy process—something in which the role of a friend or other source of useful information was important for some time before they really started their journey out, and was important for some time during and after that journey. Give it time.
This simple method of effective communicating and supplying useful information is based on what I’ve learned writing at Metabunk over the last eight years (and in various other sites for a decade before that). But it’s not something novel or unique. Many aspects of the method have come from other sources and are simply time-tested techniques of effective communication with people holding firm beliefs.
This is not a step-by-step recipe; you don’t have to do one thing before the other. A lot will depend upon your friend, where they are in their beliefs, and how they respond to criticism. For some people the direct contradiction of their beliefs can trigger fierce rejection, and it’s better to more subtly work on establishing common ground, widening their perspective, and supplying more neutral information.
There are a lot of different conspiracy theories. There are a lot of variations of those theories. There are a lot of different people who believe those variants in different ways. Your friend is unique, and general rules of thumb might not apply, or might even backfire. The Metabunk method is a very loosely structured toolbox of techniques, guidelines, and information where you have to pick the best tool for the job and adjust that approach to the unique circumstances of your friend’s particular rabbit hole.
Develop Understanding
You can’t show someone where they have gone wrong if you don’t actually understand what it is they believe. A foundational part of effective debunking is coming to grips with what you are debunking. A lot of this book is simply about gaining that understanding in order to facilitate good communication. It’s far too easy to dismiss people as silly conspiracy theorists and assume that the solution is simply going to be to show that person the real facts that explain their theory.
In reality it’s a lot more complicated. I’ve been talking to conspiracy theorists for many years, and I’m still encountering variants on the various theories. In part this is because the theories have always had a broad spectrum of different levels and versions. But it’s also because the theories keep evolving. For example, the various 9/11 controlled demolition theories went through a variety of stages over the years: there was the original simplistic “free fall” and “laws of physics” arguments (based largely on the collapses looking weird). Then a variety of arguments about odd things like the amount of dust, or the shape of the dust clouds emerged. Then there were things like pools of molten metal and analyzing the dust for evidence of nanothermite. Over the last few years, there’s been a focus on the minutiae of the Building 7 collapse. Was a particular girder-supporting bracket eleven or twelve inches wide? Was that girder bonded with the concrete? How hot exactly did a certain beam get, and when did it get that hot?
The first step in gaining an understanding of what exactly your friend believes is to listen to them. The next step is to ask them non-judgmental questions. This generally goes one of two ways. Either they will refer you to something they consider to be an authoritative source (like Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or a video like September 11: The New Pearl Harbor), or they will start to list the various pieces of evidence that they feel are most compelling.
Either way, listen to what they are telling you. If they recommend a video or website, then ask them what was in it that they found the most compelling evidence. Ask them what was the first thing that got them interested in this theory. What’s a top five list they might give to someone? How about a top two? Watch the video if you have the time. Read some of the website. It’s a good investment in trust and will give you an overview of their beliefs.
To effectively communicate you also need to know where they are on the conspiracy spectrum. Don’t just look at what they personally believe. Examine the various versions of the theory. You want to find their demarcation line—what is the more extreme version of the theory beyond which they think it’s just silly? What claims are only just on this side of their line? What’s just on the other side?
As well as figuring out the specific variation of their favorite theory, you also want to figure out what their understanding of the broader world is. What are the gaps in that understanding? What areas do they know more about than you do? Try to understand how the theories like 9/11 or Chemtrails actually fit into that broader image they have of how the world works. Who do they think is behind the conspiracy? Who benefits? How does this benefit work? Ask them this not in a critical way, but in a genuine attempt to get a better understanding of their worldview.
Understanding all this is vital to both stages of the Metabunk method: effective communication and supplying useful information. To be effective in communicating you need to know their mental map, the context in which your communication will be received. To supply useful information you need to know what the gaps are in their knowledge of the world and in their conspiracy theories. You also need to figure out what it will take for them to even consider information that could fundamentally negate their worldview.
Foster Trust and Respect
Understanding your friend’s beliefs about their conspiracy theories is key to communication, but equally important is trying to understand your friend’s beliefs about you. Rather surprisingly, their view of you might be very similar to your initial view of them. They probably consider you to be someone who has been fooled by bad information into believing an impossible story (like cave-dwelling Arabs with box cutters defeating the US, the government not poisoning us, or the Earth being round). This mirroring of positions might go so far that they actually consider themselves to be the reasonable debunker, and they are actually trying to explain things to you, the confused friend.
It’s important not to push back against this position. Respect it. If they want to try to convert you then that’s a great way of getting the conversation going. You can make it clear from the start that you don’t really believe their theory, but you can (honestly) say that if there was some compelling evidence, then you would certainly consider it. Give them the opportunity to convert you. This opens the door for them to explain why they believe, and if you genuinely listen to what they say you will gain a very useful perspective, and also increase the odds that they will later also genuinely listen to you. If you respect them, and make an effort to understand their argument, then they will appreciate this, and in turn will respect you more. They will probably have had many situations where their ideas were flatly rejected or laughed at, and so being treated with respect will go a long way towards gaining their trust.
An open-minded two-way discussion is the best-case scenario. Unfortunately, it’s quite possible that instead of them considering you simply uneducated in the facts of the matter they might consider you to be a shill, someone who is pushing a fake official story for personal gain. I’ve been debunking as a hobby for a very long time, so I’ve gotten this response quite often. As mentioned, my approach has always been to be as straightforward and consistent as possible. I stay polite and respectful, and I work on developing a good relationship with them based on an honest exchange of information. The longer you interact with them like this, the more likely they are to see that you are not a shill. Consistent honesty is the best way to establish trust and respect.