*1) Engage. * This thread on Tartaria had a lot of good specific Tartaria conspiracy theory advice ...

2) Deflect ...But I tend to change the topic.

Being slightly deviant, I would probably bring up the recent research using the genome of the body lice vs hair lice to more accurately estimate when humans started creating clothing. Bring it back to a topic on my interests (clothing and textile history + biology + archeology). It's well before their preferred time period and a good chance to talk scientific evidence.

If that's too risky, ...

3) Subvert ... If you really can't get them to stop talking about (insert conspiracy theory here), shift your own question.

What are they getting out of believing/discussing this theory? Maybe it's the excitement of learning something new, or the thrill of believing you know something that most others don't, or sharing an interesting idea with someone else, or a newfound community where they feel like they belong because they can contribute.

... They are getting something of value to them by discussing this. Identifying that need -- and addressing it directly -- bypasses the conspiracy theory talk.

As challenging as it can be, try to remember people are usually sharing this out of love and friendship. Like a kid who just discovered pokémon ... it's all they're going to talk about for the next few months because they are wicked excited about this new world view/idea and want to share the joy and fascination they are experiencing so you can have that joy, too. /oddly specific example

Best of luck. I hope you get a lot of great advice and find many ways to enjoy your holiday

Edit: Verb tense.

A couple weeks ago I stumbled across a blog called Archeo Thoughts. The blog had a series of posts about the new dumb one on Netflix called like Ancient Apocalypse or something. https://archeothoughts.wordpress.com/2022/10/20/buckle-up-graham-hancock-has-a-new-pseudoarchaeology-series-on-netflix/

The writer is also a redditor /u/andrecostopoulos.

Anyway, the key takeaway from reading the posts he did on the Hancock thing, and from ones I've seen in the past is to be aware of the rhetorical sleight of hand most of these types of things do.

They use one standard of proof for the mainstream history/science and a different one for their own theory.

For the mainstream stuff they use the standard of "conclusively proven with no remaining questions." That's obviously an impossible standard. But the claim is usually if the prevailing theory or explanation doesn't answer every single question that could be thought up, it's flawed. And that academics are unified and trying to hide that flaw, not that there's disagreements and they're developing theories and trying to see what evidence they can find in support of the different theories. Or that disagreement in itself means that the prevailing explanation is false.

For the crazy aliens/precursor culture/whatever stuff, the standard of proof is only, "Is it possible." It doesn't have to be likely, it doesn't have to be supported by evidence, it doesn't have to explain any hole in the theory. It just has to be potentially possible.

So, as /u/andrecostopoulos points out, lots of things are possible. That's not really that interesting. What's likely and can be supported by evidence is how we figure stuff out. So, is it possible aliens built the pyramids. Sure. Is it as likely as the Egyptians had a system of rollers, levers, and pulleys (3 of the 6 simple machines that have millenia of history with people) to move rocks? No, especially when you take into account all the evidence of rollers, levers and pulleys that surround those sites.

So, I think the first thing to do is make sure they're using the same standard of proof for both explanations.

Ask them to show their research with you.

Did this to my mom over Thanksgiving when she started on the whole "Covid made in a lab" discussion. Told her to cite her sources and bring them up to me and then I proceeded to read the articles aloud.

Turns out that she Googled the first Fox News article that fit her defense and just by scrolling down past the inflammatory clickbait head line I get to a paragraph that actually backs up my argument. On top of that, hearing the articles read out made them sound ridiculous and illogical.

She had to pause and think about it.

I'm not saying it will work perfectly but having debate around documentation contents is way easier than trying to go off the top of your head.

If you don't want to fight then follow the other commenters and redirect to a less argumentative discussion.

One question:

"Assume for the moment that I could present you with a plethora of evidence that you could independently verify, would understand, and would believe all proving that your viewpoint is wrong. If I could do that, would you change your mind on this issue, and admit that you were wrong?"

99 times out a hundred they will say no. Then you just say, "Then your mind is already closed and there's no point in discussing it." Then just stop and walk away.

So I have this problem with my family sometimes. Thankfully I have a history degree so they tend to listen when I correct them. I also choose my battles. They wanna say Abraham Lincoln was brilliant? Eh. I’ll let that slide. I mean, he was a smart man and he did do some good even if he wasn’t an anti-racist like many think (especially in his early career).

But if they want to say that trans people are a “trend,” or Jefferson and Sally Hemings were in love…then no. I’ll speak up and correct them. It really depends on the statement. I am notorious for bringing up depressing history, but they’ve come to accept this more and more. I think choosing your battles is important. If it actively perpetuates a harmful view or bigotry, then step in. If it’s something that won’t do much good, then let it slide. Also, I try to bring up encouraging history occasionally. Like if someone was surprisingly progressive or helped people and it’s not well known, that softens the blow of the others.

If they're coming from a place of good faith, I am more than happy to discuss the could-bes and the whys, esp for early history where we have more questions than answers. It's intriguing and good food for thought. People who believe way-out or completely erroneous things but are still reasonable enough to let you guide them towards what's known, probable, and more credible are worth the time and engagement. It's a little frustrating, but it's a good exercise for the brain and there's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree. That's not a defeat; that's just acknowledging you think/believe differently and are fine with it.

If they're that far gone, not willing to listen, and just want to bring up their conspiracy nonsense because they're evangelizing for their lack of reason and are just wasting time - coming from a place of bad faith, I shut it down. No one has that time and energy to waste on someone who is just trying to score points and pretend they "won" just because the other person got frustrated and walked away. No one is entitled to engagement and no one is entitled to a one-sided, let-me-scream-these-talking-points-at-you "discussion". The first shut down is polite: "I would rather not discuss this if you are not willing to listen to a different point of view or actual history." They keep on, restate that you'd rather not discuss it. Establish that boundary. After you've established and they still press, say nothing to them and keep your face impassive. Give them nothing - it's called greyrocking and it works with people with certain mindsets (narcissistic being the one of the conspiracist). People like that think you're conceding defeat no matter what you do if you refuse to waste time and energy in a bad faith exchange when you are not - you are just being a person who will not stand for foolishness.

It's tempting to want to help loved ones who have fallen for some outrageous theories and bad information because you care about them, but you have to think of yourself as well. Trying to convince people of anything when they don't want to be budged is just a waste of time and energy and no one's is inexhaustible. People are more willing to believe what they can read with their own eyes or hear with their own ears that they have found. Point them towards the credible information and let them do their own work.

I think this article is maybe a bit too concerned with coining their own terminology but I think the underlying premise about attitude roots and harnessing the motivation that leads these people to believe in this stuff as a means of arguing them out of it is sound.

To apply this you'd have to know why it is they gravitate toward those beliefs but say it's because they want to feel like a critical, independent thinker. Making implications that buying into alternative history is not only uncritical but also very much a group-think phenomenon might get them to reframe their position on and association with the topics; even if it's just dialed back to "I think there's some interesting claims, but I haven't seen enough evidence to take them at face value".

However you go about that is obviously your call but I would probably do it by lauding historians rather than attacking alt-history bloggers. Praising the work, passion, and success of historians working within a rigorous peer-review system might get them to search for those qualities in whatever they're reading without making them feel attacked for believing what they do and doubling down as a matter of identity.

/u/CommodoreCoco has answered this question before, and again

/u/kookingpot says Graham Hancock is a hack.

See below

Much of what I have to say on the topic has already been said (with proper citations) by others. However, I do have quite a bit of personal experience dealing with people like this.

Please excuse the length of this post!

——————

• Empathy

In my uni days, I used to work in a bar in Glasgow with a guy who was obsessed with ancient aliens and buried pyramids. Most people would argue with him head on, but I recognised early on that it all came from a place of insecurity.

My workmate didn’t have much of an education, hadn’t performed well at school, and was sick of being made to feel inferior because of it. When he went online and found a world of secret, esoteric explanations for everything and anything, it presented him with a way to one-up the rest of society by subverting all of the things they held above him (knowledge, understanding, and the power that comes with them). That’s why these ideas are so appealing to so many.

One of the most revealing conversations I ever had with him was on the topic of cancer: he claimed that cannabis oil could cure all cancer outright, but big pharma is covering it up for profit. Having lost my mother to cancer, I bit back aggressively, turning it into a (semi-drunken) shouting match. Turned out his own brother had also passed from cancer recently; the conspiracy fantasy gave him a feeling of power when he was at his most helpless. That, I could empathise with.

As other have said, diagnosing the root of these frustrations is key to tackling them effectively. Beyond that, a couple of tactics I would use when discussing these things with my workmate were:

——————

• Agreement

This might sound a bit daft, but I don’t mean agreeing wholeheartedly and completely. Instead, I would agree with him in spirit, putting us on an even footing in the conversation. At that point, he was much more open to discussion of the specifics of his ideas, which is where self-critique and concessions are possible.

For example, let’s say he raged against science by saying “There’s plenty we can’t explain in this world. Hidden energy all around us — you’ve just got to know how to channel it.”

I’d agree that existence is, at base, always a mystery. Then I’d maybe make some points about the fundamental limitations of science, and how evangelical atheists overextend it beyond its domain.

Now neither of us is preaching to the other, and a proper discussion can begin. At that point, I’ve earned the equity to cast doubt on the claims of these online energy gurus: “Since it’s all a mystery, I’d be suspicious of anyone claiming to have all the answers: priests, politicians, shamans, conspiracy theorists — all of them.”

Remember, my mate bought into these ideas because he was sick of feeling inferior, and being talked down to. A bit of intellectual respect was what he was seeking all along.

——————

• Humour

This worked well with my mate because he was a naturally funny guy who enjoyed having a laugh. Self-deprecating humour is standard where I come from, and my workmate was no exception. However, he could be a bit volatile if mocked too heavily (remember, insecurity).

The important part is not to outright laugh at their worldview, but to have a laugh within it. The aim is basically the same as the last point: to enter their world and work within its confines, putting you both on an even keel.

Let’s say my mate had a few pints and started lecturing us about everyone having a spirit animal. Maybe I’d make a joke about mine being a cockroach, and his being one of those scabby stray dogs down by the train tracks.

I think this kind of thing worked because there’s always an element of defensiveness to conspiracy rants — it’s why they can be so damn abrasive. The one ranting is expecting resistance to their ideas, because on some level they often sense the absurdity of what they’re saying.

Humour can be a good tool for laying bare that absurdity in a non-confrontational way. Me and my workmate would often have a laugh about some of the more ridiculous implications of his ideas, without ridiculing him for having expressed them in the first place. He was then much more willing to discard sone of the sillier beliefs without feeling embarrassed.

• Redirection

This was always the ultimate goal with my workmate, because the real tragedy of the situation was that his mind was so wasted.

Beyond personal affirmation, much of the motivation to believe in these subversive ideas comes from genuine social and political unease. My workmate was from a poor area of Glasgow, and actually had a very keen sense of economic and social injustice. But what the hell could he do with it exactly?

Had he been afforded the same opportunities in life as me, I have no doubt that he would have been one of the most staunch and impassioned student socialists in the country. All of that mental energy squandered ranting about dishonest scientists would have been spent condemning dishonest politicians, and campaigning for positive change.

So, after setting the groundwork by approaching him with respect and good humour, I would always try to bring out this side of him in our conversations. This meant channeling his frustrated passion towards real-world issues, rather than letting all that valuable energy be squandered on nonsense fictions.

In fact, if I were a conspiracy theorist myself, I might argue that this is the reason for the proliferation of conspiracy theory culture over that past decades… And in that thought was the culmination of all our hundreds of hours of conversation — the ultimate way to get through to him:

“That’s what they want you to believe, mate. They want us wasting our time and energy so we’re too exhausted to challenge the status quo.”

A conspiracy theory to subvert conspiracy theories themselves, and somehow bring us back towards reality. Because if there’s one thing that my mate hated more than ‘ancient celebrity cannibal shamans from outer space’, it was the Tories.

That’s just my personal experience with a good-hearted but misguided eccentric. With regard to your own situation, I’d maybe implement an approach like this:

When they start going off, play along. Bring up some famous mistakes and/or hoaxes within the academic history community. Have a laugh about them, and concede that historians (like all of us) are fallible. Then use that equity to cast doubt on the conspiracy theorists they follow, saying it’s only right to apply healthy skepticism to these ‘historians’ too.

Before going there, have a think about some real-world issues you agree with your parents on. These are your trump cards — use them in a pinch when things get heated, to diffuse the energy on a conversation that won’t cause you to tear your hair out.

I hope it goes smoothly for you! And remember, stay sane!