Deprogramming Orthodoxy and the danger of echo chambers

[derpyderpins]

I avoid politics on here like the plague, but I'm going to post something I was sent without a source (so as to not endorse the source or their ideology, stances, etc.) because I think it is a good overview of something I have been thinking about in recent months:

It's about tribalism. People put themselves in these tribal categories - and we're hardwired for tribalism. That's why orthodoxies are so popular: people get sucked into various kinds of orthodoxies, whether it's political orthodoxies or religious orthodoxies. And that impulse - it's not a religious impulse, it's a biological impulse, and it's an impulse that's hardwired in us from the twenty thousand generations we spent wandering the African [Sahara] in tiny little groups that were warring each other where there was always a male leader, where the women were traded as chattels - because you couldn't marry your sister, so you knew from the beginning she was going to be a trade good, and you were going to trade her for somebody else because she had no power - where you all had to ascribe to an orthodoxy and see no problems with people within your in-group, and people outside were sub-human and they could be killed . . . we're all hard-wired that way.

When somebody gets subsumed in orthodoxy, it's very very difficult to unravel, and there are all kinds of psychiatric treatises about 'how do you deprogram somebody? How do you talk somebody out of an orthodoxy?' And the little I know about it is that if you challenge them - their beliefs - directly, it pours [cement] on it, and it makes them less able to move off that - they get very defensive. There are ways to approach them - deprogramming protocals - and they usually involve a lot of socratic method - asking questions about their belief, but it's 1-on-1 enterprise. It's not something you can do with [a large group] overnight. Polarization is put on steroids by these social media algorithms that reward people for staying on the site as long as possible. All the algorithm knows is "I've got to keep as many eyeballs on the site as possible." It turns out that the way people stay on the site is if you fortify their existing opinions - if you feed them information that consolidates their worldview.

I'm hoping this topic grabs attention because I ask: who does this topic make you think about? I can take some guesses - religious people (particularly christians), republicans or MAGA folks, pro-lifers, "normies" or NPCs or similar, and other groups that might be aligned with them in one way or another.

It's a tough question for me, how to communicate with these people. It's true that it almost has to be a 1-on-1 exercise, and there's the rub. It's too easy for them to simply avoid your attempted interaction and retreat to their echo-chamber, regardless of how friendly and non-threatening and innocent your questions may be. I don't want to lie to people, but it almost seems that you need to feign agreement with the belief rather than genuine curiosity.

As we value connections less and less and our identity becomes more entwined with electronic communication, it is easier and easier to avoid any challenges to our orthodoxies. I would like to hear general thoughts on this issue and how to approach it. I understand in advance that a popular take - possibly for good reason - is that people get to a point of being too far gone and you just have to cut them out of your life and leave them in their misery. I'd obviously like that to not be the ultimate answer, but can't change the nature of the world alone.

---

This is not directly related to the topic but just some extra background:

For the Derp twist, of course I am not thinking specifically about religious people or republicans, because I don't care about them as general groups. I care about this community and related communities. I fear there is a trend on niche online groups such as ours of rejecting traditional orthodoxies/tribalism only to manufacture our own and ensconce ourselves in just as damaging of an echo-chamber.

I've always feared and guarded against letting myself fall into "groupthink," where I am not coming to my own conclusions, or where I am constantly repeating similar mantras that I know will get positive feedback from a specific group just to validate those views (and - subconciously - myself). I can look back on my life and realize I was not always successful with this. Especially when you're in your teens/20s (and especially if you spend your 20s behaving as if you're still in your teens) it's very very easy to value validation over independence, even if you tell yourself you believe the opposite.

A trap is "I have rejected the majority, therefore I have avoided tribalism and groupthink." Nonconformity is not automatically independent thought. In fact, it can be more dangerous. As you limit your echo-chamber to smaller and smaller groups, you become more and more reliant on them. You seek the same amount of validation, but rather than getting it through numbers, you must puff up your tribesmembers and ideologies to even further (perceived) superiority. You must reject challenges even more strongly, and dehumanize dissenters to an even greater extent. Even indirect challenges pour cement on the beliefs.

I posted recently in the "recovery" section about what I termed "pro-death" groups on this site. A subtopic was trying to help people who have fallen into groupthink, and the above quote made me revisit the topic, because I said something similar, that in my brief research on discussing people who have embraced total tribalism is that challenging the views just reinforces them, regardless of the logic presented.

Spoiler: Sidenote

Looking back on that thread, I noticed that recent responses evidence the "pouring cement on the beliefs" issue. I was very clear with several disclaimers that the focus of the post was on people outside that group who are attempting recovery, and why being (possibly indirectly) attacked by that group should not discourage their recovery efforts, yet several weeks after it was posted there suddenly was some controversy in the comments by people in the group. The response was that the "truth" of their view that death is always better than life must be spread, and that such black-and-white thinking is necessary. Even someone who has specifically requested the mods enforce a 'no-contact' policy with me where neither of us is to enter threads started by the other jumped in to like these comments, evidencing the severe response to having the ideology challenged. [I don't mind, for the record. Still wishing them well. Nice to know you're reading my stuff ;).] Just thought that was interesting.

 

[AbusedInnocent]

Most people don't want to think for themselves, they want someone to grab their hand and show them the absolute truth which in some cases doesn't exist, it's why people deny science or philosophy on religious grounds because scientists sometimes disagree while the holy books never change so they appear more trustworthy.

A trap is "I have rejected the majority, therefore I have avoided tribalism and groupthink." Nonconformity is not automatically independent thought.

That's absolutely true, being different doesn't mean you're right, it's like the inverse of the argument from majority fallacy.

Even someone who has specifically requested the mods enforce a 'no-contact' policy with me where neither of us is to enter threads started by the other jumped in to like these comments

That's... interesting, I don't agree with you on a lot of things but I still follow you, maybe I'm wrong, I've been wrong before.

 

[GuessWhosBack]

Thanks for the thread. I'll go over it.

I'm hoping this topic grabs attention because I ask: who does this topic make you think about? I can take some guesses - religious people (particularly christians), republicans or MAGA folks, pro-lifers, "normies" or NPCs or similar, and other groups that might be aligned with them in one way or another.

Yeah, and a bunch of other groups too. Most of them actually. For any particularly vocal enough group of people, you're going to find another group of people opposed to them.

It's a tough question for me, how to communicate with these people. It's true that it almost has to be a 1-on-1 exercise, and there's the rub. It's too easy for them to simply avoid your attempted interaction and retreat to their echo-chamber, regardless of how friendly and non-threatening and innocent your questions may be. I don't want to lie to people, but it almost seems that you need to feign agreement with the belief rather than genuine curiosity.

I think that in order to reason with someone and get them to see your point of view, both have to be fairly flexible in their thinking and sometimes you just have to accept that it's not possible to persuade everyone. Apart from that, sometimes people have very personal reasons for why they associate with their groups and their reasons are, simply put, non negotiable.

It's a tough question for me, how to communicate with these people.

Communicate in what sense? And to what goal? If we're talking about extremist groups that pose a threat, I think the internet is usually plenty vocal against them already. If we're talking about sane people with differing political opinions, I don't think it's necessarily our pejorative to convince them to see things our way.

As we value connections less and less and our identity becomes more entwined with electronic communication, it is easier and easier to avoid any challenges to our orthodoxies. I would like to hear general thoughts on this issue and how to approach it. I understand in advance that a popular take - possibly for good reason - is that people get to a point of being too far gone and you just have to cut them out of your life and leave them in their misery. I'd obviously like that to not be the ultimate answer, but can't change the nature of the world alone.

People will choose to congregate to communities where they feel heard and respected. When social media started fighting against republicans, Trump created his own spin-off platform. You'll find many examples of the same phenomenon for other groups of people. This forum itself is one example.

Extremist groups will use this idea to recruit people falling through the cracks. A potential antidote to prevent this to some degree is osmosis. You gradually show people that they're wrong about X by casual reinforcement.

p.s. Not American, not pro Trump, just examples.

 

[derpyderpins]

Communicate in what sense? And to what goal? If we're talking about extremist groups that pose a threat, I think the internet is usually plenty vocal against them already. If we're talking about sane people with differing political opinions, I don't think it's necessarily our pejorative to convince them to see things our way.

Not looking to change how someone votes or their stance on an issue, personally. And while politics is the context of the quote and relevant, it's not what I'm thinking about.

You know I've been writing recovery materials. I'll have people reach out sometimes, and I like to engage with people who disagree with me when they're civil. As an exaggerated hypothetical, say I'm talking with someone about life and they start saying "yeah you know recently I've started thinking until we get rid of X group nothing can be okay, been on some boards with some pretty convincing people looking at how we can get rid of them." The goal isn't to get them to be in or love group X, just to see some nuance.

 

[GuessWhosBack]

You know I've been writing recovery materials. I'll have people reach out sometimes, and I like to engage with people who disagree with me when they're civil. As an exaggerated hypothetical, say I'm talking with someone about life and they start saying "yeah you know recently I've started thinking until we get rid of X group nothing can be okay, been on some boards with some pretty convincing people looking at how we can get rid of them." The goal isn't to get them to be in or love group X, just to see some nuance.

Would I be wrong in thinking that you're seeking a general solution that will work for any group and any individual in said group?

 

[derpyderpins]

Would I be wrong in thinking that you're seeking a general solution that will work for any group and any individual in said group?

I think you'd be wrong to think I'm seeking a solution at all, haha. I mostly just wanted to write a bit about the topic when I heard the quote. As far as solutions, I guess I'd be more interested in general concepts/principles to keep in mind when you are talking to anyone who seems to have a hard-wired view that is an issue for you: not being confrontational, hearing their side of things, Socratic method without sounding condescending, stuff like that.

 

[GuessWhosBack]

I think you'd be wrong to think I'm seeking a solution at all, haha. I mostly just wanted to write a bit about the topic when I heard the quote. As far as solutions, I guess I'd be more interested in general concepts/principles to keep in mind when you are talking to anyone who seems to have a hard-wired view that is an issue for you: not being confrontational, hearing their side of things, Socratic method without sounding condescending, stuff like that.

Oh I see, I think I must have misunderstood the general motivation behind your thread then.

I'd start with listening to their points and figuring out why they ended up stuck in that situation to begin with. Let's say someone from the antiwork crowd gave you trouble due to the previous thread. Why are they antiwork? Maybe they genuinely live in an area with no opportunity for social mobility, or their life circumstances prevented them from getting a good education. Maybe they wouldn't be antiwork if their life worked out better.

To be clear, some people can't really eloquently put forward their reasons, so this is not always easy or straightforward to do. Some just won't be willing to do that, and will simply be combative.

 

[Buh-bye!]

Polarization is put on steroids by these social media algorithms that reward people for staying on the site as long as possible. All the algorithm knows is "I've got to keep as many eyeballs on the site as possible." It turns out that the way people stay on the site is if you fortify their existing opinions - if you feed them information that consolidates their worldview.

agree ( btw the whole para seems passive aggressive to me )

people get to a point of being too far gone and you just have to cut them out of your life

this sometimes.
but mostly just letting them feel safe around you and then talking. or making them respect you and then talking. since once who doesn't want to change an opinion would not to do that until they themselves are ready for a disagreement. until you let them come outside their chamber ( which we all have, an echo chamber ), by making them feel safe or respect you, they would just put on the defensive mode as you said and would stand with their opinion no matter what considering all you words to be lies and your civil talk to be just manipulation.

why change one's opinion though, a hectic task that puts your mental to stress to. why do that

 

[pyx]

It's about tribalism. People put themselves in these tribal categories - and we're hardwired for tribalism. That's why orthodoxies are so popular: people get sucked into various kinds of orthodoxies, whether it's political orthodoxies or religious orthodoxies. And that impulse - it's not a religious impulse, it's a biological impulse, and it's an impulse that's hardwired in us from the twenty thousand generations we spent wandering the African [Sahara] in tiny little groups that were warring each other where there was always a male leader, where the women were traded as chattels - because you couldn't marry your sister, so you knew from the beginning she was going to be a trade good, and you were going to trade her for somebody else because she had no power - where you all had to ascribe to an orthodoxy and see no problems with people within your in-group, and people outside were sub-human and they could be killed . . . we're all hard-wired that way.

When somebody gets subsumed in orthodoxy, it's very very difficult to unravel, and there are all kinds of psychiatric treatises about 'how do you deprogram somebody? How do you talk somebody out of an orthodoxy?' And the little I know about it is that if you challenge them - their beliefs - directly, it pours [cement] on it, and it makes them less able to move off that - they get very defensive. There are ways to approach them - deprogramming protocals - and they usually involve a lot of socratic method - asking questions about their belief, but it's 1-on-1 enterprise. It's not something you can do with [a large group] overnight. Polarization is put on steroids by these social media algorithms that reward people for staying on the site as long as possible. All the algorithm knows is "I've got to keep as many eyeballs on the site as possible." It turns out that the way people stay on the site is if you fortify their existing opinions - if you feed them information that consolidates their worldview.

what is this from?

 

[derpyderpins]

what is this from?

I'll send you a DM. I still owe you a response to your chat anyway.

why change one's opinion though, a hectic task that puts your mental to stress to. why do that

Depends on the person and the situation. I'm not making a habit of seeking out strangers to get combative with. I'd also differentiate between "changing" an opinion vs. adding nuance to the opinion. I really like talking to people I disagree with and having a healthy exchange.

 

[Buh-bye!]

I'll send you a DM. I still owe you a response to your chat anyway.

Depends on the person and the situation. I'm not making a habit of seeking out strangers to get combative with. I'd also differentiate between "changing" an opinion vs. adding nuance to the opinion. I really like talking to people I disagree with and having a healthy exchange.

the adding nuance to one's opinion seems like a great thought. i respect you for that
what do you mean by depends on the person and situation though, for instance, i think you only change opinions of other people when you think yours are somewhat superior ( or factually correct ), the whole superiority inferiority thing plays a role here i believe.
stop changing opinions i say, put out mottos of your opinions if you want and whoever thinks of them as right might even accept them

 

[derpyderpins]

the adding nuance to one's opinion seems like a great thought. i respect you for that
what do you mean by depends on the person and situation though, for instance, i think you only change opinions of other people when you think yours are somewhat superior ( or factually correct ), the whole superiority inferiority thing plays a role here i believe.

By "depends on the person and situation though," I'd say on one end of the spectrum there's a stranger I overhear talking (and the subject doesn't relate to me) and I decide to interject myself and confront them, on the other end would be a close friend who directly asks for my opinion even though theirs is pretty entrenched. Somewhere in the middle would be someone at the same social event as me talking about a subject that directly relates to me or that I have specific knowledge about.

I greatly disagree with your opinion about changing opinions. While I accept that if I'm trying to change someone's opinion, I enter the conversation thinking my own view is stronger, I can be open minded and test the merit of my ideas to improve and adapt them, and it's not unreasonable to expect others to do the same - although they have no obligation to accept my conclusions. The free exchange of ideas - rather than refusing challenges to the same - is what improves us intellectually and keeps idiocrasy at bay. I reject post-modernism: I think there are many cases in life where there is a right answer. I'm also grateful for times in my life where my own stance was changed once I was presented with new information/analysis. It has made me a better person.

stop changing opinions i say, put out mottos of your opinions if you want and whoever thinks of them as right might even accept them

As an example of the above, I'm glad you've taken the time to try and change my opinion regarding changing other's opinions ;)

Mottos . . . relates to another post I've planned to make about thinking "deeper" on certain subjects.

 

[Buh-bye!]

By "depends on the person and situation though," I'd say on one end of the spectrum there's a stranger I overhear talking (and the subject doesn't relate to me) and I decide to interject myself and confront them, on the other end would be a close friend who directly asks for my opinion even though theirs is pretty entrenched. Somewhere in the middle would be someone at the same social event as me talking about a subject that directly relates to me or that I have specific knowledge about.

I greatly disagree with your opinion about changing opinions. While I accept that if I'm trying to change someone's opinion, I enter the conversation thinking my own view is stronger, I can be open minded and test the merit of my ideas to improve and adapt them, and it's not unreasonable to expect others to do the same - although they have no obligation to accept my conclusions. The free exchange of ideas - rather than refusing challenges to the same - is what improves us intellectually and keeps idiocrasy at bay. I reject post-modernism: I think there are many cases in life where there is a right answer. I'm also grateful for times in my life where my own stance was changed once I was presented with new information/analysis. It has made me a better person.


As an example of the above, I'm glad you've taken the time to try and change my opinion regarding changing other's opinions ;)

Mottos . . . relates to another post I've planned to make about thinking "deeper" on certain subjects.

the whole post was nice, although the part where you mention greatly disagreeing with my opinion sounded passive aggressive to me but i am just delusional maybe, also taking in consideration that i am highly insecure about my shit.
i think i understand what you meant by depending on person and situation thing, i never thought of it so thanks mate i could think better.

 

[Alexei_Kirillov]

If you haven't already, you might want to look into "street epistemology," as popularized by Peter Boghossian. This topic is exactly his kind of wheelhouse.

(Don't have a ton of energy right now, sorry I can't add something more valuable to the discussion!)

 

[Pluto]