How do you deal with someone in an argument that refuses to accept your evidence as being correct?
Let’s say you show them a wiki article, their immediate response is “it’s false information”. You show them cite, they refuse to accept the world tourism organization statistics legitimacy.
What’s the reasonable response to someone like this? How do you deal with someone who’s delusional and psychotic?
Cut off contact, if it’s real life, unless it’s family or something, in which case try to shift the conversation to akward chat about the length of supermarket lines until you can slip away and move to Wichita.
If it’s online, like say here, pray for the thread to be moved to the pit.
These two questions don’t really go together
I was going to suggest you get better evidence, but that may just be some bias creeping through. Really, if you’ve reached a point where you feel like you can’t have useful / productive conversations with them, stop trying.
Are you sure? I’m under the impression they go hand and hand.
Like trump supporters, how is someone who’ll refuse to believe anything that contradicts their thought not delusional or psychotic?
I truly believe the level of incoherent articulated thought is a tell tale sign that someone is psychotic and or delusional.
Well with lack of ability to create evidence, the best you can do is give someone something like the UNWTO which is acknowledged legitimate by the UN and countless others.
IF they can come up with evidence that countradicts it then sure we can go from there. However all I’m getting is “nope it’s fake news”.
Well, add in most religious people as mentally ill, then, if that’s your criterion. It’s not just Trump supporters.
Sam Harris on Dubya:
The short answer is once somebody is that far gone, they’ve stopped thinking. You’ll have as much success arguing with their dog as you will with them.
So stop wasting your breath. Ignore them, divorce them, disown them. As the song says, there’s 50 ways to leave your loonie. Just step out the back Jack, … etc.
You don’t - life’s too short. Just don’t invest any money with them and if you end up having to share an inheritance, get the estate settled as quickly as possible.
If you make a claim, and you can show evidence, then they claim it is false news, then it is up to them to support *that *claim with evidence.
Is the UNWTO(?) the only source of evidence for your claim? Take me for example, I’ll often times make the extra effort here on the SDMB to dig up a source from the NYT / WaPo / HuffPo rather than cite something from Fox News because so many of the liberals have a knee-jerk “nope it’s fake news” reaction. Perhaps you could try doing similar. If the person doesn’t think the UN is trustworthy, find a different source, one that they’ll trust more.
This.
You could try explaining how arguments work. Maybe they don’t know. If they still refuse to support their claims then inform them that it is impossible to reconcile opposing viewpoints when one side is not arguing in good faith. If that doesn’t shame them then there’s not much more to be said. Just politely inform them you don’t see the point of continuing since they have abandoned logic.
The above assumes you are dealing with someone who you have some kind of relationship with. If it’s some rando that you have no bridges to burn with then maybe laugh loudly at their ineptitude. While many are resistant to logic very few people are immune to public ridicule.
Some people are so stupid or live in such a state of denial or willful ignorance that what’s practical for you at that point is deciding if you want to be their ad hoc street psychiatrist, probably against their will.
One needs to recognize arrival at that point and then make the sound decision to move on. Life’s too short.
Question your motivations for engaging in the argument and calculate if it’s worth your time. I don’t think it’s that important to win an argument in the grand scheme of things when the audience is one other person.
If logic and reason don’t work, you have to use fear and ridicule. Republicans understand this. Democrats don’t.
I tried once. I have a friend that is a hard core conspiracy theorist.
Some news sites and YouTube videos have date and time stamps that reflect the date when the site was created, not when the content was posted. Although the news or videos on the site are updated regularly the date doesn’t change.
This means you can find news stories dated BEFORE the event happened. Conspiracy theorists have latched on this and cite it as “proof” that the event was preplanned and staged. The fact that there’s a level of detail in these stories including photos that would be impossible to create before the fact goes unremarked.
So I decided to prove to Mr friend that the date stamp thing was an anomaly and not accurate. So I searched out dozens of news stories, selecting things that I felt NO ONE could misconstrue as staged. Celebrity deaths from illness and drug overdoses. The rescues of women that had been kidnapped and imprisoned for years. Large weather events such as major storms. Dozens of stories. And each one covered on sites date-stamped before the story.
And I watched my friend as he viewed this evidence. His eyes widened, I could almost see the wheels in his head spinning. He was like “Wow, this is deeper and darker than I even thought possible”.
So, no…you can’t reason with these people. Don’t waste your breath.
After you’ve presented evidence and it’s been rejected for non-logical reasons, pretty much all you can do is document the idiocy for others to see (if online), then point and laugh.
In real life, smile and back away slowly.
With some people, it may just be hopeless; but here’s an approach that might work:
Facts Don’t Change People’s Minds. Here’s What Does
A couple quotes:
+1. You cannot fix stupid. Or fanaticism.
First, look at yourself to see if you could present better evidence, present it in a better way, etc. If you find no fault with yourself on this matter, and you care about having productive arguments, then I’d stop having the argument since you have determined that a productive argument isn’t possible.