Wondering how you react is someone you really like and respect has a position on a particular topic that you consider really goofy. Do you say anything? Do you try to debate it or persuade them otherwise? Does this isolated opinion change your opinion of them in any way?
One of my best friends plays chamber music with my wife and me. He’s a HS orchestra director, very informed as to music, and his views on most social/political matters meshes very well with ours.
A couple of weeks ago, he mentioned something he finds interesting in terms of ancient history. As best I understand, he thinks there was some very high level of technology which was lost during the “younger dryas” period. Related to his belief, he believes the Great Pyramid at Giza is more than 10,000 years old. I think he believes such structures as Central American pyramids and Angkor Wat reflect some level of technology/knowledge we cannot understand at present. He accepts much older dates for American population. Etc.
Kinda reminds me of Chariots of the Gods type stuff, but not involving aliens.
It just really struck me as out of place for a person who seems so rational in al other respects - including being an atheist. At first, I asked a couple of questions to try to figure out what he was saying. Then I did a little research to check the basis for my understanding, and the next time I sorta debated and (I’m not proud of this) mocked his belief. To his credit, he was not offended but welcomed the opportunity to clearly express his thoughts. We remain very close friends.
So I figure I’ll just sorta pretend I never heard him say this stuff. But it does sorta bother me to hear someone I like and respect - he is really one of my best friends - and there aren’t too many of them - has such bizarre and irrational beliefs.
Wondered if any of you would like to share your experiences w/ friends/family who are really great - but just really goofy in one or a few respects.
I believe the Clovis points I saw at Houston’s Museum of Natural Science last year are dated from the “younger dryas” period. So while not exactly addressing your OP, I personally use that as a benchmark for the technology of the period (I have no reason to doubt the museum’s dating of the artifacts).
Yeah. When I tried to ask him about specific dates that I understood to be generally accepted, he started talking about the structures inside the great pyramid, the degree of precision in the construction, orientation towards various celestial features.
Gave me the impression that he had come across some pseudoscientific books/magazines/shows/website he found appealing for some reason or another. His belief seemed pretty resistant to ready refutation.
Addressing the OP, I would personally ask him why he thought that way. I’d be interested in challenging my own views on the subject.
It wouldn’t necessarily change my opinion of him in other areas such as music or sociopolitical views. If it becomes apparent to me that he sucks at doing research or blindly listens to conspiracy theorists, I might wonder whether his political views are equally thin. But I wouldn’t assume it carries over from such a distinct field of knowledge.
I wouldn’t hold it against him just for mentioning things like that - they probably show such conspiracies on the History channel these days. My interest in asking for details is to challenge my existing belief, not convincing him he’s wrong. Correctly dating some ancient artifacts isn’t some existential issue like global warming.
I guess I would consider if the belief is pertinent to the current world and the future. Getting some of the details wrong about what happened 10,000 - 25,000 years ago? Nothing to concern myself with.
If I’m talking with a friend or acquaintance who starts to express one of these beliefs (specifically, anything to close to resembling the “Chariot of the Gods” stuff) I try to head it off at the pass with a very dismissive “ha! I know - that stuff is hilarious, right? Like, the people who fall for it do so because they’re the type who can’t possibly believe those primitive brown people could have developed any sort of technology. They never seem to be so incredulous of Stonehenge, right?”
I think it all depends on how often the subject comes up during a normal conversation. If he mentions it constantly as if trying to instigate an argument, that would bother me and probably mean I can’t be friends with him long-term. If it only comes up once in a blue moon, I would ask him what his sources were. That will tell you a lot about the validity of his claims, but I could still be friends with someone who wasn’t always talking about wild ideas that science generally frowns upon. People are allowed to believe whatever they want to believe, whether I agree with them or not.
It can easily be misunderstood, the relative levels of technology / knowledge at certain times and places in history. Even more so when the wealth and power of a noble is brought to bear on certain projects that will stand out as odd. When the rest of that society makes do with regular resources and artisans.
A cursory look at the era can be misleading, as to what the peak knowledge and means were. It is not at all uncommon for folks to assume a lower level of these was the only reality.
If somebody is a rational thinker, but has odd or goofy ideas on a subject, you can engage in discussions about the subject that don’t require debate or mockery, but still require him to substantiate or defend his views. The key is to ask lots of questions. It never forces you to agree with him, but you can challenge his points as well.
“How do you account for…?” “What about…?” “Isn’t it true that…?” “Have you ever heard the theory that…?” “Don’t some people say that…?”
And if you further couch any of your own research along the lines of “I read somewhere that…” you can another degree of distance to your position so as to argue without being disagreeable.
Man, if only my friends had only ONE goofy belief each .
Usually I’m pretty tolerant. What, you’re rational atheist with a STEM degree that believes in astrology in a casual way? Okay, whatever.
Sometimes I’m not. Oh, you believe that white people shouldn’t have relationships with black people because it might spread sickle-cell anemia? Fuck off.
I draw the line at vile beliefs (as I define them), continuous proselytizing or I suppose just a serious excess of goofy beliefs - like way more than one odd notion. Otherwise, eh. You want to believe in abiogenic petroleum creation, as an acquaintance of mine does (“we’ll never run out of oil - the center of the Earth is filled with it!”), fine. Don’t force a debate on me and I don’t care all that much.
“Goofy” is kind of vague to have a single opinion about. It covers everything from “Morning dew is really just the Earth sweating at night” to “Jewish politicians are eating babies in the basements of pizza shops and they must be rescued”. I guess my reaction would depend on the belief being expressed.
If it doesn’t make them act like a dick to others, and if they aren’t obsessively nattering on about it all the time, I give it a pass.
I mean… I will lose a little respect for their intellect, which is disappointing, but that’s not a huge factor in most of my casual friendships anyway.
Some of these theories are racist in origin (“brown people couldn’t possibly have built those!”). It didn’t seem like it was the case for the OP, or it would’ve been mentioned, but I thought I’d bring it up just in case.
In general, it really depends on the topic. Pineapple on pizza? Sure. Aliens built the pyramids? Eh. Certain groups of people don’t deserve rights? Nuh uh.
Your comment “triggered” something I often get riled about recently.
How there is a drive in the sciences to point to some things as being negatively racist. But in fact, some of those very things were moved forward immensely by people of non white race, way back in history and all through it.
Math is racially biased? So many critical things that moved math forward were discovered by non white people. Very basic critical concepts.
There were times when race was an obstacle to getting ahead in the sciences. It may still be so to various extent. But all races in all times have made great contributions to science. Do not obscure and lessen those contributions by contorting science taught now, as a white construct.
He did mention the word “Atlantis”, saying something about "an earlier civilization. And he was talking about the Younger Dryas as the source for multiple deluge myths.
Good to know the source. Hell, I read a lot, so I might skim through some of this trash just to get insight into my friend’s mindset. But there is so much GOOD stuff to read instead…
At one point years ago I posted a thing on Facebook listing a bunch of the standard ridiculous CTs (e.g. moon landing hoax, chemtrails, 9/11, etc) and a bunch of my friends responded with “Ha ha, yes, it’s amazing how people will believe in such obvious nonsense…except for [item on list] which is actually true!”.
And none of them picked the same item.
I just repeated the point that all of the CTs were nonsense. I don’t think any of them unfriended me for it, but we never discussed it again.
I’ve read Fingerprints, it’s kind of a “know your enemy” type thing. I can see how it could be a nice just-so story - if one were uneducated about many things. Which most people are:
tells me he’s probably not highly scientifically literate. So he may have heard of geological plates, and the grossly simplified model of the Earth that schoolkids learn, so then crustal displacement theory doesn’t sound implausible. Or he doesn’t know about anything about Egyptology or astronomy (or how to turn a picture upside-down), then the Orion CorrelationTheory for the pyramids can sound quite amazing.
.
