This is a sad story. Do you think it would make a difference if you could sit him down with someone who would patiently listen to his claims, provide (counter) evidence, and point out when a claim is too vague or falsifiable to even check? I can imagine this a kind of AI patiently working through big chunks of a huge decision tree with the user, allowing itself to be lead through it as slowly or quickly as needed, a many times as needed. You would either get agreement, or be able to isolate with great precision those assertions of fact and/or assumptions that seem to undermine the user's reason.
From my experience with a friend who went off the conspiracy deep end quite a bit before the pandemic already, I can't see it helping at all. I deeply care about the friend and I tried to engage with him in many ways, assuming that he would somehow be accessible to reason. The reality is, he was not. Every argument/fact I brought to counter a claim was dismissed, because it was mainstream media/science/... At the same time he would happily use the same sources if they supported his point of view.
I also tried the opposite trying to push e.g. the lizard people conspiracies, to show the fallacy of his arguments. He would completely dismiss those, because "everyone knows that is rubbish", while arguing for a conspiracy which has hidden the true laws of physics for financial gain.
Unfortunately I do not have an answer how to talk with people like that, but it needs a much more serious intervention than rational talk.
Yeah, I don't know. In a related vein, I assign a great deal of blame for this situation to two groups of people: first, his employer, which was confronted with crystal-clear signs of severe mental illness (his termination was the culmination of a series of deep-dive student newspaper articles that revealed all sorts of disturbing stuff) and chose to cut him loose, and second --- and much more significantly --- to para-"normie" activists like RFK Jr who know full well they're capitalizing on serious pathology to build their followings.
I'd like to believe that I could help bring my friend out of it, but I'm in no way qualified, and then there's all the guns.
I think you are right to also worry about your safety and would likely need some help and advice if you are trying to help him.
I haven't extensively read Freddie de Boer, but in what I read, he comes across as empathetic, perceptive, highly articulate and probably rather more sane than most people.
He also posted a very personal video a while ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKB6F_VYuZY ), to vent his anger at a recent glamorization of mental illness by a NYT writer. In it he explains how the only thing that prevented him from murdering a former love during a psychotic episode (for supposedly secretly putting glass into his food) was that he didn't even know where she lived. He realized he needed to be on permanent medication.
I was jarred listening to a fine and sensitive mind relating how it's only kept suspended over a chasm of homicidal delusion by a relatively crude and often debilitating pharmacological cocktail.
Put him on a long-term sabbatical and arranged mental health care. If they'd tried and my friend refused, or it didn't take, fair's fair. But I don't believe that's what happened. My friend essentially had a psychotic break while on the job. I'd expect a public university to be especially good at stuff like this, but I've worked in the private sector with people who had severe mental health issues that took them out of the lineup for years at a time and they were still taken care of.
It was a whole big media story at the time, and I thought it was remarkable how the university played it off as a morality story and not a medical crisis.
I’d expect that too. Perhaps paranoid-schizophrenia manifesting itself as racist rants collided with wokism in an unfortunate manner and really bad timing.
There was nothing "woke" about the disciplinary response to what he was saying; it was absolutely unacceptable. Ron DeSantis wouldn't have tolerated it either.
Regardless: most of my enmity is reserved for people like RFK Jr, who are literally building a movement in large part by mobilizing people with untreated mental illness.
Was referring to the part where you said he was dropped without consideration that it was an illness. Could be old-fashioned careless disregard, but we know the climate at Uni in 2020 where even the appearance of racism is a hot potato.
Once again: there was no mistaking what happened in this instance. I don't appreciate having culture war arguments shoehorned into this; I think you could have just taken my word for it.
Sounds like his employer could have handled it better but I had to deal with this recently (someone close experiencing psychosis) and at the end of the day, it's about family members stepping up. The buck stops with them. If they won't take responsibility, there's not a lot you can do.
I think it's probably wrong to blame youtubers or disinformation. Pyschotics are going to find something to latch onto with or without internet access. If it's not covid, it's the Jews, or the government following them, or talking to God, and any of those things is enough to torpedo your career and relationships.
> if you could sit him down with someone who would patiently listen to his claims, provide (counter) evidence, and point out when a claim is too vague or falsifiable to even check?
Clearly you haven't ever argued with someone about their beliefs. Let me give you a quick run-down:
- You can never provide counter evidence to every claim. Most of them are too vague or detached from reality to be refuted clearly. You predicted this, and you were right to.
- A claim - in the believer's mind - is never too vague. They are just failing to articulate it to you in the moment.
- Not being able to falsify a claim is exactly the point. You and I call that circular reasoning, but they call it faith. Yes, they see the logical fallacy. There is no way to prove for certain one way or the other; so it always comes down to emotion.
--
I've been on both sides of this dynamic.
When I was religious (Mormon), I was convinced that - if my religion were false - it would be just as convenient and straightforward to criticize and deconstruct it as you described. And in many ways, it is!
But somehow I, and most of the people I knew, was insulated both from the critical information that might have made me rethink my convictions, and from the very pattern of critical thinking itself. I understood the fallacy of circular reasoning. I was convinced that this was an exception.
--
The human mind has a lot of room for faith. Faith in ourselves. Faith in our hopes, our dreams, and our delusions. It's no wonder that we are able to stubbornly believe falsehoods; yet that very ability has us faithfully believing we are the exception - uniquely immune to all the pitfalls of faith.
We can all see the pattern. We can all deconstruct it. We never have to.
