Philosophical phriday - countering outrageous misinformation
For decades, I have appreciated Peter Sandman's approach to outrage - the social phenomenon in which groups of people react strongly to some perceived threat, issue, concern or whatever, drawing-in other like-minded individuals via social media. The echo chamber (positive feedback loop) can rapidly escalate emotions to an unreasonable degree with a lack of reasoned, critical thinking - according to those allegedly responsible for the issue anyway.
In the case of, say, the placing of 5G cell towers in/near schools, the outraged can become furious that the risk (as they see it) is being 'callously ignored' by the equipment suppliers, site developers, authorities and scientists, and enraged that they are 'not being taken seriously'. From their perspective, thanks to group think (social endorsement), the perceived risks are portrayed and understood to be deadly serious. Leaders within the outraged community gain notoriety, influence and personal power from the community itself, stoking the fire with prejudice, misrepresentation and fear-mongering.
Outrageous concerns can spread like a fungus for an indeterminate period before sprouting mushrooms. As the crisis deepens, both factions become ever more entrenched, convinced that they are right while the others are wrong. It doesn't take long before the lynch mob forms, determined to 'do something about it'.
Once the outrage has been ignited, it becomes hard for anyone (even the more moderate or dubious members of the outraged group) to tackle or douse the flames. Logical, scientific, fact-based counter-arguments are dismissed on various grounds, often spuriously with logical fallacies, misunderstandings and supposed oppression blending with the emotional hubbub of well-meaning explanations and justifications.
Irrelevant or dubious 'facts' are often introduced, allegedly to support the arguments but in practice adding yet more fuel to the raging emotional fire.
Here are some possible non-exclusive and non-exhaustive response tactics to consider:
- Wait patiently for emotions to subside, for the flames to die down. This may come across as passive-aggressive or as a sign of defeat, and either way that may fan the flames, at least for a while. However, once the storm eventually passes, there may be further opportunities for a more calm and considered response if needed.
- Quietly and consistently present the fundamental facts, building a solid case free of emotion. Stubbornly double-down on the original position. Pointedly refuse to respond to the outraged mob. Failing to acknowledge and deal with the emotional aspect is inherent in a classical 'rational' approach and probably fueled the outrage in the first place. However, sometimes 'the facts speak for themselves'.
- Dispassionately address key claims and arguments raised by the outraged point-by-point. Systematically dismantle their position, convince them (and onlookers) of the error of their ways and so douse the flames. Good luck with that! As with point 2, ignoring the emotional angle is risky.
- Respond likewise to the outraged with emotion, counterpoints and appeals to common sense, targeting the most glaring errors, irrelevancies, logical fallacies etc. In combination with additional facts and sound analysis, a well-rounded response carries more weight but runs the risk of offering yet more opportunities for the outraged to challenge things and claim that 'there must be more to it: they are hiding stuff from us all!'.
- Mount a social media campaign, matching and slugging it out with the outraged blow-by-blow. Inform, engage and enlist the support of local, national or international communities. Become outraged at the outrage!
- A more subtle version of #4 and #5 can involve using doubt, implication and innuendo to discredit the outraged. This is an example of a supplementary or nuanced tactic. It may be pre-planned and prepared, or developed on the fly as the opportunities arise.
- Divide and conquer. Identify and exploit differences of opinion among the outraged, seeding dissent within. This strategy (more than the others) benefits from an insider perspective - a source within the outraged community who, by the way, may also be cultivating their own sources.
- Fight fire with fire. Attack! Mount a full-on assault against the social engineering ringleaders, discrediting and undermining them personally as well as their arguments and claims. Initiate legal action and threats. Actively exploit strong emotions such as anger and grief. Solicit support from the authorities and friendly forces. #8 may involve ignoring or actively suppressing rational/scientific aspects, focusing heavily or exclusively on the emotional side.