One of the issues I’ve noticed in arguing with conspiracy theorists recently, is that of asymmetric information positions. In other words, we’re not working from the same deck of cards. If you’re not aware of this being the case, discussions tend to get really frustrating really fast. But as soon as you are, you can either try to resolve that difference, or simply abstain from continuing the argument.

The problem

Normally when you want to have a discussion on a certain topic, especially when it is more fact-based or scientific, both sides need to have some sort of similar level of understanding of the material at hand if you really want to arrive at any form of informed conclusion, even if that is a more subjective ‘agree-to-disagree’.

But in my discussions with a person close to me on a set of (clear) hoax videos, I noticed I simply wasn’t getting through to him. He was, after months of talking about it, still convinced they were real in large part, while I, in my opinion, had given him all the information and arguments needed to show they were complete fakes.

When I probed him about this after a while, the person told me that in fact, he had not read a lot of the material I had presented. Due to time constraints and other priorities, he had not gotten around to it, and had scheduled to go through it some time (months) later.

My initial response

At first I was astonished, perhaps even annoyed. He himself had initially shown me these videos, and was convinced they were true and that we were witnessing a complete paradigm shift for the future of physics, science, and even mankind! So how the hell, if you really believe that, do you not take in all available information and arguments on both sides to inform your opinions or conclusion, I wondered? It made (makes) zero sense to me.

I noticed that a large part of the frustration in our conversations had come from this asymmetric information position. He simply did not bother to digest most of the arguments on one side, but chose to believe the other side nonetheless. Every time the main promoter of the hoax videos had something new to say, I could simply wave it away based on XYZ. But my friend lacked both the underlying knowledge on the subjects as well as all the information and arguments I had send him which disproved it.

A solution

So what do you do? Normally in conversation, if one side is missing key information, you bring that information to the table, include it in your thought processes, and then move on from there together, based on a shared understanding of reality.

But I noticed in my example that because this person did not process one side of information, he was stuck in the past to me in this discussion. Making arguments I had seen and answered before, remaining stuck in positions contrary to presented evidence, not because he did not agree, but because he just did not even read it.

There is no easy way out of this unfortunately. What a person decides to read or take up is ultimately his or her own decision to make. But this affair did make me realize that getting frustrated was pointless. I decided I was just going to drop the discussion for the time being and see where we were once he had read up on everything. Sure, it has affected my opinion of this person and I woulnd’t trust his opinion on anything like this again, but I had to let it go.

Asymmetric information positions in arguments can only be solved if both sides of the argument or discussion are capable, and most importantly willing, to level the playing field.

---