Carl T. Bergstrom

There's a curious new rhetorical strategy I'm encountering more and more often in online spaces wherein ignorance about a claim is taken to refute it. It goes a bit like the script below. It's the death-of-expertise script, but with an additional twist.

Has anyone written about this?

Dec 14, 2023 at 7:20amWeb
Show threadRoadskater, Ph.D.Dec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Wow, that read like trying to explain something to a 5-year-old who is in a pout. "Nuhgonnadoit."
Show threadEhudDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Is the twist the idea that you should get evidence from someone other than the one making the claim being discussed? This actually sounds reasonable ;)
Show threadFinchHaven sfbaDec 14, 2023

@ehud

"Don't get any information from someone who actually knows something about the topic -- get 'information' only from those who don't!"

uh… sounds reasonable?

uh…

cc @ct_bergstrom

Show threadMartin Vermeer FCDDec 14, 2023
@FinchHaven @ehud @ct_bergstrom 'Expertise as conflict of interest'. Remembering how, when our university tightened its conflict-of-interest rules, it became near-impossible in a small, closely-knit research field to find competent doctoral opponents...
Show threadDavid C. Norris 🇺🇦 🗽Dec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Missed opportunity there, to explore what person means by "Open-Minded Thinker"
Show threadSam O'RiilDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom Does it work? I mean does it get any support or convince anyone?

Because to me such position looks just stupid. A person doesn't know and doesn't want to know. Any further communication is just pointless.

Show threadCarl T. BergstromDec 14, 2023
@semoriil It wastes time. I don't know if it convinces anyone.
Show threadxi timpinDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom @semoriil
I suspect the point is to waste your time.
It's the antithesis of scientific enquiry.
Show threadJamesDec 14, 2023

@xi_timpin @ct_bergstrom @semoriil

"I suspect the point is to waste your time. "

I just had the horrible thought that this would fit in with one kind of time management. Reply, kick it out of your queue, and you don't have to worry about it for a time.

Show threadLuke KaniesDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom I had programmers working for me 15 years ago like that. “Oh, you think you know how it works just because you wrote the code?”

There was some weird-ass anti-expertise thing. And now it’s everywhere

Show threadJW prince of CPHDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Never seen this before but given how some people (!) approach expertise it's entirely believable to me that it happens. I would categorise it as flat-out trolling.
Show threadDavid JašaDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom this is the approach I take when an internal 🚨 starts screaming "fossil fuel propaganda" (and few other topics). 😆 Their As and Bs both stand on bullshit assumptions so there's no point investing brain power to understand.
Show threadJohn Rohde JensenDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Sounds like one of those people who do their own research ... on their phone ... while in the restroom.
Show threadWayneDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom I don't believe you.

I don't know enough about people trying to refute your claim of A to be able to make the conclusion that they are ignorant.

Okay, I hope that made you smile and not roll your eyes and look for the block button.

Show threadNicole ParsonsDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom

So many Reply Guy responses are seem like cookie cutter copy-paste scripts.

They aren't bots but they respond like one.

Even the spelling, punctuation, and grammatical errors are identical.

It's like chaff thrown into a fan, spreads identical pieces of undigestible plastic into the conversational thread.

Show threadUlrike HahnDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom @Ruth_Mottram sounds like an argument from ignorance plus a credibility denying expertise = bias one/two punch?
Show threadMartha HowellDec 14, 2023
@UlrikeHahn @ct_bergstrom @Ruth_Mottram
"I'm too smart to cure my lack of knowledge with your expertise."
Show threadBrendan HalpinDec 14, 2023

@UlrikeHahn @ct_bergstrom @Ruth_Mottram

It's a form of Flat-Eartherism, where flat earthers are best understood as driven not by a belief that the earth is flat, but by a sort of competitive need to demonstrate (to oneself and others) that one is impervious to persuasion.

Show threadBin Chicken 🗑𓅠Dec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Sounds like a mistrust of expertise. Often, it's expressed by people who lack the humility to admit there's something they don't know. They'd prefer to place false equivalence on their ignorance and your knowledge. When I've seen it, it's adjacent to "both sides"-thinking and "do your own research" — which is ironic because it reinforces preconceived biases and inhibits learning.
Show thread*.arjDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom the more I see things like this the more it looks like a disorder or some kind of mental illness.
Show threadSamuelJohnsonDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said that you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into.

And the Japanese take may apply: never wrestle with a pig, you'll just both get dirty and the pig will enjoy it.

Show threadMortenDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom What if approach A doesn't have problem B or you are being dishonest and your A B claim is only true under very specific circumstances that you haven't listed?
Or the A B claim is true but not intuitive and you haven't offered any information to break the non-intuitiveness?
Show threadJanneDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom This is prevalent in offline journalism.

If a civilized, well educated person "doesn't understand" something, it must be bollocks.

It's called Saska filter here (named after one infamous Finnish editor).

Show threadwhereiskDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom like a child having a tantrum you can't engage in that, you can only walk away and give them a chance to revisit - "Not all opinions have the same weight and you seem to selectively disregard expertise you find psychologically uncomfortable. I don't want to cause you any more discomfort so I'm going to walk away from this conversation, but I'm always here if you want to revisit it in good faith."
Show threadVIDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Potentially a consequence of "debate me culture"? That is, being seen as "wrong" or "incorrect" is seen as loss of status/moral and social "weakness", so this allows them to keep their position and status by accusation of bad faith discussion. Victory/owing libs is all that matters? Somehow feels like something to do with epistemic closure (in the US political debate sense rather than the philosophy sense}, too?
Show threadTeflonTroutDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom "I don't believe you are that dumb."

Gives them nothing to grab on to

Show threadChristopher SchardlDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Not at all new. In fact it’s the go-to strategy for young-Earth creationists, and has been for a very long time.
Show threadRoy #EatTheRich Pardee 🇺🇸Dec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom this puts me in mind of an interaction i had long ago with a climate change denier. They wanted me to go read an obscure (to me) message board, where all the"true experts" discussed how climate change is a lie. I declined that invitation.
Show threadMutesplashDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom Weird version of DARVO?
Show threadsmolwaffleDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom
It would be nice if this image had alt text. I was able to read it, but with difficulty.
@hrefna
Show threadCarl T. BergstromDec 14, 2023
@hrefna @smolwaffle it does have alt text.
Show threadsmolwaffleDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom
Oh, huh. I must have been misclicking in Fedilab or something, I tried to get to it several times. Well never mind then, and thanks for including it.
@hrefna
Show threadChris RealDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom
When fools try this with me, I reply with something like:

"You don't KNOW, because you're WEAK and this makes you STUPID—so what're are we gonna do with you?"

You do not ARGUE with bad faith, you belittle it and mock it. Because it's not a rhetorical strategy, it's an assertion of dominance that needs to nipped in the bud.

Show threadMichaelDec 14, 2023
@ct_bergstrom
Show threadLeisureguyDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom Good example of an impenetrable wall of ignorance.

I've encountered a lesser wall: the response, "I've never heard that" (with the implication that it therefore cannot be true).

I believe "I've never heard that" is intended as an irrefutable objection.

I generally reply that I also had never heard it — until, of course, I did, and now he has heard it as well. Then I append a link to authoritative sources.

But that is minor compared to the well-armed fortress you encountered.

Show threadAlexey MerzDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom

Dunning-Kruger

Show threadT. T. PerryDec 14, 2023

@ct_bergstrom

This sounds like the standard thing I was told by Mormons when I encountered literature or media that challenged Mormon dogma.

You are untrustworthy as a source precisely because of your actual expertise, your familiarity with the topic. Expertise is seen as contaminating and heterodox.

Show threadSheldon RamptonDec 16, 2023
@ct_bergstrom My best rhetorical strategy for thinking I’ve won ANY argument is that I let the other person lay out every piece of evidence and persuasion they’ve got, and then I just say, “So?”