Why to prove anyone wrong? (Psychology behind "debunking" or something like that)

This question began to bother me when I reflected my own reasons for the need of "proving something".

Debating over and on the Internet can be quite exhausting and time-consuming, so there has to lie some motivating factor why to do so.

In this thread, I'd like to hear other people reasons for such activity and unless they don't practice it, why not? Furthermore I share my own reflections about the possible reasons for this kind of behaviour.

So let's begin with the possible reasons I managed scrape together in a hasty manner:

1) You feel your own understanding about the reality to be threatened. This means that you feel need to prove "out there" theories wrong, because they don't fit your view about the state of affairs and reality. Accepting "out there" theories would mean defeat and admission that you were wrong.

2) You feel need to share the truth you see, so that others see the same truth as well. You consider yourself obliged to enlighten people who has totally misunderstood the nature of reality - I guess this one is closest to my motivation, yet I often lose the motivation quite quickly

3) You seek acceptance and/or confirmation for your own beliefs.

For now I cannot imagine other reasons, but surely there are reasons as many as there are users - above may just be general lines, drawn from some observations.

Lately I have lost quite much of my enthuasism for the debate. I think it is not my business what other people may think and understand pretty well that all knowledge may be subjective, except of some basic things perhaps. Besides because people are somewhat unique, I understand that what I know may not resonate with their knowledge. And for sake of the truth, it has to be admitted that in the end we know pretty little.

Besides of that, it sometimes feels like some people are there just to make you waste your energy in irrelevant debate. Maybe if we wouldn't be spending that much time arguing with each other, we could be more productive. Why just not accept the differences in opinions? So what if someone doesn't believe in ghost or another one believes in Akashic Records, or to be a god? So what if someone screams "inside job" and another one "hoax"?

I believe that there is a objective reality behind all personal ego subjectiviness, beyond the illusions created by thought. What if we just perceive the world as it appears to us? Without judgement, without fear and prejudices? Is it even possible? I think it is. I have tried, and many things appears in different light...

-v

This is a neat post. I just had to deal with an habitual debunker on another thread, and it appears that, in this person's case, the biggest motivating factor was 1) having a chip on their shoulder from another area of their life that is manifested in the thread in question; 2) feelings of powerlessness in other aspects of their life, and believing that the control missing in the personal realm can be retained behind the relative safety of a keyboard.

What is amazing is that the "debunker" would come to a website designed to discuss alternative news, theories, ideas, some of them far out in left field, and then try to play their games here.

What sort of internal emotional turbulence and turmoil propels someone to act that way in a forum that is designed for people to have fun, talk about conspiracies and alternative theories? My guess is the people we are referring to are generally miserable, in relationships that are unsatisfying, and can derive no other pleasure or sense of control from more prosocial channels.

They are really kind of sad.

For my own part, I object to sloppy thinking. People need to think clearly and make informed choices. I seldom bother to engage in political debates because often these amount to little more than opinion. When it comes to scientific matters, or matters of fact, there are definite methodologies which can be applied. Sadly, many people seem to lack these tools which are important for making sense of the world they live in. When I see people who are distressed because they cannot understand what is going on, I feel that compassion dictates that they be shown the skills they need. I also find it objectionable when people who should surely know better attempt to take advantage of other people's credulity or lack of knowledge in order to spread unnecessary fear. It's never about "winning an argument," just opening people's eyes a little.

Yet another alternative (while I am thinking of them) is that a small subsection of these people are in place and playing their debunking games in an organized effort to push a specfic agenda.

For example, it is not outside of the realm of possibility to believe that some of the well known groups that do "political and community organizing" (i.e., moveon.org, tides foundation, etc.) don't pay people to surf the internet and do a little "nudging" or some "perturbation" to get a particular theme (or meme) out there, or to dampen certain ideas and discussions.

Are they "disinfo agents" hired by the CIA or the KGB? Highly unlikely. Are they retirees, shut-ins, the unemployed and disenfrancised with a computer, an axe to grind and nothing else to do? Much more likely.

The more I think about it, the odder it seems.

reply to post by MMPI2


Without "debunkers" this site would spiral into a pointless fantasy-land populated purely with fiction, role-playing, and hoaxers out for attention and/or money.

Just saying...

Oh, and relating to the OP:
Debate may be purely an excerise of the mind for some...

reply to post by MMPI2

Yet another alternative (while I am thinking of them) is that a small subsection of these people are in place and playing their debunking games in an organized effort to push a specfic agenda.

There are also cliques of cultists who push their own agendas: Nibiru, 2012, etc.Some of them may be sincere, but others are clearly recruiting sheep or selling DVDs, books, etc.

reply to post by DJW001

Originally posted by DJW001
For my own part, I object to sloppy thinking. People need to think clearly and make informed choices. I seldom bother to engage in political debates because often these amount to little more than opinion. When it comes to scientific matters, or matters of fact, there are definite methodologies which can be applied. Sadly, many people seem to lack these tools which are important for making sense of the world they live in. When I see people who are distressed because they cannot understand what is going on, I feel that compassion dictates that they be shown the skills they need. I also find it objectionable when people who should surely know better attempt to take advantage of other people's credulity or lack of knowledge in order to spread unnecessary fear. It's never about "winning an argument," just opening people's eyes a little.

Sloppy thinking yes. I've often wondered that people adopt pre-existent and often dominating ideas about state of affairs out of laziness of thought. They may be busy in their lives so that they may have not time for proper contemplation. And yes, some people unfortunately lack those critical tools of thought and sufficient knowledge of philosophical, scientific or religious history, which allows one reflect phenomenas in more complete manner.

reply to post by MMPI2

Originally posted by MMPI2
Yet another alternative (while I am thinking of them) is that a small subsection of these people are in place and playing their debunking games in an organized effort to push a specfic agenda.

I agree that this is possible. Are they here because they are willingly and knowingly spreading lies because of some clandestine purpose, or because they are afraid of alternative ideas, this I do not know. Maybe both.

reply to post by defuntion

Originally posted by defuntion
reply to post by MMPI2

 

Without "debunkers" this site would spiral into a pointless fantasy-land populated purely with fiction, role-playing, and hoaxers out for attention and/or money.

Just saying...

Oh, and relating to the OP:
Debate may be purely an excerise of the mind for some...[

You are right. Without thesis and antithesis synthesis may never be realized; this means that objective reality would fade and everything would be merely subjective (mis?)intepretation regarding the reality.

And furthermore, for effective collective action certain consensus amongst opinions and about ideas is needed, argument is needed for gaining this consensus. But perhaps there are issues that are more relevant to be debated than others.

-v

reply to post by v01i0


If an ego feels an absolute need to debunk a theory or statement, it denotes a lack of intelligence (not intellect), meaning that this ego needs security within his own mind for this ego is unable to know on his own if the theory or statement is accurate or not. So, the natural process for this ego is to find security, and this action balances his own astral body energies. So basically, insecurity is caused by ignorance, but it's not the ego that's at fault. It's just that his own soul experience is insufficient. Once the ego has been set free from the karmic programming, this ego doesn't feel the need to debunk or to prove anything. He just knows and that's the end of it.

reply to post by lagenese


Yea I think in the end it all boils down to our personality and ego. We need certain security in order to build a stable personality. This security can be gained temporarily by accepting a dogma or permanently by individualization.

-v

I'll play along, i guess. I debate because at times, people get either trolly, or start ranting on about complete BS. I only debate when
1) Someone debates me back, starting an argument
2) When posters hop on the OP for an illogical reason
3) When people argue, well.......about nothing realted to the argument. Have you ever been in a debate where, out of nowhere, the other debater says something like "And yet you post useless information and post no source" or "I agree with ------...[place irrational reason here]"

On the rare occasions I indulge in this behavior it's
for reasons #2 and #3....I almost always appreciate
being corrected when I'm mistaken (when it's done
in a polite and logical manner! )

Oh...and I agree with your idea of just accepting our
own realities but then I become afraid I might be
becoming a "sheeple"! lol

reply to post by mr10k


I can relate to that also.

Guilty!

-v

Originally posted by SmokeyDawn
I almost always appreciate
being corrected when I'm mistaken (when it's done
in a polite and logical manner! )

I guess that's a good attitude, unless you accept everything merely because it is flattering

Just kidding. It's sign of wisdom to be able to correct opinions when they are proved wrong.

-v

I really don't like to debate, but I do like to find the truth in a matter,

There is also something to be said about a person who wont accept they may be wrong about a theory no matter how much evidence is provided, I think it would be a welcome change on forums if people would at least make an attempt to meet one-another halfway.

Originally posted by v01i0

Originally posted by SmokeyDawn
I almost always appreciate
being corrected when I'm mistaken (when it's done
in a polite and logical manner! )

I guess that's a good attitude, unless you accept everything merely because it is flattering

Just kidding. It's sign of wisdom to be able to correct opinions when they are proved wrong.
-v

But it's not flattery if it's TRUE....right??

reply to post by v01i0


I debunk because I never see someone give enough evidence. It's usually "you can believe me or not" or " I can't give my source" or some other excuse why someone can not give full disclosure. It gives me the feeling of somone insulting my itelligence.

reply to post by v01i0
I believe its a matter of self preservation,its as though your shaking their world up the its like two people looking out a window,one sees the horrible things that are taking place the other one sees a beautiful day although it the same scenery it becomes a matter of perspective.Believe me I live with the master of debaters and he will debate to the death.
I try to give my opinion and my truth as I see it and do not want to change a persons mind,what I like to think I do is plant a seed and hope that it becomes understood when the time is right,sometimes it works,and sometimes I'm wrong.and that's ok too because I know there is no grand prize waiting if I'm right.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Definately. We all should remember that we all are somewhat unique so there are things we see differently. I agree that the pursuit for the truth is a legitimate reason. It is said, that the truth is already known to us, it's here there and everywhere. We may just have difficulties to realize it

-v

reply to post by SmokeyDawn

Originally posted by SmokeyDawn

Originally posted by v01i0

Originally posted by SmokeyDawn
I almost always appreciate
being corrected when I'm mistaken (when it's done
in a polite and logical manner! )

I guess that's a good attitude, unless you accept everything merely because it is flattering

Just kidding. It's sign of wisdom to be able to correct opinions when they are proved wrong.
-v

But it's not flattery if it's TRUE....right??

Nope it isn't. I quess I implied a sarcastic remark that some theories out there are flattering, or wouldn't we all want to be those special ones, god's chosen people

-v

reply to post by amc621


But why on earth you should get insulted? And why do you care about evidence? Evidence can be falsified, manipulated, taken out of context, bend, turn and twisted.. I mean, if you know they are wrong, why to bother?

-v