Don’t waste time correcting misinformation. Instead, try the “bypassing technique”

When families get together over holidays, it’s usually a good opportunity to break out of our echo chambers. It’s one of the few times a year we’re forced to hang out with people who often have very different views. Auntie Olivia has some pretty extreme political opinions. Your cousin has joined a peculiar religious sect. And your sister has looked into 9/11 and discovered that “jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams.” There’s no running away: Around the dinner table, and for several tense hours, you’re forced to either only swap pleasantries or strut full-on into the battleground of polarized debate.

A recent paper offers a way out, describing a strategy we can all use to push back against pseudoscience, conspiracy, and falsehoods. It’s called the “bypassing technique.”

Scientific headbutts

Here are three examples of false claims. These are commonly cited as true, and if you see them presented as true, that makes them misinformation.

1. GMOs cause allergies.
2. 5G technology kills birds.
3. Aluminum in vaccines causes bone problems.

The classic response to someone presenting misinformation is to present counterevidence. You could point them to any of the links presented above or get them to try and find any reputable scientific studies to support their claim. As the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) put it, “The gold standard for tackling misinformation is [usually] a correction that factually contradicts the misinformation.” Suppose, for example, that your dad passes back the roast potatoes over a family dinner saying, “Are these GMOs? Nah, don’t want any more allergies.” You might then say, “Actually, the health bodies of all the G7 agree that GMOs do not cause allergies or rashes.”

But that likely won’t work. The APPC team conducted six experiments where they compared factually correcting someone with “bypassing” and found that using evidence and facts to disprove someone tends to be far less successful at changing attitudes.

Epistemological aikido

So, what is bypassing and why is it seemingly more effective? Bypassing is where, instead of providing some negative rebuttal to a claim, you instead provide positive counterclaims about the topic. For example, if someone says aluminum causes bone problems, you should reply, “Aluminium is one of the key elements in boosting our immune system and making the vaccine effective.” Or, if someone tells you that 5G kills birds, tell them that 5G adds trillions to the world economy.

Make no mention of the false claim. Do not attack the misinformation but override it with positive, true information.

Across the team’s six experiments, they measured participants’ attitudes toward six different misinformation claims. They used traditional fact-correcting with some, bypassing with others, and nothing at all with the rest. Across all six studies, bypassing was the best at improving attitudes toward accepting the topics, e.g., participants were okay with 5G technology expansion.

Bypassing means not meeting your misinformed opponent head-on. This is not a clash of arguments or a battle of the studies. You are maneuvering an argument into a different position. It’s a kind of epistemological aikido — using someone’s movements and logic against them.

Attitudes and not beliefs

There are limitations to what the team at APPC has concluded. Their study into bypassing was largely about attitudes to policies, not about belief change or belief correction. So, for example, your dad might still believe that GMOs cause allergies, but, thanks to your bypassing, be okay with their widespread use worldwide. “Fair play, son,” he’ll say, “I’m happy they’re helping prevent world hunger.”  Someone might still believe that 5G kills birds or that aluminium causes bone problems but admit that those are necessary evils set against the positive outcomes you present them with.

So, bypassing isn’t the only tool available, and it might not even be the best if your concern is belief change. Changing someone’s belief is a complicated psychological topic, and there is definitely no one-size-fits-all strategy. Big Think recently spoke to an expert on this topic, where we examined the many ways you can change someone’s beliefs. Over the course of the discussion, however, it became clear how complex the issue is. It’s even up for debate whether you should change someone’s belief.

When it comes to policy decisions and willingness to accept a certain technology or medicine, bypassing seems like a valuable tool to add to your kit. Don’t correct people. Don’t fact-check. Don’t fight the misinformed on their own ground. Make the case for the other side seem better.