ChatGPT (bold and underline is me):
what is the best way to talk with someone who has delusions?
That’s a very thoughtful question — and how you respond to someone with delusions can make a big difference in keeping the conversation calm and supportive.
Here’s a concise, evidence-based approach used in psychiatry and crisis communication:
1. Stay Calm and Grounded
- Speak slowly, clearly, and in a neutral tone.
- Avoid arguing or showing alarm — agitation or disbelief can escalate things.
- Keep your body language open and non-threatening (e.g., uncrossed arms, relaxed posture).
2. Don’t Confront or “Correct” the Delusion
- Trying to prove the person wrong usually increases defensiveness.
- Instead of saying, “That’s not true,”you can say:
- “I understand that’s how it seems to you.”
- “That sounds really stressful — I can see this feels real to you.”
- You’re validating their feelings, not the false belief itself.
3. Reflect and Redirect
- Show empathy, then gently steer the conversation toward safety or problem-solving.
- Example: “I can see this is frightening. What do you think might help you feel safer right now?”
- If possible, focus on shared reality: “I don’t see what you’re describing, but I want to help you feel comfortable.”
4. Listen More Than You Speak
- Let them express the delusion fully without interruption.
- Sometimes people reveal emotional distress underneath (fear, shame, loneliness) — that’s often the real target for support.
5. Prioritize Safety and Trust
- If there are signs of danger (e.g., voices telling them to harm themselves or others), take it seriously and seek help immediately.
- Build rapport: small gestures of respect and reliability make future interventions easier.
6. Encourage Professional Support (Gently)
- Avoid forcing it. Instead, frame it as care:
- “You’ve been under a lot of stress — maybe talking with someone experienced in this could help you feel more in control.”
Quick Summary
| Don’t | Do |
|---|
| Argue about facts | Validate emotions |
| Mock or joke | Listen and stay calm |
| Dismiss or avoid | Engage compassionately |
| Force insight | Encourage gentle support |
Are the same methods useful when dealing with people who believe the political misinformation coming from the White House?
That’s a very insightful (and difficult) question — and yes,
there’s quite a bit of overlap, but with some key differences in intent and intensity.
When you’re talking with someone who believes
political misinformation, you’re not dealing with a psychotic delusion — you’re dealing with
motivated reasoning and
identity-based belief.
So while confrontation still backfires, the
goal isn’t to “treat” the belief but to
open space for reflection.
Here’s how the approaches compare and how to adapt them effectively:
1. Same Foundation: Stay Calm and Respectful
- Emotional arousal shuts down reasoning; calm dialogue opens it.
- Avoid sarcasm, ridicule, or “fact-dumps.” They make people double down (a well-known “backfire effect”).
- Use the same tone you’d use for someone describing a stressful experience, not someone “being wrong.”
2. Acknowledge Values Before Facts
Political misinformation usually ties to a person’s
identity, fears, or values (“my team,” “freedom,” “safety,” “fairness”).
- Start there: “I can see why that issue matters a lot to you.”
- Once values feel respected, they become more open to re-examining information.
3. Use Curiosity, Not Correction
Instead of, “That’s false,” try:
- “That’s interesting — where did you hear that?”
- “How confident are you in that source?”
- “Would you be open to looking at a few different sources together?”
Curiosity invites collaboration instead of confrontation.
4. Plant Doubt, Don’t Demand It
The goal isn’t to “win” the argument; it’s to introduce gentle cognitive dissonance:
- “I used to think that too until I saw X…”
- “Some people in the administration said Y, but the data from [neutral source] show something else.”
- Even a pause or “huh, that’s odd” can open the door for later reflection.
5. Keep Relationships First
If this is someone you care about, preserving trust is more valuable than scoring a factual point.
People rarely change beliefs mid-conversation — but they remember
how they felt talking to you. That feeling predicts whether they’ll ever listen again.
6. Recognize Limits
You can’t reason someone out of a belief they didn’t reason themselves into — but you can
create psychological safety for re-evaluation later.
Over time, small nudges from multiple trusted sources (friends, news, experience) matter more than one debate.
Summary: Same Tools, Different Goals
| Context | Primary Goal | Effective Approach |
|---|
| Delusion | Maintain safety, reduce distress | Validate feelings, avoid confrontation |
| Misinformation | Preserve trust, invite reflection | Empathy + curiosity + credible sources |
