Michael Dennis O'Brien

Writer, producer, computer forensic examiner, advocate for unity, author of The Reverse Pinocchio Effect (

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

Persons who hear a lie repeated over and over come to believe they have seen evidence for that lie. They believe to their core that the lie has been proven to them. This perverse consequence of repetition has been known for more than two centuries, and reportedly was considered by Napoleon to be the only important factor in persuasion.

This is why it is so difficult to counter an endlessly repeated lie with a single response.

While persons who have accepted such a lie think they have seen proof, they can't put their finger on what that proof was, and so have a difficult time going into a dialog about it. As a result, such people find it difficult to think past the falsehoods they have embraced.

Discussion is the tool we have to move past this, and discussion must be done in a focused way to be effective.

I put together the steps and guidelines for focused discussion that I have found to be effective over years of interaction with persons who have accepted falsehoods. The steps are the actions we take in carrying out the discussion, and guidelines are the rules that keep the discussion orderly and productive.

If we apply these steps and guidelines when conducting a focused discussion with others, we can resolve the tangled snarl of lies that has made our society so polarized.

These steps and guidelines are described in chapter 12 of my book, The Reverse Pinocchio Effect. If it would be useful to describe these steps and guidelines in posts on X, I can begin a discussion here of what those steps and guidelines are and how they are applied.

Our society has become highly partisan due to the dissemination of lies that have been accepted as true without proof. We can resolve this, and we can do so very easily, but only if we all understand how to engage in a productive discussion with others in addressing these lies.

[Neil Stone @DrNeilStone]

I challenge virus deniers like Luiz to go to an Ebola treatment centre and hang out there for a while, maybe hug and kiss some patients.

No virus, nothing to fear right??

[Emoluments Clause @Emolclause]

#BREAKING: Laurie Garrett: “Can I add one very important set of data points? In 2024, our USAID commitment to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was more than a BILLION dollars. Last year, brace yourself, $67 million. Nearly every single hospital, clinic, pharmacy in all of DRC was wholly or partially dependent on USAID & HHS support to maintain supplies and to deliver what people needed, and that’s GONE. Pharmacies are empty, stores are empty, the clinics are gone…so even if you didn’t have #Ebola, according to humanitarian organizations…300,000 MORE people have DIED in the DRC since USAID was cut, 300,000.”😢

[Rick Wilson @TheRickWilson]

Weird. It's almost as if COVID antivaccine conspiracy people are lying liars.

[Ruth Ben-Ghiat @ruthbenghiat]

Authoritarian leader cult alert

[George Conway ⚖️🇺🇸 @gtconway3d]

Watch Our New Ad 🔥

Donald Trump is shredding our Constitution. I’ve committed my life to defending it.

And now I’m running for Congress because to stop Trump from erasing our democracy, we need to fight.

[Jerome Adams @JeromeAdamsMD]

If you’re wondering why so many people are so concerned about the current Ebola outbreak…

“It was just over a year ago that Elon Musk gleefully declared that they were throwing USAID into the wood chipper. And you may recall that Elon Musk also sheepishly said at his first Cabinet meeting that he mistakenly canceled Ebola prevention…”

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@hansonji @justacomeon irrelevant. It was the conspiracy theories told by Fox and others to the largely illiterate voters you mention that prompted them to punch cards in voting booths in sufficient numbers to elect him.
/2

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

There is a claim going around that the attempted assassination of Trump was a staged PR caper rather than a genuine assassination attempt. This claim is utter nonsense.

The following is a summary of some of the key points a person has to accept in order to believe this conspiracy theory:

1. Trump and/or his team went out and found a Republican patsy to sneak in to his speaking location and fire bullets at Trump, but to not hit him, in order to create a PR benefit of being able to claim an assassination attempt was made on his life.

2. Trump and/or his team went over to the Secret Service detail and got them to sign on to murdering the Republican patsy to silence him--a conspiracy to commit murder--so that Trump could pull off this PR caper.

3. The Secret Service agreed to let the patsy get off some shots at Trump and others in that area, including letting the patsy shoot at their own agents, before killing him, so Trump could pull off the PR caper.

4. Trump and/or his team were confident that this patsy was a good enough shot that his bullets might get close to Trump but wouldn't kill him, and so were willing to let Trump stand in the line of fire.

5. Someone else was likely to be hit by the patsy, and in fact was, so this caper involves a conspiracy to commit a second murder.

6. Trump and/or his team got the local police in on it too so they wouldn't stop or arrest the patsy, which would have derailed the PR caper and could have blown the whole thing wide open.

7. All of the logistics of arranging the attack, including finding and recruiting the patsy to stage the attempted assassination, were executed with such extraordinary secrecy and precision that no evidence of any of it remains.

Anyone who considers the above to be plausible might be willing to believe just about anything. There are several chapters in my book that deal with how people come to accept such nonsense, which I can describe on X if people are curious.

The simple truth is that the shooter was exactly what he appears to be--an unhinged lone actor who got as far as he did because of errors on the part of the security team. Let's not complicate it with outlandish conspiracy theories that only make people more susceptible to believing the lies of a propagandist.

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@hansonji @justacomeon His support has been primarily from people who hate "the establishment" and hope that Trump will root out and destroy "the deep state" and other such conspiracy theory nonsense. While it is true he has a lot of high-dollar support, the count of those votes is
/1

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@hansonji @justacomeon You and me both. You're right that Trump's focus is selling the nation down the river. The problem is that conspiracy theories gave us Trump in the first place. If we can't think through idiotic conspiracy theories, we're going to get another Trump, sure as the sun rises.

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@hansonji @justacomeon As to why the response now, I just saw your post. X did not notify me when you made it.

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@hansonji @justacomeon He got a tiny scratch. Why are you lying about it? Since you're so quick to assume someone is getting paid, the dollars involved must be foremost in your mind. So who's paying you to rot the ability of citizens to think rationally, thereby selling your nation down the river?

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@hansonji @justacomeon PTSD? Really? Would a tiny scratch give you PTSD?
The simple truth is that Trump got a tiny scratch and then cried like a baby about it for days.
Pushing conspiracy theories rots people's ability to think. Stop pushing these lies, please.
https://t.co/VWy236HoqM

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@lostin_az Trump got a 20mm scratch. It scabbed over in a couple of days, healed in a couple of weeks. Rogan found the scar three months later.
Here's some data on light graze wounds:
https://t.co/ivPvdCcx2l

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@HamSolo26157584 @HelenPoznanski I think you're mistaking my position. The bullets were real and Comperatore definitely died. Trump's making a big deal out of his minor scratch was just Trump trying to get as much sympathy as he could get out of it. What do you think I'm missing here?

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@auajsrmzs @HelenPoznanski Well, it left what Rogan described as a "tiny" scar.
https://t.co/8MxNHb37CL

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@lostin_az Here's Rogan finding Trump's tiny scratch three months later.
https://t.co/dq8ghbSCPC

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@EvenFlow247 @HelenPoznanski They can.
https://t.co/VWy236GQBe

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@lostin_az Trump got a 20mm scratch. It scabbed over in a couple of days, healed in a couple of weeks. Rogan found the scar three months later.
Here's some data on light graze wounds:
https://t.co/ivPvdCcx2l

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

Jerome Powell does not want to see our entire financial system collapse, which is a very real risk in light of the relentless attacks against the Fed.
https://t.co/d7uuNmu6m1

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@John_Lawlz @GScottShand vote by population, with no extra weight give to smaller states. That is going to go nowhere.
2/

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@John_Lawlz @GScottShand The Patterson quote is about whether votes should be on a STATE basis or on a POPULATION basis. Smaller states wanted there to be one vote per state. Larger states wanted votes based on population. The upshot of this is that you want a national
1/

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@John_Lawlz @GScottShand your desire to get rid of the EC altogether. Either way, we're not on the same page, and I think that is not likely to change. So we probably should simply agree to disagree and move on.
4/

[Michael Dennis O'Brien @MDOWriter]

@John_Lawlz @GScottShand want to preserve that disproportionate representation, which means this central point you apparently consider to be irrelevant. I can't tell if you genuinely don't consider it to have any meaning, or if you are trying to minimize it in order to diffuse opposition to
3/