Five Telltale Signs You are Conversing with an Indoctrinated Person

Part One of the Indoctrination Series

Pieter Bruegel the Elder, The Blind Leading the Blind (1568)

We’ve all been there: you share a thought, post a comment, or write an article. And then it comes. The first question. “What do you mean by that? Can you explain yourself?” It looks open. It’s not. It’s a test. Before you know it, the discussion is moved to an entirely different subject, you’re being accused of ignorance or bad-faith, and you find yourself in a re-education session.

These encounters are everywhere now. Friendships collapse at the dinner table. Families split over politics. Colleagues avoid eye contact after they’ve discovered your perspectives differ from their own. Something fundamental has shifted in how people process information. Or rather, how they refuse to process any information that contradicts their beliefs.

I’ve had my share of these exchanges. I’ve lost friends, had fallouts with family and colleagues, even encountered some heated discussions here on Substack. And then I noticed something peculiar: every indoctrinated person runs the same script. They all follow the same steps without exception. Of course, you could dismiss this as simple differences of opinion, but when you see the same pattern playing out across society, it becomes genuinely disturbing.

Therefore, I’m going to write a series about indoctrination, starting with this first article about why conversations with certain people follow such predictable patterns. Then I move on to questions like: what makes someone immune to arguments, facts, and even basic courtesy? How did we create societies where disagreement feels increasingly impossible? And most importantly: how do you maintain your sanity when surrounded by people who've outsourced their thinking?

We'll explore how indoctrination spreads from individuals to entire institutions. How media, education, and government have merged into a consensus factory. How science became dogma and experts became a new priestly class. How language itself has been weaponized to shape reality. And why these systems always collapse under their own contradictions.

But first, let’s dive into the telltale signs you're not having a debate, but listening to a textbook. Because once you see the pattern, you can't unsee it. And honestly? That transforms the whole experience.

Telltale Sign 1: The ‘Tell Me More’ Question

You’ve just finished your latest article or comment, rounded it off with your view on life, and then it happens. Someone leans in with apparent curiosity. Usually, they don’t bring a vision of their own, just a question: “What do you mean by that?” or “That’s interesting, can you explain?”

Believing for a moment that someone is genuinely interested, you carefully craft your response. Within minutes the tone of the conversation shifts. Your answer is wrong, or at least not good enough. You forgot the approved narratives you were supposed to echo. Gone is the semblance of a dialogue. In its place comes a lecture: why your answer is wrong, what should have been included, and a list of links to prove their point. You are no longer an equal sparring partner. You have become the student in need of correction.

What’s happening here is simple. You’ve been duped. The question wasn’t curiosity but a test designed to see how closely you align with the approved story. The aim is not to understand you, but to undermine your answer and replace it with their better version. The ultimate aspiration being to save your soul and bring you back in line with the other sheep.

The trap at this stage is to start countering every point with facts. That will cost you time and energy, while every argument is rejected out of hand and your sources discredited. You think you can reason your way out, but your counterpart is not reasoning: they are subverting. That is why you should resist the urge to fact-check the entire link-dump in real time. It only keeps you trapped in the didactic loop.

A better approach is to step back and ask a meta-question: “What exactly do you want me to explain in more detail?” This forces the other person to be specific and prevents the lecture from sprawling in every direction.

Telltale Sign 2: Evidence for Thee, Not for Me

You survived the opening question, crafted your thoughtful response and received a lecture to thank for it. You might be startled by the tone, the conviction with which you're told how wrong you are. At this stage, your counterpart is usually still polite, but the message is clear: you need correcting.

Let’s take a closer look at what they’re actually saying. You’ll recognize the arguments, which are mostly generalizations, slogans, and appeals to authority. "Experts say," "studies show," "it's well established that." They present their view as settled fact while simultaneously demanding you back up every single thing you've said with peer-reviewed sources and ironclad proof, preferably from the same sources.

This is the clearest sign you're dealing with someone whose mind was made up long before you arrived. The rules of engagement are simple: you must prove everything, they prove nothing. You do the work, they do the rejecting. No matter what evidence you provide, it is never enough, never the right kind, and never aimed at the real point they care about.

What’s really going on here? Your counterpart is not reading or listening to understand your thoughts or line of reasoning. They're scanning your words for something they can latch onto and use against you. You might feel like your words are being taken out of context. That's because they are. Context doesn't matter when one is mining for ammunition.

Once you see this pattern, you stop mistaking ritual incantations for actual arguments. They're not trying to persuade you. They're protecting themselves from your ideas. The more you respond with careful reasoning, the more you feed their resistance.

If you're feeling playful at this stage, here's a tip: turn their own logic against them. Ask them to prove their claims with the same rigor they demand from you. It will fast-track you to the next stage of the script, which would otherwise take much longer to reach.

Telltale Sign 3: Moving the Goalposts

You know you've reached this stage when the tone shifts. The polite facade drops. You're no longer treated with basic respect. Instead, you're belittled, mocked, or dismissed as if your very thoughts are offensive. In the previous stage, your counterpart demanded impossible proof. Here, they stop pretending altogether: the bar isn’t just raised, it’s constantly moved and replaced with feelings

What basically happens is that your counterpart has run out of actual arguments. So, they change the rules. Two things occur simultaneously: first, for each argument you have successfully countered, you receive three new ones in return from completely different angles, often unrelated to the original topic. For example, you successfully counter a claim about climate change. In reply, you’re asked to explain colonial history, systemic racism and the price of capitalism.

Second, the discussion moves from rational to emotional territory. Suddenly, it's no longer about what you think, but about what kind of horrible person you must be for thinking it. Logic gets replaced with feelings: "I experienced this myself, so it's true." Or an actual gem I got last week: "My son is a lovely person and his friends are wonderful, so there's nothing wrong with public education."

Their personal anecdotes become ironclad proof. Meanwhile not only your arguments but your whole person is under suspicion. It depends on the level of indoctrination whether the goalposts are just moved or fired straight into orbit.

At this point, there's not much you can do except close the discussion. You could point out that emotional arguments aren't facts, but that will just catapult you back to stage two, where their feelings count as evidence and you still haven't proven a thing.

But beware, when you try to respectfully end the conversation, don't expect it to actually end. An indoctrinated person cannot accept what feels like losing. So when you close the door, expect a foot in the doorway. Which brings us to the next step.

Telltale sign 4: the Art of Repetition

By now you know exactly what you're dealing with: not an intellectual sparring partner, but a kindergarten teacher grabbing you by the ear for saying naughty words. Being a functioning adult, you decide to end the conversation. You thank them politely, acknowledge that you both made your points, and close the discussion. In any normal exchange, that would be it.

But not here. Your attempt to leave is perceived as retreat, and retreat means they haven't won yet. That cannot stand. You'll get another response featuring the same points, the same slogans, the same demands for proof, delivered almost word for word. It ends with the smug conclusion that since you don't want to continue, you must be wrong.

This is the ritual of repetition. Repetition is how the indoctrinated reassure themselves the creed still holds. If they let you walk away unchallenged, it feels like defeat. So they launch another salvo, this time with extra provocation, hoping to get under your skin and make you respond out of anger or irritation.

Now you're facing a trap with two equally bad exits. Respond rationally and you're dragged right back to stage two, where you'll be asked to prove everything again. Lash out emotionally and you hand them victory on a silver platter: they'll gleefully point out that your reaction proves you're exactly the unreasonable person they suspected all along.

The key insight here is recognizing that your boundaries are being deliberately violated. The solution is simple: have a short, unambiguous exit line ready. "We disagree. I'm done here." Then actually leave. If you stay for one more round, you'll be pulled back into the endless loop.

Telltale sign 5: the Final Jab

By this time, you've ended the conversation politely. Not once but twice. Even your counterpart begins to understand that continuing now would look like harassment. Just like a Jehovah's Witness knows when to stop before the police get called, an indoctrinated person recognizes when persistence becomes counterproductive for their own image.

Eventually, they'll let you go. Finally. But not before delivering one last blow.

This final jab isn't just about getting the last word. They're genuinely offended that you had the audacity to walk away from their corrective sermon. Expect one final response containing a personal attack, a character assassination, or some other parting gift designed to provoke you.

When logic fails, one can always resort to a little misgendering as a finishing touch ;)

This is the ad hominem finale. It's no longer about persuasion or even being right. It's about punishing you for not letting them win. They're hoping you'll take the bait and give them what they need: your emotional reaction, which they can then point to as proof that you were always unreasonable.

You don't win by firing back. You win by refusing to play the final act. Note it, document it if necessary, and walk away. This is probably someone you don't want in your life anyway.

Recognizing the Pattern Changes Everything

An indoctrinated person is rarely convinced by arguments. But by recognizing these patterns, you control the conversation and, more importantly, your own responses. Once you see the script, the power shifts. You're no longer their unwilling student. You're the one choosing whether and how to engage. Sometimes I find it entertaining to turn their logic against them. Other times, I prioritize my sanity and walk away immediately.

The choice becomes yours, not theirs. And that changes everything.

Next time, we’ll explore the next stage of indoctrination: demoralization. The phase where minds no longer are just influenced, but have become completely disabled.

---

The future you fear is already here. Recognize the script before it writes you out.