Did you ever spell out the meta and ask them? "It seems to me like you believe false things too easily. Obviously it doesn't seem like that to you. Is there a test we could do that would convince me you're right or convince you I'm right depending on how the test turned out? Like, maybe you could pick 20 beliefs that aren't mainstream and guess how many will hold up if we investigate closely, together, and I could also guess, and if you guess something like 18 and I guess something like 4 and we investigate and jointly decide the right answer was 15 then I admit I have a problem or if we jointly decide the right answer was 5 then you admit you have a problem?"

In practice I could see this working quite well with many of my friends who ... don't believe false things too easily. And it would be a "look at you weirdly and walk away non-starter" for the folks I know who I think do believe false things too easily. So ??? but I'm still curious whether you did try direct communication about the meta rather than a grab bag of concretes.

"NT goblins"?

Maybe NT means "neurotypical"? or NT as in xNTx Myers-Briggs horoscope personality types? "Goblins" really puzzles me, though.

It seems like the individual beliefs weren't cruxes. If you want to convince a person and find that the argument you are making doesn't hit cruxes, it's important to talk to them to understand what their cruxes are. 

Update: The goblin sack weighs in:

█████ has safety and socio██████ needs that aren't being fully met

needs to feel safe and so on and no rhetoric will change those emotions before or without situations changing

the more times you run a convincing proof against someone who can't emotionally accept it, the more you blunt the convincing proof on them

If I were snarky, I would respond that they find themselves in a state of psychological unsafety because they keep taking hubristic bets and pushing their friends away, regardless, it is still ultimately our problem to solve.

Another adds

so [mako's] post is implying that [rationalists] should be able to maslow people lmao

I do totally buy this. "Maslowing" is a term that arose at some point to mean: ensuring that enough of a person's basic selfish needs are met, that they can begin to think of other people, the rest of the world, or of loftier needs like self-actualization.

I resolve, this task of providing enough psychological safety to allow a person to admit when they were deeply, haplessly wrong (dependent on others for guidance and correction! How horrifying!), is a rationality technique, perhaps the most important rationality technique.

I find that narcissism is our most common adversary, especially in hyperpublic contexts like the global online discourse where narcissism is hard as fuck to resist, and runs in the water.

Narcissism is exactly a felt need to defend a delusional narrative of perfection.

It is a product of social incentives.

We will improve the incentives.

Possibly relevant and interesting.  Downvoted due to the feeling that information is intentionally being withheld in order to manipulate my reaction.