The Crisis of Misbelief

By Jeffrey M. Bowen

Lately it seems as though we are drowning in daily tides of misinformation and deceit. Our daily newspapers and social media seem to compete as they flirt with conspiracy theories. Outlandish distortions of fact are now repeated with gusto. The topics typically highlight the suspected evil intentions of federal agencies and elected officials. The frame factors usually include politics and litigation. Topics include COVID and health issues, insurrection and stolen elections, immigration chaos, terrorism and warfare, environmental abuses, sexual crimes and sundry coverups.

History and science have become propaganda in the hands of individuals who invent either past or current evidence of misdeeds by powerful and secretive groups. Not long ago I used to marvel and chuckle at the outrageous headlines of trashy newspapers posted at the grocery checkout counters. Nowadays, much to my chagrin, the claims have become the grist of national news from all kinds of respectable outlets.

As the extremes of opinion have grown into screams of injustice, I worry that repetition may erode the ability of our systems to solve problems. How did we arrive at this sorry junction? What can we learn from the dilemma, and what can we do about it?

Troublesome obstacles come to mind. First, when differences of opinion grow extreme, often we ignore or suppress them to avoid conflicts. Long ago we found that national politics can no longer be discussed freely without alienating friends or family. Second, people stubbornly resist changing their basic beliefs even when proverbial writing is on the wall. Instead, they distrust advocates and their motives. Finally, the relentless static of egregious rumors and exaggerations undermines our trust in people and institutions.

 Psychologists are constantly trying to untangle the roots of misbelief. The problem exceeds just accepting falsehoods. Rather it is a mindset or a process that can lead us astray with potentially disastrous results. Dan Ariely, a Duke University professor who has studied reasons why rational people behave irrationally, compares the process to a funnel. At one end it starts with a few nettlesome questions but once captured at the other end we willingly embrace terrible conspiracies. Ariely admits we all share misbeliefs because we are skeptical, recognize bias, and have significant questions about untested claims. However, what overcomes our suspicion is the cumulative drum beat of unchallenged contradictions. 

Misbelieving can be categorized as emotional, cognitive, personality, and social, according to Professor Ariely. Emotional sources center on stress and fear. An example is anxiety about the negative consequences of vaccines, particularly COVID. To regain control, stressed out individuals may latch onto a scapegoat like China.

Cognitive elements come into play when an event or situation becomes so confounding that we forfeit reality and default to conclusions we want to come to. As the saying goes, do not confuse me with facts.

As for personality, a helpful index for me is a zero-sum bias. The idea derives from game theory, but when applied to personalities, it describes individuals who feel they always must win, while others may lose entirely as a result. Winning halfway is not enough.

The social dimension of Ariely’s funnel involves the power of social networking. Many of us depend on such networks to share and reinforce our beliefs. Especially when ostracized by a group, if we crave acceptance strongly enough, we are apt to cave in. Nothing breeds wrong-headed thinking more effectively than depending on the power of us-versus-them.

There is no cure for chronic misbelieving. However, you may want to consider the following bigger pictures:  

Choose sources of information for consistent reliability and ample proofs. Another is to join with others whose declared purposes are to cooperatively reverse well recognized injustices with specific, reasonable steps.

 Make efforts to understand how institutions get things done. An obvious example is exercising our rights and privileges in a democracy by voting, communicating opinions via legal and sanctioned channels, and then accepting the outcomes.

 Develop an understanding of why we rely on institutional policies and procedures and rules, with an accent on how they can be changed for the better. It is tempting to condemn bureaucracy for what it seems to prevent; however, a different picture develops when we consider how bureaucracy can ensure fair and equitable practices and effectively generate positive outcomes given patience.

 Here are a few specific strategic recommendations:

·        ask questions and hypothesize based on solid research instead of simply declaring and affirming assumptions;

·        practice balanced reasoning by thinking through both pro and con sides of an issue;

·        stop believing we know more about an issue than we truly do;

·        avoid the use of labels such as conservative and liberal;

·        choose credible heroes rather than blaming villains;

·        opt for face-to-face listening rather than impersonal electronics;

·        separate and weigh intentions rather than jumping to conclusions.

And finally, to preserve sanity, focus on your own mental health and evaluate it carefully in others.