How so many people can believe demonstrably false things, and persist in their beliefs for years despite mountains of contrary evidence, is a great problem. There are of course liars and grifters, some of them in positions of great authority; and there are many others who are simply deceived or misinformed. A far worse problem, though, are all those who espouse obviously wrong things, while being well-informed and perfectly sincere. A great part of the maskers, the lockdowners and even the vaccinators, are like this. There are some cynical and evil voices, and there are some stupid people, but then there are all the others, who simply believe ridiculous things despite it all. There are social, psychological and emotional explanations, but being wrong is above all an intellectual problem, and it is so pervasive, because of our intellectual limitations.
Reminds me of what I heard this morning in my car driving kids to school:
11 year old: “You know…seems like these scientists aren’t actually very smart. Because all of the vaccinated kids in my class are getting Covid, so what was the point of all that?”
8 year old: “I think they just wanted to make money.” 🤣
These academics are part of an unaccountable and unelected elite who control everything, including people's minds. This class detests workers, individuals, populism, democracy and liberty. Herding people into their controlled information environments has become easy with tech monopolies they control. For 20 years they've been priming western populations for this moment. Google and Facebook their most effective tools. They will come for substack soon.
Feb 18, 2022·edited Feb 18, 2022Liked by eugyppius
"Virtually no idea is too ridiculous to be accepted, even by very intelligent and highly educated people, if it provides a way for them to feel special and important. Some confuse that feeling with idealism."
Thank you for examining this vital key to understanding how and why so many otherwise intelligent people could succumb to menticide and mass formation.
This has been a topic I have been exploring since my first essay, “A Primer for the Propagandized: Fear Is the Mind-Killer” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/a-primer-for-the-propagandized), and I believe understanding our susceptibility to cognitive biases can help us comprehend how this occurs while also building our own defenses against such neurological vulnerabilities.
“An unwitting Goldstein, Trump played right into BigPharma’s strategy to discredit hydroxychloroquine by praising it—giving Trump Derangement Syndrome (a psychological disorder manufactured by and spread to tremendous monetary benefit and turnkey mass control by the media) sufferers the best and only reason they needed to dismiss it. They have been trained to plug their ears, cover their eyes, scream at the top of their lungs, and stamp their feet the instant any one of the Deplorables opens his mouth. One of the most effective instruments in the plutocracy’s toolkit, TDS has been brandished to misdirect the public for years, and it continues to work its magic despite Trump’s declining relevance, the embers of which the media will continue to fan as long as it pays dividends—just as Goldstein’s detested image is deployed in culturally unifying activities such as Two Minutes Hate.”
P.S. Love the optical illusion example you use at the outset. Also makes me think of the Japanese film “Rashomon,” where you see the story from multiple perspectives, every version of which causes you to perceive the same scenario differently.
Feb 18, 2022·edited Feb 18, 2022Liked by eugyppius
I have come to accept that belief based on evidence isn't a thing for most people. Instead, most people simply espouse the views of the group/groups with which they most strongly identify and then espouse different views as the group views change. Gay marriage was an abomination rejected by all good people, right up until the day the tide changed, and everyone was in favor as they claimed they had always been. And those who did not agree were the abomination.
My guess is that humans work this way because there are valuable evolutionary advantages conveyed on people who hold no beliefs. When the village thinks cannibalism is an abomination, you hunt monkeys. But when the village decides to eat their enemies, you collect firewood. The person who holds on to the belief that cannibalism is wrong starves as do his children.
Let me suggest that we can never know what others believe. We can't even easily know if we are dealing with someone who is capable of belief based on evidence. All we can do is listen to what they say, read what they write and observe what they do. I offer this outlook as a means of stress relief. If most people don't hold beliefs, then you shouldn't stress when you can't change their beliefs.
Reposting from another stack to hear views: How does one counter the ‘but variants’ narrative? I’ve heard from so many believers that everything - masks, lockdowns, vaccines would have worked but for variants.
When I point out that vaccine evading variants can only exist if there’s a vaccine - I get blank looks
As a historian of science, I wrote an article over a year ago using Kuhn's insights (and others) to explain why we should be skeptical about scientific claims. I argued that science is an interested enterprise, full of economical, personal, social and political agendas. Science is not what is left when we leave all those interests behind, science is a bundle of all that, just like any other human activity. To prove my point, the article was praised but I couldn't get it published because of political issues.
This is a beautiful breakdown of the struggles I've had over the last two years (and even before with all the Trump stuff) interacting with generically "blue pilled" friends. It's not that they aren't smart, or that I'm smarter, but that we live in two completely different universes. Trying to bridge that gap is like talking to a square about cubes
Before I entered the field of law, I was a professor with a Ph.d and post doctoral training in a hard science. Being in the field of law greatly increased my critical thinking skills with the law's insistence on thinking like a lawyer and understanding completely both sides of any issue. As I survey the garbage people like Fauci are feeding the population in the name of "science" I've been struck by how wrong, how lost and how much hubris these wrong people inflict on us all. I've gotten to the point of asking people in debates about science whether they accept that science is carried out by humans who are subject to all human frailties, therefore, they could be wrong even if they think the "science" is airtight.
Another problem is that scientists assume that "peer review" is a process for ensuring that a scientific article is correct.
In fact, peer review is simply a process for ensuring that all scientists say the same thing. Often, they say the same thing because their funding comes from the same source.
To give just one example: all studies funded by the sugar industry say that sugar is good for you, whereas just about all independently-funded studies (not that there are many of those) say that it's bad for you.
Elegant, and beautifully written. The missing point is that most of our troubles are the result of inexorable human nature, over which we have no control in others, only ourselves. The path to success is recognizing that nature in others, and ourselves, and adapting it to our needs.
To wit, it doesn't benefit us to explain to others the masks don't work or vax is unnecessarily risky, but our decisions should be better informed than theirs. The better model wins.
Great piece, thank you. It goes along with how my review of RFK Jr book on Fauci might read. ' This book is not for those that cling to these core beliefs- Our government agencies are run by good scientists who could never be corrupted. Science and scientists always corrects themselves as soon as new info is discovered. Tony is a good person and couldn't possible get to his position if he was corrupt. And finally any jab named a 'vaccine' is always safe and effective and fully vetted by science.
So many people with these core beliefs is why we are where we are.
What if a person fought against their natural fear of uncertainty by perpetual acknowledgement of their lowliness before the incomprehensible glory of God? Perhaps objective reality (ie God) could make contact with the human mind in those circumstances.
Reminds me of what I heard this morning in my car driving kids to school:
11 year old: “You know…seems like these scientists aren’t actually very smart. Because all of the vaccinated kids in my class are getting Covid, so what was the point of all that?”
8 year old: “I think they just wanted to make money.” 🤣
These academics are part of an unaccountable and unelected elite who control everything, including people's minds. This class detests workers, individuals, populism, democracy and liberty. Herding people into their controlled information environments has become easy with tech monopolies they control. For 20 years they've been priming western populations for this moment. Google and Facebook their most effective tools. They will come for substack soon.
https://thegoodcitizen.substack.com/p/here-lies-google-search?utm_source=url
"Virtually no idea is too ridiculous to be accepted, even by very intelligent and highly educated people, if it provides a way for them to feel special and important. Some confuse that feeling with idealism."
- Thomas Sowell
Thank you for examining this vital key to understanding how and why so many otherwise intelligent people could succumb to menticide and mass formation.
This has been a topic I have been exploring since my first essay, “A Primer for the Propagandized: Fear Is the Mind-Killer” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/a-primer-for-the-propagandized), and I believe understanding our susceptibility to cognitive biases can help us comprehend how this occurs while also building our own defenses against such neurological vulnerabilities.
This is also why Trump Derangement Syndrome has been such an effective tool for manipulating the masses. As I write in “Letter to a Scientifically-Minded Friend” (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/letter-to-a-scientifically-minded):
“An unwitting Goldstein, Trump played right into BigPharma’s strategy to discredit hydroxychloroquine by praising it—giving Trump Derangement Syndrome (a psychological disorder manufactured by and spread to tremendous monetary benefit and turnkey mass control by the media) sufferers the best and only reason they needed to dismiss it. They have been trained to plug their ears, cover their eyes, scream at the top of their lungs, and stamp their feet the instant any one of the Deplorables opens his mouth. One of the most effective instruments in the plutocracy’s toolkit, TDS has been brandished to misdirect the public for years, and it continues to work its magic despite Trump’s declining relevance, the embers of which the media will continue to fan as long as it pays dividends—just as Goldstein’s detested image is deployed in culturally unifying activities such as Two Minutes Hate.”
P.S. Love the optical illusion example you use at the outset. Also makes me think of the Japanese film “Rashomon,” where you see the story from multiple perspectives, every version of which causes you to perceive the same scenario differently.
I have come to accept that belief based on evidence isn't a thing for most people. Instead, most people simply espouse the views of the group/groups with which they most strongly identify and then espouse different views as the group views change. Gay marriage was an abomination rejected by all good people, right up until the day the tide changed, and everyone was in favor as they claimed they had always been. And those who did not agree were the abomination.
My guess is that humans work this way because there are valuable evolutionary advantages conveyed on people who hold no beliefs. When the village thinks cannibalism is an abomination, you hunt monkeys. But when the village decides to eat their enemies, you collect firewood. The person who holds on to the belief that cannibalism is wrong starves as do his children.
Let me suggest that we can never know what others believe. We can't even easily know if we are dealing with someone who is capable of belief based on evidence. All we can do is listen to what they say, read what they write and observe what they do. I offer this outlook as a means of stress relief. If most people don't hold beliefs, then you shouldn't stress when you can't change their beliefs.
Reposting from another stack to hear views: How does one counter the ‘but variants’ narrative? I’ve heard from so many believers that everything - masks, lockdowns, vaccines would have worked but for variants.
When I point out that vaccine evading variants can only exist if there’s a vaccine - I get blank looks
As a historian of science, I wrote an article over a year ago using Kuhn's insights (and others) to explain why we should be skeptical about scientific claims. I argued that science is an interested enterprise, full of economical, personal, social and political agendas. Science is not what is left when we leave all those interests behind, science is a bundle of all that, just like any other human activity. To prove my point, the article was praised but I couldn't get it published because of political issues.
This is a beautiful breakdown of the struggles I've had over the last two years (and even before with all the Trump stuff) interacting with generically "blue pilled" friends. It's not that they aren't smart, or that I'm smarter, but that we live in two completely different universes. Trying to bridge that gap is like talking to a square about cubes
Before I entered the field of law, I was a professor with a Ph.d and post doctoral training in a hard science. Being in the field of law greatly increased my critical thinking skills with the law's insistence on thinking like a lawyer and understanding completely both sides of any issue. As I survey the garbage people like Fauci are feeding the population in the name of "science" I've been struck by how wrong, how lost and how much hubris these wrong people inflict on us all. I've gotten to the point of asking people in debates about science whether they accept that science is carried out by humans who are subject to all human frailties, therefore, they could be wrong even if they think the "science" is airtight.
Two comments:
1) The world's leading candle makers would never have peer reviewed a light bulb.
2) The most important exclamation in science is not the "Eureka" of Archimedes, but "WTF?"
Another problem is that scientists assume that "peer review" is a process for ensuring that a scientific article is correct.
In fact, peer review is simply a process for ensuring that all scientists say the same thing. Often, they say the same thing because their funding comes from the same source.
To give just one example: all studies funded by the sugar industry say that sugar is good for you, whereas just about all independently-funded studies (not that there are many of those) say that it's bad for you.
Funny, that.
or, another thought...Original Antigenic Sin is not exclusive to the immune system... Similar phenomena also affect reasoning.
Elegant, and beautifully written. The missing point is that most of our troubles are the result of inexorable human nature, over which we have no control in others, only ourselves. The path to success is recognizing that nature in others, and ourselves, and adapting it to our needs.
To wit, it doesn't benefit us to explain to others the masks don't work or vax is unnecessarily risky, but our decisions should be better informed than theirs. The better model wins.
Great piece, thank you. It goes along with how my review of RFK Jr book on Fauci might read. ' This book is not for those that cling to these core beliefs- Our government agencies are run by good scientists who could never be corrupted. Science and scientists always corrects themselves as soon as new info is discovered. Tony is a good person and couldn't possible get to his position if he was corrupt. And finally any jab named a 'vaccine' is always safe and effective and fully vetted by science.
So many people with these core beliefs is why we are where we are.
What if a person fought against their natural fear of uncertainty by perpetual acknowledgement of their lowliness before the incomprehensible glory of God? Perhaps objective reality (ie God) could make contact with the human mind in those circumstances.
this is why anything in science that is viciously attacked i generally want to find out more
i love science and i hate it!