Misbelief: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things

Misbelief: What Makes Rational People Believe Irrational Things by Dan Ariely

During Covid, Dan Ariely got attacked by those opposed to Covid policy. He had given some satirical discussion about healthcare that were taken out of context and used as bait. His "half beard" made him recognizable and subject to ridicule by those that did not like current Covid policy. Many of these people would latch on to "conspiracy theories" and could not be convinced otherwise. Ariely attempted to find out what drove people to believe irrational things.

There seemed to be a pattern to "misbelief." People would start with some objection. They may feel wronged or didn't like how things were happening. Then they would go online and after a few searches they would find some sites that seemed to support their position. Then they would dig deeper. Other sources would provide deeper validation. These would often start with some degree of credibility, but be missing certain features of respectability. (It may be something that looks like a medical organization, but is actually just a propaganda group.) Then people find their community. Others support their belief and provide the support they need. The community members often have an outward portrayal of intellectual humility, but inwardly are not willing to change their own mind, but they want others to change their mind. They see others that change their mind or even align with the enemy as outcasts. That makes them unwilling to change their own minds even if they realize they may be mistaken.

The book focuses on the fringe misbelievers. However, the same symptoms are present throughout society. Even in science, the orthodoxy may be insular and not intellectually humble enough to accept changes. Most conspiracy theories start with at least some grain of truth. When mainstream thought accepts falsehoods as a way of getting its point across it opens up the conflict. During the outset of Covid, government officials initially said masks were not useful and that schools should stay open. Later officials pivoted, despite the science not changing. Officials knew that masks helped slow the spread, but used falsehoods to preserve the supply. They also knew it was best to keep schools open due to past pandemic experience. However, they ended up closing them in the name of stopping the spread more due to emotional appeals. "Science" was used to back up what were primarily political decision. Science against the orthodoxy was discredited. This forced many "underground" and did more to harm outcomes. (If the government had lied about lockdowns, why trust them regarding vaccines?) Today, we often see any extreme weather event blamed on climate change even if there is not justification. Is this attempt of public persuasion just enabling climate change denial?