Outrageous beliefs

People are capable of having outrageous beliefs which may seem like madness to us but are completely normal to them. There are four major types of outrageous beliefs.

Not all outrageous beliefs constitute misinformation; only one type of outrageous belief constitutes disinformation.

Type 1

“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. /…/ There is no way of reforming or modifying the system.” Meet Ted Kaczynski, better known as the Unabomber: math professor turned domestic terrorist.

Kaczynski’s belief represents outrageous belief type one: an individual belief that is ‘intuitive’: it motivates behavior. 

Not all intuitive outrageous beliefs are destructive. Some of the finest scientists were motivated by it.

Type 2

“Everyone associated with [Comet Ping Pong] is making /…/ inferences towards sex with minors.” A now-deleted Reddit message started a conspiracy theory, ‘pizza gate’, claiming high-ranking US Democrats were pedophiles working from a pizza parlor, Comet Ping Pong.

Edgar Maddison Welch drove to the pizza parlor and fired three shots. Welch represents outrageous belief type two: an external, intuitive belief. Welch’s commented: “I just wanted to do some good and went about it the wrong way.”

Type 3

While Welch and others acted on their belief in ‘pizza gate’, many did not. They continued their lives as if nothing disturbing was happening even though they believed the conspiracy theory to be true.

The thousands are examples of outrageous belief type three: an external belief that is reflective. This outrageous belief type has little or no consequences for a person’s behavior.

The distinction between ‘intuitive’ and ‘reflective’ beliefs stems from the writings of Dan Sperber.

Type 4

“I’ve been saying the last few months, get ready for big mass shootings, and then magically, it happens.” Meet Alex Jones who claimed that a mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, in which 26 people were killed, was “completely fake with actors” and that no one actually died.

Jones represents outrageous belief type four, disinformation: a false belief as a means to a goal, in Jones’s case financial gain.

Jones at some point admitted that he believed the Sandy Hook shooting did occur.

How beliefs form

Our beliefs are shaped on an individual level by our life experiences and on a social level by the groups that we are members of.

Level 1

“For brains, everything is noise at first.” Science journalist David McRaney summarizes how beliefs form. Surrounded by noise, our brains, mostly unconsciously, start recognizing causal patterns. This recognition involves formulating and testing causal predictions.

Level 2

Based on our experiences, we construct broader beliefs about how things work. Out of noise, we create a predictable order. Since everybody experiences different life situations, everyone’s beliefs are different. This is hard for us to understand because our beliefs feel normal.

Level 3

 “[Brain] modules /…/ can simultaneously hold different, mutually contradictory views”. According to evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban the brain consists of multiple modules, each with a different function and often working independently. The modules can have different views and even keep information from each other.

The modularity of our brain causes our beliefs to be inconsistent. This inconsistency brings the risk of being seen as hypocrites and cast out of society.

Level 4

“Our brains are /…/ relentless and compelling improvisers, creating the mind, moment by moment.” Behavioral scientist Nick Chater rejects the idea of us having an inner world with beliefs. He writes: “We generate our beliefs /…/ in-the-moment.”

Chater doesn’t think that our beliefs are created out of nothing. Our past experiences constitute the starting point but only to be creatively reinterpreted. In effect, Chater tells us that we continually reinvent ourselves.

Level 5

“[P]eople are surprisingly ignorant, more ignorant than they think.” Cognitive scientists Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach claim that our brains are too limited to create justified beliefs about our complicated, dynamic surroundings. We fill the gaps with other people’s beliefs.

We don’t know how ignorant we are, because we don’t notice how heavily our beliefs depend on others. Since other people’s beliefs and our beliefs reinforce each other we unjustly think there must be a firm basis for our beliefs.

Level 6

“[T]he groups people belong to are often fundamental to their /…/ understanding of who they are” According to psychologists Jay Van Bavel and Dominic Packer, we are members of multiple groups. To a different degree, every group triggers a particular social identity in us with accompanying beliefs.

When activated, each social identity has a profound effect on us. Each social identity co-shapes our perception and interpretation of the world.

Sustaining beliefs

This module builds on the six levels introduced above.

Level 1

Our identities are threatened when our causal predictions fail. So, we protect them: when new information confirms our predictions, we accept it without opposition; when it disproves our beliefs, we resist. This is our first bias sustaining our beliefs: confirmation bias.

Level 2

Our beliefs follow our experiences, so they seem normal and unbiased. Other people’s beliefs are different and therefore seem abnormal and biased. This is sustaining bias two – naïve realism: thinking that our beliefs are objective and other people’s beliefs are subjective.

Level 3

In order to avoid being ostracised, we need to convince others that our beliefs are consistent. This requirement holds our public beliefs to a large degree hostage. Fortunately, we need only be as consistent as others notice and hold us accountable for.

The requirement to appear consistent means that those spreading legal disinformation must appear to believe in it. As long as their hypocrisy holds, they enjoy legal protection as they exercise their right to freedom of expression.

Level 4

Although the task of our improvising mind is to make our thoughts and behavior seem as coherent as possible to others, we sometimes are caught being incoherent. In those cases, our improvisation turns into confabulation to defend the status quo.

According to Chater all our explanations of how the world works and justifications for our acts are confabulations. Although they are generated on the spot, we are convinced that they reflect our deep beliefs.

Level 5

Often our peer groups consist of people with similar experiences and beliefs, although any reason, no matter how superficial, suffices to feel like a group member. Still, even in less coherent groups, the beliefs of our peers are heavily intertwined with our individual beliefs.

Changing beliefs is thus often not an individual but a social matter. Discarding our beliefs would mean forsaking our communities and going against those we trust and love.

Level 6

We prefer our in-group peers and beliefs. But we are not automatically against out-group people and beliefs. This changes when relations between groups polarise. In that situation, we start thinking that ‘we’ are inherently good and ‘they’ are inherently bad.

Polarisation can turn beliefs into sacred truths that cannot be abandoned or compromised. In-group members become bound to conformity. Radicalisation is fueled by grandstanding: peers using moral talk for self-promotion.

Countering beliefs

This module builds on the six levels introduced above.

Level 1

We need to showcase scientific evidence to provide objective, testable information that can undermine confirmation biases. Scientific evidence confronts the limitations of our mental shortcuts, allowing us to revise or abandon flawed patterns and beliefs.

Level 2

The introduction of authoritative narratives along with the blocking of false narratives, encourages us to reassess our beliefs. These interventions challenge the reinforcement of naive realism by disrupting the flow of information that confirms our biases.

Level 3

We need to engage in logical and critical thinking, particularly by using Kahneman’s System 2 (deliberative thinking). While moving beyond intuitive, automatic responses (System 1) we scrutinize our beliefs more carefully and may uncover contradictions between the beliefs of our semi-autonomous brain modules.

We can also be taught how to analyse, evaluate, and interpret the information we encounter by using System 2. We can learn to identify misinformation, evaluate perspectives, question assumptions, analyse arguments, and self-reflect.

Level 4

We need to reflect on our thinking to understand how we arrived at a conclusion and whether our reasoning is sound – use the so-called ‘technique rebuttal’. By thinking about our thinking we may identify when our brain’s improvisations actually were confabulations.

Level 5

‘Belonging’ is just one of our basic needs. Other basic needs are ‘autonomy’, ‘achievement’, and ‘safety’. We need to satisfy all our basic needs to become more resilient.

More resilience means we feel more secure about ourselves. It helps us separate our identity from what we believe so that doubts about a belief need not lead to an identity crisis. It brings us the confidence and humility needed to rethink and unlearn.

Level 6

Tensions can arise between our personal beliefs and the radicalised views of our group. If it’s worth it, we might voice disagreement; if not, we may leave the group.

While a group can dominate our identity, leaving is possible because we belong to multiple groups, and we can choose to join less polarised ones. Having alternative groups makes it easier to distance ourselves from radicalising groups and their rigid, moralistic beliefs.

Summary

People are capable of having outrageous beliefs. There are four major types of outrageous beliefs: (1) individual intuitive; (2) external intuitive; (3) external reflective; (4) false instrumental – disinformation.

Not all outrageous beliefs are misinformation. Only one type of outrageous belief (false instrumental) constitutes disinformation.

Forming, sustaining, and countering beliefs takes place on six levels: (1) information incidents; (2) information campaigns; (3) rationality; (4) meta-cognition; (5) prophylactics; (6) (de-)radicalisation.

Level 1 – Information incidents

• After birth, our brain develops from perceiving noise to recognizing subjective causal patterns. This recognition involves formulating and testing causal predictions.
• Confirmation bias helps us disregard unfavorable test results to maintain our existing beliefs about the patterns we think we perceive.
• Presenting evidence can challenge and weaken our confirmation bias.

Level 2 – Information campaigns

• Our experiences fuel the patterns we perceive. The patterns gradually form broader belief systems.
• As they are rooted in our experiences, we perceive our belief systems as ‘normal’ and ‘objective’ and those of others as ‘abnormal’ and ‘subjective’ – naïve realism bias.
• Introducing authoritative beliefs in the form of narratives and suppressing conflicting ones can challenge and weaken our naïve realism.

Level 3 – Rationality

• The brain consists of semi-autonomous modules, resulting in potential inconsistencies within our belief systems.
• Inconsistencies pose a social risk, as they may lead to ostracism. To avoid this, we tend to claim consistency.
• Engaging in logical and critical thinking helps us improve the accuracy of our beliefs.
• Engaging in logical and critical thinking can reveal our internal contradictions, prompting us to reconsider and revise our beliefs.
• It also helps us to analyse, evaluate, and interpret the information we encounter.

Level 4 – Meta-cognition

• Based on our past experiences our brain improvises in the now to produce seemingly coherent beliefs.
• When others do catch an incoherence, our brain turns its improvisation into confabulation.
• By reflecting on our thought processes, we can identify and correct these confabulations.

Level 5 – Prophylactics

• We often fill gps in our belief systems with beliefs borrowed from others.
• Since our beliefs are closely tied to those of our peer groups, changing them can come with significant social costs.
• By meeting our basic needs beyond the desire for belonging, we strengthen our resilience.
• Increased resilience helps us separate our sense of identity from our beliefs.
• Increased resilience gives us the confidence and humility to rethink and unlearn our beliefs.

Level 6 – (De-)radicalisation

• We belong to multiple groups, each of which influences and shapes our beliefs.
• As groups become more polarised, they tend to demand greater conformity from their members.
• When a group radicalises and our personal beliefs diverge, we may choose to dissent or leave and seek out less rigid, less polarising alternatives.

Selected literature

• Chater, N. (2018) The mind is flat. The illusion of mental depth and the improvised mind. Allen Lane.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books, London.
• Kurzban, R. (2010). Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite. Evolution and the modular mind. Princeton University Press. Princeton and Oxford.
• McRaney, D. (2022), How minds change. The surprising science of belief, opinion, and persuasion. Portfolio Penguin.
• Mercier, H. (2020). Not born yesterday. The science of Who we trust and What we believe. Princeton University Press.
• Sperber, D. (1997). Intuitive and reflective beliefs. Sperber.fr. https://www.dan.sperber.fr/wp-content/uploads/1997_intuitive-and-reflective-beliefs.pdf
• Van Bavel, J. & Packer, D. (2021). The power of us. Harnessing our shared identities for personal and collective success. Wildfire.