The Grumpy Doc

Grumpy opinions about everything.

Tag: Critical thinking Page 1 of 2

Truth at a Crossroads: How Trust, Identity, and Information Shape What We Believe

By

On February 2, 2026

In Commentary

When Oxford Dictionaries declared “post-truth” its word of the year in 2016, it crystallized something many people had been feeling: that we’d entered a strange new era where objective facts seemed less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. The term exploded in usage that year, becoming shorthand for a troubling shift in how we process information. But have we really entered uncharted territory, or is this just the latest chapter in a very old story?

The short answer is: it’s complicated. The phenomenon itself isn’t new, but the scale and speed at which misinformation spreads certainly is. We are in a new world where the boundary between truth and untruth is blurred, institutions that once arbitrated facts are losing authority, and politics are running on “truthiness” and spectacle more than evidence.

The Psychology of Believing What We Want to Believe

To understand why people increasingly seem to choose sources over facts, we need to dive into how our minds actually work. People now seem to routinely sort themselves into information camps, each with its own “truth,” trusted voices, and shared worldview. But why is this and why does it seem to be getting worse?

Psychologists have spent decades studying something called confirmation bias—essentially, the tendency to seek out information that supports our existing beliefs while avoiding or dismissing information that contradicts them. This isn’t just about being stubborn. Research shows we actively sample more information from sources that align with what we already believe, and the higher our confidence in our initial beliefs, the more biased our information gathering becomes.

But there’s something even more powerful at play called motivated reasoning. While confirmation bias is about seeking information that confirms our beliefs, motivated reasoning is about protecting ideological beliefs by selectively crediting or discrediting facts to fit our identity-defining group’s position. In other words, we don’t just want to be right—we want to belong.

This matters because humans are fundamentally tribal creatures. When we form attachments to groups like political parties or ideological movements, we develop strong motivations to advance the group’s relative status and experience emotions like pride, shame, and anger on behalf of the group. Information processing becomes less about truth-seeking and more about identity protection.

Why Source Trumps Fact

So why do people trust a source they identify with over objective facts that contradict their worldview? Research points to several interconnected reasons.

First, there’s the practical matter of cognitive shortcuts. We’re bombarded with information daily, and people judge the reliability of evidence by using mental shortcuts called heuristics, such as how readily a particular idea comes to mind. If someone we trust says something, that’s an easier mental pathway than laboriously fact-checking every claim. This reliance becomes problematic when “trusted” means ideologically comfortable rather than factually reliable.

Analysts of the post‑truth phenomenon also highlight declining trust in traditional “truth tellers” such as mainstream media, scientific institutions, and government agencies. As these institutions lose authority, counter‑elites or influencers can present alternative narratives that followers treat as at least as plausible as established facts

Second, and more importantly, is the issue of identity. When individuals engage in identity-protective thinking, their processing of information more likely guides them to positions that are congruent with their membership in ideologically or culturally defined groups than to ones that reflect the best available scientific evidence. Being wrong about a fact might sting for a moment, but being cast out of your social group could have real consequences for your emotional support, social standing, and sense of self.

Third, there’s a feedback loop at work. In social media, confirmation bias is amplified by filter bubbles and algorithmic editing, which display to individuals only information they’re likely to agree with while excluding opposing views. The more we’re exposed only to sources that confirm our beliefs, the more alien and untrustworthy contradictory information appears.

Interestingly, being smarter doesn’t necessarily protect you from these biases. Some research suggests that people who are adept at using effortful, analytical modes of information processing may actually be even better at fitting their beliefs to their group identities, using their intelligence to construct more sophisticated justifications for what they already want to believe.

The Historical Echo Chamber

Despite the way it feels, this isn’t the first time truth has had competition. History is full of eras when myth, rumor, propaganda, and identity overshadowed facts.

During The Reformation of the1500s, misinformation was spread on both sides of the catholic-protestant divide.  Pamphlets—many of them highly distorted or outright fabricated—spread rapidly thanks to the printing press. Propaganda became a political weapon. Ordinary people suddenly had access to arguments they weren’t equipped to verify.  People were ostracized and some even executed based on little more than rumors or lies.  We might have hoped for better from religious leaders.

 The French Revolution (1780s–1790s) was awash in claims and counterclaims, many of them—if not most—had little basis in fact.Competing newspapers told wildly different stories about the same events. Rumors fueled paranoia, purges, and violence. Truth became secondary to whichever faction controlled the narrative.

Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, the “Lost Cause” narrative became a powerful example of source-driven myth making. Despite historical evidence, generations accepted a version of events shaped by postwar Southern elites, not by facts. Echoes of it still reverberate today, driving much of the opposition to the civil rights movement.

Fast forward to the 1890s, and we see something remarkably familiar. Yellow journalism, characterized by sensationalism and manipulated facts, emerged from the circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. These papers used exaggerated headlines, unverified claims, faked interviews, misleading headlines, and pseudoscience to boost sales.

As early as 1898, a publication for the newspaper industry wrote that “the public is becoming heartily sick of fake news and fake extras”—sound familiar?

During the 20th-century propaganda states, typified by both fascist and communist regimes perfected source-based truth. The leader or the party defined reality, and disagreement was literally dangerous. In these systems, truth wasn’t debated—it was assigned.

What Makes Now Different?

While the psychological mechanisms and even the tactics aren’t new, several factors make our current moment distinct. The speed and scale of information spread is unprecedented. A false claim can circle the globe in hours. Studies show that people are bombarded by fake information online, leading the distinction between facts and fiction to become increasingly blurred as blogs, social media, and citizen journalism are awarded similar or greater credibility than other information sources.

We’re also experiencing a fragmentation of trusted authorities. Where once a handful of major newspapers and broadcast networks served as gatekeepers, now the fragmentation of centralized mass media gatekeepers has fundamentally altered information seeking, including ways of knowing, shared authorities, and trust in institutions.

So Are We in a Post-Truth Era?

Yes and no. The term “post-truth” captures something real about our current moment—the scale, speed, and sophistication of misinformation is unprecedented. But calling it “post-truth” suggests we’ve crossed some bright line into entirely new territory.  I’d argue we’re not quite there—but we are navigating a world where truth is sometimes lost in the collision of ancient human tendencies and modern technology

The data clearly show that confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and identity-protective cognition are real and powerful forces. Historical evidence demonstrates that propaganda, misinformation, and the choice of tribal loyalty over objective fact have been with us for millennia. What’s changed is our information ecosystem driven by the technology that allows false information to spread faster than ever, and the by the fragmentation of shared sources of authority that once helped create common ground.

Perhaps a better framing would be that we’re in an era of “turbo-charged tribal epistemology”—where our very human tendency to trust our tribe’s narrative over contradicting evidence has been supercharged by algorithms that feed us what we want to hear and isolate us from alternative perspectives.  (I wish I could take credit for the term turbo-charged tribal epistemology. I really like it, but I read it somewhere, I just can’t remember where.) 

The question isn’t really whether we’re in a post-truth society. The question is whether we can develop the individual and collective skills to navigate an information environment that exploits every cognitive bias we have. The environment has changed, but the task remains the same: finding ways to establish shared facts despite our deep-seated tendency to believe what we want to believe.

Sources:

Critical Ignoring: The Skill You Didn’t Know You Needed

By

On January 26, 2026

In Commentary

You’ve probably spent years learning how to pay attention—reading closely, analyzing deeply, and thinking critically. But here’s something nobody taught you in school: in today’s digital world, knowing what not to pay attention to might be just as important as knowing what deserves your focus.

That’s the essence of critical ignoring, a concept developed by researchers Anastasia Kozyreva, Sam Wineburg, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Ralph Hertwig  . It’s basically the skill of deliberately and strategically choosing what information to ignore so you can invest your limited attention where it truly matters.  I first became aware of this concept just a few weeks ago while reading an article by Christopher Mims in the Wall Street Journal.

Why This Matters Now

Think about your typical day online. You’re bombarded with news alerts, social media posts, clickbait headlines, and outrage-inducing content designed specifically to hijack your attention. Traditional advice tells you to carefully evaluate each source, read critically, and fact-check thoroughly. But here’s the problem: if you’re investing serious mental energy evaluating sources that should have been ignored in the first place, your attention has already been stolen.

The researchers make a crucial observation about how the digital world has changed the game. In the past, information was scarce and we had to seek it out. Now we’re drowning in it, and much of it is deliberately designed to be attention-grabbing through tactics like sparking curiosity, outrage, or anger. Our attention has become the scarce resource that advertisers and content providers are constantly trying to seize and exploit.

Critical ignoring is not sticking your head in the sand or refusing to hear anything that challenges you. Apathy is “I don’t care about any of this.”  Critical ignoring is “I care enough to be selective, so that I can focus on what truly matters.”  Denial is “I refuse to believe or even look at uncomfortable evidence.” Critical ignoring is “I’m not going to invest my time in sources that are clearly unreliable, or in discussions that are going nowhere, so I can better examine serious evidence elsewhere.”

The key distinction is that critical ignoring always serves better judgment, not comfort at any cost.

How To Actually Do It

The researchers outline three practical strategies you can use right away:

Self-Nudging: This is about redesigning your digital environment to remove temptations before they become problems. Think of it as changing your information ecosystem. Instead of relying on willpower alone, you might unsubscribe from inflammatory newsletters, turn off news notifications that stress you out, or use browser extensions to block certain websites during work hours. The idea is to design your environment so you can implement the resolutions you’ve made.

Lateral Reading: This one’s particularly clever. Instead of reading a website from top to bottom like you’ve always done, professional fact-checkers will open another browser tab and quickly research who’s behind the source. That way, you spend sixty seconds searching for information about the source rather than spending twenty minutes carefully reading content from a source that turns out to be backed by a lobbying group or known misinformation peddler. The researchers note this is often faster and more effective than trying to critically evaluate the content itself.

Don’t Feed the Trolls: This strategy advises you not to reward malicious actors with your attention.  When you encounter inflammatory comments, deliberately misleading posts, or content clearly designed to provoke anger, the best response is often no response at all. Engaging with trolls or bad-faith content just amplifies it and wastes your mental energy.

I’ll Add Another

Ignore the Influencers: Refuse to click on miracle‑cure headlines or anecdote‑driven threads when you can go directly to professional medical sources, systematic reviews, or guidelines from reliable sources.  Ignore influencers’ health claims unless they clearly cite solid evidence and expertise.

The Bigger Picture

What makes critical ignoring different from just being selective is that it’s strategic and informed. To know what to ignore, you need to understand the landscape first. It’s not about burying your head in the sand—it’s about being intentional with your attention budget.

The traditional approach of “pay careful attention to everything” made sense in a world of vetted textbooks and curated libraries. But on the unvetted internet, that approach often ends up being a colossal waste of time and energy. The admonition to “pay careful attention” is exactly what attention thieves exploit.

Making It Work For You

Start by taking inventory of your information landscape —all the apps, websites, notifications, and sources competing for your attention. Which ones consistently deliver value? Which ones leave you feeling manipulated, angry, or stressed? Practice self-nudging by removing or limiting access to the latter category.

When you encounter a new source making bold claims, resist the urge to dive deep into their content immediately. Instead, spend a minute or two doing lateral reading. Search for “who runs [site name]” or “[organization name] funding.” You’ll be amazed how quickly you can identify whether something deserves your time.

And when you see obvious rage-bait or trolling, practice the “scroll on by” technique. Your attention is valuable—don’t give it away for free to people trying to manipulate you.

Critical ignoring isn’t about being less informed. It’s about being better informed by focusing your limited cognitive resources on reliable sources and meaningful content rather than letting the algorithm’s latest outrage-of-the-day consume your mental bandwidth.

Sources:         

Kozyreva, A., Wineburg, S., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2023). Critical Ignoring as a Core Competence for Digital Citizens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(1), 81-88. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09637214221121570

                ∙Full text also available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7615324/

                ∙Interview with lead researcher: https://www.mpg.de/19554217/new-digital-competencies-critical-ignoring

Mims, Christopher. “Your Key Survival Skill for 2026: Critical Ignoring.” The Wall Street Journal, January 3, 2026.

American Psychological Association.  https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/attention-spans

Lane, S. & Atchley, P. “Human Capacity in the Attention Economy”, American Psychological Association, 2020.

How Do We Know What We Know? An Introduction to Epistemology

By

On January 17, 2026

In Uncategorized

In a world awash with conflicting information, how do we know what is true? How do we know what to believe? How can we even begin to assess it?  My ongoing interest in critical thinking has led me to epistemology.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that asks one of the most fundamental questions humans can consider: How do we know what we know? It’s essentially the study of knowledge itself—what counts as knowledge, how we acquire it, and what makes our beliefs justified or true.

Think about it this way: You believe the Earth revolves around the Sun. But why do you believe that? Maybe you learned it in school, maybe you’ve seen evidence from astronomy, or maybe you just trust what scientists tell you. Epistemology digs into questions like these—examining the difference between simply believing something and actually knowing it.

The field explores several core questions. What’s the difference between knowledge and mere opinion? Can we ever be absolutely certain about anything, or is all knowledge provisional?  What are the sources of knowledge—experience, reason, intuition, testimony from others? Epistemology also wrestles with skepticism—the worry that our beliefs might be systematically wrong. How do we know the world isn’t an illusion? How do we justify trusting memory, perception, or testimony? When is it rational to believe something, and when should we remain skeptical?

Epistemologists have developed various theories over the centuries. Some argue that true knowledge comes primarily through sensory experience (empiricism), while others emphasize the role of reason and logic (rationalism). Still others focus on whether knowledge requires absolute certainty or just a high degree of justified confidence.

These might seem like abstract concerns, but epistemology has real-world implications. When you’re deciding whether to trust a news source, evaluating scientific claims, or determining what evidence you need before making an important decision, you’re engaging with epistemological questions.  Epistemology doesn’t tell you what to believe about climate change, vaccines, or economics—but it sharpens your sense of why some beliefs deserve more confidence than others. It encourages intellectual humility without sliding into cynicism.

Ultimately, epistemology concerns itself with concepts of knowledge, belief, truth, and justification. Its primary focus is understanding not only what is believed, but the reasons those beliefs are considered warranted. Far from being limited to abstract philosophy, epistemology fosters disciplined critical thinking—a vital skill in societies inundated with competing perspectives. It is less about ivory-tower theory and more about disciplined thinking.

Source: For a comprehensive academic overview of epistemology and its central questions, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

The Enigma of Magical Thinking: From Everyday Enchantment to Political Discourse

By

On December 10, 2025

In Commentary

Have you ever been talking to someone when you started to think, “How in the world can they believe that?” They may have been engaging in magical thinking. But don’t feel too superior because most likely you have been guilty of the same thing.

Magical thinking is one of those fascinating quirks of human psychology that shows up everywhere—from your friend who won’t talk about their job interview until it’s over, to major political movements that shape our world. At its core, it’s the belief that our thoughts, words, or actions can influence events in ways that completely ignore standard cause-and-effect logic.

What We’re Really Talking About

Magical thinking isn’t new. Our ancestors practiced animism, believing spirits lived in everything around them. They created rituals to appease these spirits or tap into their power. Fast forward to today, and despite all our scientific advances, these patterns of thinking haven’t gone anywhere—they’ve just evolved.

It’s essentially a cognitive bias where we connect events that aren’t truly linked. This typically happens when we’re facing uncertainty, stress, or situations where we feel powerless. The thinking pattern gives us a psychological safety net—a feeling that we’re in control.

How It Shows Up in Daily Life

Superstitions and Rituals

Knocking on wood to prevent bad luck is a universal example. There’s zero logical connection between rapping your knuckles on a wooden surface and your future, but people do it anyway because it feels like taking action against uncertainty.

Athletes are notorious for this. That “lucky” jersey, the pre-game meal eaten in exactly the same order, the specific warm-up routine—these rituals don’t really affect performance, but they can boost confidence and calm nerves, which indirectly helps.

Lucky Charms and Talismans

Rabbit’s feet, four-leaf clovers, special coins—lots of people carry objects they believe bring good fortune. These beliefs come from cultural traditions and personal experiences. While there’s no scientific backing for their power, the comfort they provide is genuinely real.

The Jinx Effect

Ever avoided talking about something good that might happen because you didn’t want to “jinx” it? I worked in emergency rooms for many years, and no one would ever use the word “quiet” for fear that that would cause a sudden rush of ambulances. That’s magical thinking connecting your words to external outcomes in a totally irrational way.

Health Decisions

This gets more serious when magical thinking influences medical choices. Some people strongly believe in homeopathic remedies or alternative therapies that lack scientific validation. Interestingly, the placebo effect demonstrates how powerful belief can be—people sometimes experience limited health improvements simply because they believe a treatment works, although these effects are most common in relief of mild to moderate pain.

Gambling Behaviors

Casinos thrive on magical thinking. Blowing on dice, wearing lucky clothes, or believing you’re “due” for a win after several losses—these are all examples of the illusion of control. Gamblers think they can influence random outcomes through specific actions, which can fuel persistent gambling even when they’re losing money.

When Magical Thinking Enters Politics

Here’s where things get more complex and consequential. Magical thinking doesn’t just affect personal decisions—it shapes entire political movements and policy debates.

Conspiracy Theories

QAnon represents one of the most striking modern examples. Followers believe a secret group of powerful figures runs a global operation, and that certain political leaders possess almost supernatural abilities to fight against it. Despite zero credible evidence, this belief system has attracted significant followings, demonstrating how magical thinking can create entire alternate realities in the political sphere.

Pandemic Responses

COVID-19 brought magical thinking into sharp relief. Some people blamed 5G technology for causing the virus, leading to actual attacks on cell towers in multiple countries. Others promoted unproven treatments as miracle cures, despite scientific evidence showing they didn’t work and in some cases were harmful. The desire for simple answers to a complicated crisis made people vulnerable to these beliefs.

Vaccine denial—another pandemic related example of magical thinking—is attributing harmful effects to vaccines despite extensive scientific evidence to the contrary, while simultaneously believing that alternative approaches (like “natural immunity” alone) possess special protective powers.

Economic Policies

“Trickle-down economics”—the idea that tax cuts for wealthy individuals automatically generate economic growth and increased government revenue—often functions as magical thinking in policy debates. This theory simplifies incredibly complex economic dynamics and, according to multiple economic analyses, lacks consistent empirical support. Critics point out it ignores the nuances of fiscal policy and income distribution.

Climate Change

Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, some political movements deny climate change reality. This sometimes involves believing that natural cycles alone explain everything, or that technological solutions will magically appear without significant policy intervention. This type of thinking often protects existing economic interests or ideological positions.

Why Our Brains Do This

Pattern Recognition

Humans are pattern-seeking machines. We’re wired to spot connections, even when they don’t exist—a tendency called apophenia. This helped our ancestors survive—better to assume that rustling bush is a tiger than to ignore it—but it also leads us to form superstitions and magical beliefs.

The Comfort Factor

When life feels uncertain or stressful, magical thinking offers psychological comfort. Rituals and lucky charms reduce anxiety and give us a sense of agency, even if that control is illusory.

Cultural Transmission

Many superstitions and magical beliefs get passed down through generations, becoming woven into cultural norms. When we see others engaging in these behaviors, it reinforces them. Social acceptance is powerful.

Political Advantages

In politics specifically, magical thinking persists because it:

  • Simplifies complex issues into digestible narratives
  • Strengthens group identity and belonging
  • Can be exploited by politicians and interest groups to mobilize support
  • Provides psychological certainty in a chaotic political landscape

Finding the Balance

Here’s the thing: magical thinking isn’t purely negative. It serves real psychological functions—helping us cope with uncertainty, reducing anxiety, and giving us a sense of control when the world feels chaotic.

The problem comes when we rely on it too heavily. Avoiding medical treatment for unproven remedies can have serious health consequences. Basing policy decisions on magical thinking rather than evidence can affect millions of people. The key is balance.

The Takeaway

Magical thinking connects us to our shared human history, from ancient animistic beliefs to modern political movements. It reveals how our minds constantly work to make sense of an unpredictable world. By understanding these cognitive patterns, we can appreciate their psychological benefits while staying alert to their limitations.

Whether we’re knocking on wood or evaluating political claims, recognizing magical thinking helps us become more critical consumers of information. We can honor the comfort these beliefs provide while still grounding important decisions in evidence and rational analysis.

The enchantment isn’t going anywhere—it’s part of being human. But awareness of it? That’s our best tool for navigating between the rational and the magical in both our personal lives and our shared political reality.

The Erosion of Decorum in Public Discourse

By

On September 5, 2025

In Commentary, Politics

The nature of public debate has undergone a dramatic change in recent years. Civility and reasoned discourse—once the hallmarks of political and social commentary—have given way to something closer to a verbal battleground.

Today’s public exchanges are increasingly defined by inflammatory rhetoric, personal attacks, and an abandonment of long-held norms of decorum.

From Respectful Dialogue to Profanity-Laced Exchanges

The decline is nowhere more evident than in the normalization of profanity. What was once limited to private conversations or edgy entertainment now spills freely across digital platforms.

Social media comment threads, online forums, and even professional publications regularly feature language that, not long ago, would have been considered unacceptable in public life. This shift reflects a broader cultural preference for emotional expression over reasoned argument.

Substack and the Temptation of Provocation

Even Substack, often positioned as a refuge for serious, long-form writing, has not been immune.

When I first joined the platform, I was drawn by its promise of thoughtful essays outside the noise of traditional media. Yet I’ve noticed a sharp increase in profanity, personal insults, and derogatory comments—paired with a noticeable decline in reasoned discussion.

False claims, easily disproven with a quick fact-check, are repeated and restacked with little regard for accuracy. The subscription model, rewarding engagement over editorial oversight, can inadvertently encourage more inflammatory tones in order to hold readers’ attention.

The Meme Problem

Memes have only accelerated this decline. And here, I’ll admit my own complicity: I’ve created and shared memes to make ironic or satirical points. But over time, irony can blur into sarcasm, and satire into insult.

Memes thrive on simplification and emotional impact. Complex policies collapse into pithy slogans and mocking images. They’re shareable, entertaining, and easy—but rarely conducive to real understanding.

The result? Substantive debate gets replaced by fast, shallow exchanges of oversimplified (and often misleading) talking points.

From Essays to Punchlines

Essays once demanded careful argument: claims supported by evidence, acknowledgment of counterpoints, and respect for nuance. Memes demand only a laugh—or a groan.

Worse, their viral nature ensures that inflammatory or misleading content spreads faster than any correction ever could.

This isn’t just an aesthetic concern. When communication prioritizes winning over understanding, democracy suffers. Citizens grow less equipped to grapple with complex issues, and leaders find it easier to appeal to emotion rather than present workable solutions.

Can We Reverse the Trend?

The trajectory is worrisome—but not irreversible.

  • Platforms could design features that reward thoughtful engagement instead of amplifying outrage.
  • Educational institutions could recommit to teaching critical thinking and civil debate.
  • Individuals can model better behavior, remembering that persuasion usually requires respect.

Still, if I’m honest, I’m not optimistic. Too many incentives—from clicks to cash—push the culture of discourse in the opposite direction.

Final Thoughts

The health of our public discourse is the health of democracy itself. As writers, readers, and citizens, we carry responsibility for raising the standard.

Our words shape not only our immediate conversations but also the norms of civic life for generations to come. The choice is ours: continue down the path of hostility and simplification—or rebuild the habits of respect and reason.

I hope we choose the latter. But hope, at this moment, feels fragile.

Choosing Not to Know

By

On March 19, 2025

In Commentary

Why We Avoid Truths That Make Us Uncomfortable

One afternoon during the COVID lockdown I was scrolling through online news sites looking for something to read.  I realized I was intentionally bypassing sites I knew I would disagree with.  This surprised me because I have always been a proponent of critical thinking.  Here I was practicing its antithesis— willful ignorance—intentionally avoiding evidence that contradicts my beliefs or preferences.

This behavior may seem irrational, yet it persists across all aspects of life, from personal relationships to religious beliefs to political ideologies. Understanding why we cling to falsehoods, what value we derive from this behavior, and how we can counter it is essential for fostering open-mindedness and informed decision-making.

We often assume that willful ignorance is something that affects “them”—the people with whom we disagree. Anyone can fall victim to willful ignorance, even you and me.

 When we encounter evidence that contradicts our beliefs, we experience cognitive dissonance—a state of mental discomfort caused by holding two conflicting ideas simultaneously. To resolve this discomfort, we often reject new evidence rather than altering our existing worldview.

We tend to seek out and interpret information in ways that confirm our pre-existing beliefs while ignoring or dismissing evidence to the contrary. This  conformation bias reinforces our opinions and shields us from uncomfortable truths.

 Our beliefs are often tied to our social identity. Having our beliefs challenged can feel like an attack on our sense of self or on our group affiliations. Maintaining allegiance to a shared belief—whether religious, political, or cultural—can feel more important than factual accuracy.

Contradictory evidence can create fear and uncertainty, especially if it undermines our understanding of the world. Clinging to familiar falsehoods can provide us a sense of security and predictability.

We invest time, energy, and emotions into our beliefs. Admitting we were wrong may feel like a personal failure or a waste of effort, making it easier to reject new information than to reconsider long-held positions.

Despite its drawbacks, willful ignorance offers psychological and social benefits that make it appealing.  Ignoring uncomfortable truths can protect us against guilt, shame, or fear, while providing a sense of inner peace and emotional comfort.  We may attempt to maintain our sense of self and group identification by avoiding information that threatens our worldview. Engaging with complex or contradictory information requires mental effort. Ignoring it simplifies decision-making, reducing cognitive load.  Aligning with a group’s shared beliefs—regardless of their accuracy—fosters social cohesion and acceptance.

While anyone can fall into willful ignorance, certain factors may make some groups more prone to it.  Studies show that individuals across the political spectrum exhibit willful ignorance, though the issues they ignore vary. For example, conservatives may deny climate change, while progressives may overlook the economic costs of policies they favor.  Groups that emphasize doctrinal adherence may be more resistant to evidence that challenges theological teachings.  Older adults may resist evidence that challenges long-held beliefs. However, younger individuals can also exhibit willful ignorance, particularly in social media echo chambers.

We are more likely to reconsider our beliefs in an environment where we feel we have been heard and understood rather than attacked and ridiculed. Constructive dialogue, rather than confrontation, opens the door to change.  Facts alone often fail to persuade. Framing evidence within emotionally resonant stories can make it more effective.  Presenting new information in small, digestible portions helps reduce cognitive dissonance and makes new ideas less threatening.  We are more likely to accept information from sources we trust, particularly those who share our cultural or ideological background.

Convincing someone that their beliefs are counterproductive requires tact and patience.  But, before trying to change others, we must first examine our own beliefs to ensure we are not guilty of the same behavior.  Self-examination is the first step in addressing willful ignorance.

Willful ignorance thrives in environments of fear, division, and mistrust. Countering it requires empathy, compassion, and truth. If we engage with others in a spirit of understanding rather than confrontation, we have a better chance of bridging divides and creating meaningful change.

The journey is challenging, but the rewards—for both individuals and society—will be worth the effort.

Who Will Tell Our Stories?

By

On January 25, 2025

In Commentary

The Decline of Community Newspapers

“Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” Thomas Jefferson’s words resonate now more than ever in today’s media landscape, where local newspapers—the cornerstone of informed citizenship—are vanishing at an alarming rate. But it is more than just newspapers at risk—it is our very democracy.

Growing up in Charleston during the 1950s and 60s, I witnessed firsthand how integral newspapers were to community life. From delivering The Gazette as a boy to relying on its pages for news of local events and government, newspapers were our primary connection to the world around us.

There weren’t a lot of options for news then. There were no 24-hour news channels. National news on the three networks was about 30 minutes an evening and local news was about 15 minutes. By the late 1960s national news had increased to 60 minutes and most local news to about 30 minutes. Given the limitations of time on the local stations, most of the broadcast was taken up with weather, sports, and human-interest stories with little time left to expand on hard news stories.

We depended on our newspapers for news of our cities, counties, and states and the papers delivered the news we needed. Almost everyone subscribed to and read the local papers.  They kept us informed about our local politicians and government and provided local insight on national events.  They were also our source for information about births, deaths, marriages, high school graduations and everything we wanted to know about our community. 

While newspapers were central in the mid-20th century, the proliferation of digital and broadcast media in the 21st century has transformed how we consume news. There are 24-hour news networks, but they often are a case of too much time and too little news. There are the social media—X (Twitter), Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, Truth Social and many other online entities that claim to provide news.

Even though local television news has expanded its format and increased coverage of local hard news, it remains heavily weighted toward sports, weather, and human interest.  It is somewhat akin to reading the headline and the first paragraph in a newspaper story. It doesn’t provide in-depth coverage, but hopefully, it motivates people to find out more about events that concern them.

Still, it’s the local newspapers that provide detailed news about local and state events.  Here in Charleston our newspapers were consolidated into a single daily paper several years ago. Despite reduced staffing and subscribership, they still make a valiant effort to cover our local news. Eric Eyre provided Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of the opioid epidemic. Currently Phil Kabler, though officially retired, continues to provide insight into the legislature and state government. Mike Tony, another reporter deeply involved in the community, provides coverage of West Virginia energy issues and the ongoing business foibles of our former governor and now senator. Mike recently informed us of an inappropriate—possibly illegal—grant made by the West Virginia Water Development Authority to a private Catholic College in Ohio. The college espouses multiple far right conservative political positions, although they claim this will not influence their project in West Virginia. Mike also pointed out the state statutory requirements for the grant were not met and that the governor’s office, as usual, had no comment.  All this was done while West Virginia communities that have been without safe drinking water for months did not receive grants or any other assistance to improve their water systems.

Will TV news ever be able to provide the details about our community?  The format of the newspaper allows for more detailed presentations and for a larger variety of stories.   The reader can pick which stories to read, when to read them and how much of each to read.  I don’t believe that broadcast news will ever fill the role of a free press.  The broadcast is an ethereal thing. You hear it and it’s gone. It is always possible to record it and play it back, but most people don’t.  Newspapers by their very nature encourage critical thinking. You can read it, think about it, and read it again.  There are times when on my second or third reading of an editorial or a news article I’ve changed my opinion about either the subject or the writer.  A news broadcast doesn’t lend itself to this type of reflection.  When listening to broadcast news I often find my mind wandering as something that the broadcaster said sends me in a different direction.

I worry about the future of newspapers.  According to a study by Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, more than 360 newspapers have closed nationally since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. Since 2005 over 3300 newspapers have closed or consolidated—more than one third of the nation’s total.  The U.S. has also lost about 43,000 newspaper journalists, representing nearly two-thirds of the total.  It would be a tragedy to continue losing newspapers and journalists at this rate.

I beg everyone to please subscribe to your local newspapers. I generally prefer the hands-on, physical newspaper though I understand many people prefer the convenience of the digital version and I find myself moving in this direction. Whichever version you prefer, please subscribe.  Don’t pretend that online sources, such as Facebook, X, and Instagram will provide you with local news rather than just gossip.  Even the online news feeds from the dedicated news networks such as CNN or Fox provide little more than headlines. There’s little you can use to make an informed decision.

Without local news, we risk losing touch with how local and state governments affect our lives.  Without this knowledge, we may be at risk of losing our freedom.  Many countries that have succumbed to dictatorship have first lost their free press.  One of the first acts of the would-be dictator is to attempt to silence the free press.

In my opinion, broadcast news is controlled by advertising dollars and viewer ratings affecting their coverage and orientation.  News seems to be treated like any entertainment program with the output designed to attract an audience, not present facts.  I recognize that this can be the case with newspapers as well, but it seems to me that it’s much easier to detect bias in the written word than in the spoken word. Too often we can get caught up in the emotions of the presenter or in the graphics that accompany the story.

With that in mind, I recommend that if you want unbiased journalism, please support your local newspapers before we lose them. Once they are gone, we will never get them back and we will all be much the poorer as a result.

I will leave you with a final quote.

A free press is the unsleeping guardian of every other right that free men prize; it is the most dangerous foe of tyranny. –Winston Churchill

A Thought for Today

By

On January 7, 2025

In Commentary

Today citizens get their news from a kaleidoscope of sources, some reliable many not—and we’re pretty sure it’s the other guy, not us, who is being taken in by partisan propaganda and fake news.

Madeleine Albright, Fascism: A Warning

More Than Just Fake News: The Pernicious Effect Of Modern Propaganda

By

On July 24, 2024

In Commentary, History, Politics

Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves.  Eric Hoffer

What is propaganda?

Propaganda! The very word conjures up images of sinister people involved in nefarious activities meant to delude the innocent. But this has not always been the case. Propaganda has, through much of history, been view as information, though frequently of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

Propaganda has always involved exaggeration and omission in order to achieve a specific goal.  It was intended to shape beliefs and attitudes without actually lying to the listeners. At its core, there was a basis of truth.

We generally think of propaganda as the domain of governments.  But, in its broadest definition, advertising might be considered as propaganda. It’s intended to create the impression that specific products contribute real advantage to your life.  Drinking a specific beer will make you have a better time. Driving a certain car will show that you are more environmentally concerned. Wearing specific clothes will make you more popular.

It wasn’t until the 20th century that the incorporation of falsehoods, deception, and other activities intended to create a totally false impression and to promulgate untruths became the mainstay of propaganda.

Phillip Taylor in his book “Munitions of the Mind” presents an excellent history of propaganda from its origins in the early years of civilization through its rapid evolution in the 20th century, to its infiltration of all aspects of society in the 21st century.

Propaganda began as early as ancient Mesopotamia when the boastings of kings were inscribed on stone monuments. It continued, principally as a way of monarchs justifying their rule up through the 19th century.

The earliest use of the term propaganda was in the early 17th century when the Catholic Church, wishing to spread Catholic doctrine, support the faithful and counter the protestant reformation, established the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith (Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide).

World War I saw the beginnings of the disconnection of propaganda and truth. Both sides in that war created knowingly false narratives to bolster civilian morale and increase the fighting spirit of their soldiers. World War II took this process to a whole new level as false propaganda was used to justify mass murder and enslavement of an entire continent.  In the 21st century propaganda techniques have been raised to a new level of technical sophistication. Social media, artificial intelligence and modern psychological techniques can create images, sounds and documents completely unrelated to reality but almost impossible for the average person to recognize as false.

Elements of propaganda.

One of the classic elements of propaganda is repetition, the more a statement is repeated the more likely people are to believe it. There is a concept called “illusory truth effect” where the more you hear a statement, the more it feels true.

In past centuries, reference was made to respected people in authority to give credence to statements.  Over the years, this has evolved into celebrity endorsements and continues to expand with the recent emergence of instant celebrities in the form of social media influencers.  

Emotional appeals have always been a significant part of propaganda, emotions being more easily manipulated than facts. The audience is encouraged to react rather than think.

Simplification is also a central tenant of propaganda; complex ideas are reduced to simple slogans that can be repeated over and over again.  Slogans that are catchy and clever will encourage people to repeat them without considering their true meaning.

The repeated use of slogans contributes to the bandwagon effect, a critical propaganda technique for creating the impression of widespread acceptance. The more a person believes everyone else supports the program, the more likely they will be to support it without detailed personal analysis. 

Evolving propaganda.

In the early years of the 20th century, propaganda began to take a more malicious path. It began to lose a grounding in truth, except where necessary to sell the lie.  As propaganda evolved through the first few decades of the 20th century it became a specialized and highly effective weapon of statecraft.

It’s important to recognize that the ultimate goal of propaganda is not merely manipulating opinions and beliefs. It is a tool for obtaining and using political power.

The following quote, which I will leave unattributed, underlies the objective of propaganda from the mid-20th century on.

 “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. The great mass of the people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. If you tell a lie that is big enough and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”

Propaganda in Action

A propaganda program that is designed to achieve political goals has several key elements.

The Target

The first step is to decide on the target population. These are the people you wish to cultivate as supporters and whom you wish to manipulate into specific actions. It’s important to understand what they consider to be their critical concerns. Whether you share those concerns or not isn’t important if you are able to convince the target population that you care about them and that you will meet their needs. Once you have analyzed the concerns of your target population you can develop your message to best appeal to and manage their opinions.

The Leader

The second element is to create a cult of personality around the leader. Generally, the leader will be a charismatic and effective speaker. On other occasions, he simply may be someone they would “like to have a beer with”. If a bond can be created it doesn’t matter how. The leader doesn’t have to have a true concern for the target group as long as they believe he does.  Once the leader and the target group have bonded, he will have an easier time manipulating them.  The stronger they are connected to him personally, the less scrutiny they will give to his ideas.

The Others

The next element is to identify the “other” group that will be the focus of attacks. The first step is to create fear of this group. Once your target population has developed a significant fear of whatever this group may be accused of, be it crime, immorality, or “unAmericanism”, a program is put in place to demonize them. The purpose of the early program is to generate a high level of unreasoning fear of this group within the target population. Fear is difficult to control, so once this stage has been reached, the fear must be converted to hate through repeated attacks blaming the “others” for every grievance the target group has experienced. Hate is easier to focus and to direct.  People can be more easily rallied to action, even violence, in response to hate.

Action

Once hate of the “other” group has been raised to a significant level, your target population can be moved to action. Be that unquestioning acceptance of ideas, voting for whatever candidates you identify, or even resorting to violence to suppress the “others”. 

This is the stage where real political power begins to flow from your propaganda program.  Your supporters have given up all efforts at critical thinking and blindly accept whatever orders you give in the misguided thought that you are concerned about them and their needs and are doing what is best for them and the country.  They have become the weapon for implementing your agenda.

Conclusion

For those of you with an appreciation of history, this should resonate not only with the 20th century but with current events. If you would like to know the source of the quote I gave at the beginning of this section, contact me. 

Having seen the effects of modern propaganda on our society, I am left in great despair.  In a future post I’m going to be discussing how social media has significantly increased the rate of spread and the effectiveness of propaganda and other disinformation programs.

New Myths Arise

By

On June 10, 2024

In Commentary, History

So why should we consider myths as anything but an anachronistic curiosity since we consider ourselves a rational and scientific society? Because the willingness to believe in myths is as strong today as it has ever been. While belief in Olympian gods, elves, and fairies has faded away new myths have arisen. Since the late 1800s, at least two new myths have spread in the United States.

The Golden Age of America

Our political situation today has much to do with belief in the Myth of the Golden Age of America. I strongly believe that the United States has been and continues to be the best hope for personal freedom in the world today. But the idea that at some time in the recent past everything was wonderful for everyone is a myth. In this “Golden Age” to which some people wish to return, women, minorities, gays, and the disabled were clearly discriminated against.

One key contributor to the Golden Age Myth was the economic boom that followed World War II. The United States was a global industrial leader and the economy showed significant gains in jobs, wages, and consumer goods. The middle class was expanded, college education rose due to the GI Bill, and home ownership reached new levels. However, these advantages did not reach all members of our society.

Racial minorities continued to be actively discriminated against. Segregation, particularly under the Jim Crow laws in the South, limited economic, social, and political opportunities for our Black citizens.
Women’s roles and opportunities similarly were significantly constrained. Women were expected to take a domestic role over professional or personal aspirations. Even women who obtained advanced college degrees were expected to stay at home and raise their family or to take “appropriate” jobs such as secretaries, teachers, or nurses.

Reaction to the Golden Age Myth led to movements such as women’s liberation and the civil rights movement, both followed shortly by gay rights and the advocacy for the disabled. The Golden Age seems to have existed principally in popular television shows such as Ozzie and Harriet or Father Knows Best. In short, this “Golden Age” was not golden for everyone.

The Lost Cause

This myth arose in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries though it had its origins while the war still raged. According to the Myth of the Lost Cause, the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. It had to do with the southern states fighting for their individual state rights and their prerogatives of self-government. They were fighting against northern aggression that was trying to destroy the southern way of life. Most Confederate soldiers were poor farmers who neither owned nor could afford slaves. They had to be convinced that they were fighting for their way of life against a malicious union army that was intent on invading their homes and forcing “northern ways” on them. The soldiers had to be distracted from the fact that they were fighting, suffering, and dying to protect the way of life of the wealthy slave owning aristocracy.

The evolution of legend was also involved in the creation of this myth. Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were idealized as true southern gentlemen struggling in a glorious but doomed battle against overwhelming odds.

Of course, it completely ignores the fact that the southern way of life and those state rights were predominantly based on slavery. A critical element in this myth is that slavery was good for the slaves. We continue to hear this stunning falsehood from politicians today as they try to describe slavery as a little more than job training.

Many historians today agree this myth is an intentional distortion of historical facts. The Lost Cause Myth reached its fully developed form in the years surrounding the turning of the 20th century and was intended to change the historical narrative of the South’s role in the Civil War by minimizing the central role of slavery in the origin of the conflict. This revisionism was part on the broader social effort used to justify segregation, Jim Crow laws, and white supremacy.

The Lost Cause is a compelling example of history being reshaped by myth and legend. It shows how over time people can come to accept those things that most support their personal beliefs despite evidence to the contrary. It continues to dominate much of our current debate about race relations, voting rights and social welfare policies. However, today open advocacy of the Lost Cause Myth is in the background and it is seldom mentioned by name though its tenents are reflected in the opinions and statements of many .

Why believe in myths?

So why do we have a widespread belief in these myths? There are several reasons people persist in a false belief even after it has been largely disproven.

The most obvious reason is that myths meet emotional needs. They can be deeply ingrained in a person’s identity, beliefs, and values. When the myth is tied to political or religious beliefs people will be resistant to change even in the face of contradictory evidence. Admitting a previous error of belief is, in some ways, viewed as a form of weakness.

There is also a condition called confirmation bias. People are inclined to seek out and accept without question things that confirm their pre-existing beliefs and opinions. They ignore anything that is not consistent with an already held position.

When presented with information that conflicts with previously held opinions, people can experience what is known as cognitive dissonance. This is the emotional distress that people feel when attempting to hold two contradictory ideas or when trying to reconcile new information that challenges their behaviors or previously held ideas. To reduce this distress people either ignore or in some cases violently reject anything that conflicts with what they previously believed.

Critical thinking skills involve objectively evaluating evidence, identifing inconsistencies, and appling reasoning skills. Critical thinking isn’t always a natural process. When I was in high school, we were expected to memorize facts and then duplicate them on tests. I don’t remember even hearing the term critical thinking until I was in graduate school. Even then, I’m not really sure I understood how important it is to develop a personal understanding of facts and events and how difficult it would be to aquire those skills.

Teachers now make an effort to teach critical thinking skills. But it can be difficult for students to translate those skills into their life outside the classroom. Perhaps many of them may think of critical thinking the way they think of algebra, something they must do in school but won’t ever use in their everyday life. A well-informed citizenship requires all of us to encourage critical thinking practices. We need to ensure that our young people are reading and listening and using those skills outside the classroom. It’s easy to say, but venturing out of our comfort zone can take strength and purpose for all of us.

We can quickly fall into the habit of listening to or reading only a narrow range of opinions from a limited number of sources. It is particularly easy when those sources don’t challenge us to think or to analyze. It is too easy to reject new information rather than trying to evaluate and reconcile it with our previously held beliefs.

Obviously, these reasons are not mutually exclusive and are melded into a continuum of reasons for the rejection of fact in favor of myth.

Both the Lost Cause Myth and the Golden Age Myth arose much quicker and for a more limited purpose than did the classic myths. In this way the evolution of these myths has much in common with the concepts of propaganda. In my next post I will be looking at the difference between lies and myths and how both relate to propaganda and how it has evolved in modern times.

Page 1 of 2

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén