Why do People Believe False Things?

Why do people believe false things?

 

Dan Williams takes a stab at that question… in a very different way. Before we get into his analysis, let’s first understand the method he uses for this and other questions. Take a different question:

Why is there poverty in the world?

Invert the question. In this case:

            Why is there wealth in the world?

Ask yourself which of the two conditions – wealth or poverty – has been the norm through most of our history:

“(Poverty) is humanity's default state. Until very recently, everyone lived in what would now be regarded as shocking poverty.”

Wealth then is the surprise. So try answering why there is so much wealth today.

“Wealth creation depends on complex, improbable, and fragile institutions and incentives for coordinating human activity and the division of labour.”

The Industrial Revolution. Property rights. Rule of law. Infrequent wars. Competitive markets. Education system.

“There is nothing “natural” or “automatic” about such conditions.”

That then is the answer to the poverty question – the conditions that produce wealth are not “automatic”. Therefore, poverty (sadly) is the norm. And it is also easy to regress back to poverty.

 

Joseph Heath coined a term for this method – “explanatory inversions”:

“(They) have the effect of changing, not our specific explanations of events, but rather our fundamental sense of what needs to be explained.”

~~

 

Williams applies the “explanatory inversion” method to our original question:

Why do people believe false things?

Flip the question:

Why do people have true beliefs?

Ask yourself which of the two conditions – false or true beliefs – has been the norm through most of our history. Obviously, false beliefs have dominated:

“The genuine puzzle—is not why people hold false beliefs. It is why people sometimes form true beliefs.”

Modern systems and their explanations are very complex. The economy. Climate change. Environmental costs.

“Not only is the truth about such topics typically complex, ambiguous, and counter-intuitive, but almost everything you believe about them is based on information you acquired from others.”

Since most knowledge is acquired from others, it follows that:

“(Any explanation or representation of reality) is heavily mediated by complex chains of trust, testimony, and interpretation.”

Inevitably then:

“In this heavily mediated process, there are countless sources of error and distortion.”

In addition:

“You are not a disinterested truth seeker. Instead, your beliefs are biased by motives and interests like self-aggrandisement, status-seeking, tribalism, and social conformity.”

Therefore, he says, “For these reasons, the truth is not the default”.

 

This explanation certainly explains a lot of what we see. The “complex chain of trust (in authority)” has broken down. Errors and even deliberate distortions are suspected in anything told by the other side. And our own biases are reinforced by the online echo chambers.

 

While this can’t be the complete answer, it does sound like a part of the answer.