‘Paradoxical Behaviors and Uninformed Advocacy‘ seems like a weird title, but the truth is that human behavior is often contradictory. We find ourselves endorsing causes, policies, or actions that, upon closer inspection, don’t align with our true beliefs or best interests. This phenomenon isn’t just a quirk of human nature—it’s deeply rooted in cognitive processes and biases that shape our perceptions and decisions. As always, I must ask: Do we want to be ‘right,’ or do we want to be ‘accurate?’

Epistemic Rigidity and Cognitive Biases: At the heart of this behavior is Epistemic Rigidity. This term describes the cognitive inflexibility that prevents people from updating their beliefs, even when presented with new, more accurate information. Several cognitive biases and effects contribute to this rigidity, including:

• Einstellung Effect: When prior knowledge interferes with the ability to solve new problems, people may cling to outdated solutions.
• Dunning-Kruger Effect: Those with limited knowledge often overestimate their competence, making them resistant to new information that contradicts their self-assessment.
• Anchoring Bias: Initial information or beliefs tend to act as anchors, influencing how subsequent information is interpreted.
• Confirmation Bias: People tend to seek out information that confirms their preexisting beliefs, reinforcing their existing views.
• Motivated Reasoning: Individuals process information in a way that aligns with their desires or fears rather than objective reality.
• Cognitive Dissonance: When confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs, individuals experience discomfort and may reject or rationalize the conflicting information to maintain internal consistency.

These biases create a strong feedback loop where beliefs, driven by emotion, become increasingly rigid, making it difficult for individuals to critically evaluate their own positions. In doing so, many end up supporting things they say they don’t believe in. Imagine how that impacts perceptions of credibility.

Emotion as the Catalyst for Bias: Emotion plays a crucial role in the formation and maintenance of biases. Strong emotional responses often signal the presence of deeply ingrained beliefs. When something “feels right” or “sounds about right,” it triggers emotional validation, making it easier for biases to take hold. This emotional reinforcement often leads to a sense of certainty, even when the underlying belief is flawed or unsupported by evidence. Ultimately, this drives our paradoxical behaviors – which are often misaligned with our true beliefs.

Just a Few Examples of Paradoxical Behaviors: Consider the following scenarios where individuals or groups support ideas that contradict their stated principles:

• DEI and Exclusion: Organizations that champion Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) principles might simultaneously endorse policies that exclude certain individuals based on their political or religious beliefs.
• Freedom of Speech vs. Censorship: Advocates for free speech might support censorship when confronted with speech they find offensive, justifying it as necessary to protect public order or certain groups.
• Anti-Discrimination vs. Identity Politics: Supporters of anti-discrimination laws might endorse identity politics that result in preferential treatment for some groups while excluding others.
• Universal Healthcare and Exclusion: Proponents of universal healthcare might back policies that exclude specific populations, such as undocumented immigrants or uncompliant citizens, from accessing comprehensive care.
• Foundational Principles and Religious Ideology: Those who advocate for foundational democratic principles might simultaneously push for policies rooted in specific religious ideologies, conflating personal beliefs with public policy.
• Rejecting Racism While Perpetuating Stereotypes: Individuals who reject racism might unknowingly perpetuate racist stereotypes, such as assuming certain racial groups lack basic resources or skills.
• Economic Equality and Wealth Preservation: Advocates for economic equality might support tax policies that benefit the wealthy, undermining efforts to reduce income inequality.
• Rejecting Big Banks While Supporting Them: Critics of big banks might support policies that prioritize the interests of these institutions over local economies, contradicting their stated goals.
• Gun Control vs. Crime Protection: Individuals who advocate for strict gun control laws might simultaneously argue for increased protection against crime, leading to a paradoxical stance on personal security.
• Civil Liberties vs. Government Surveillance: Supporters of civil liberties might endorse increased government surveillance, believing it necessary for national security, even if it infringes on the very rights they seek to protect.
• Supporting Education While Discouraging It: Parents who claim to value education might dissuade their children from pursuing certain fields of study, fearing they won’t align with personal or cultural expectations.
• Anti-Capitalism and Capitalist Ventures: Left-leaning (or Socialist or Marxist) supporters may criticize capitalism while simultaneously engaging in capitalist endeavors, such as investing in the stock market or profiting from private enterprises.
• Etc., Etc.: The truth is that this list goes on and on.

The Role of External Influence: Astroturfing, propaganda, and other tactics popularized by figures like Edward Bernays have historically been used to manipulate public opinion. These methods exploit cognitive biases, creating the illusion of grassroots support for policies that may be harmful or misguided. Over time, such tactics have led to the adoption of disastrous policies, laws, and initiatives with tragic consequences. The question is: do any of your paradoxical positions stem from such conditioning and tactics?

The Importance of Critical Examination: As informed citizens, our responsibility is to counter these paradoxical behaviors by critically examining our beliefs and the emotions that drive them. It’s essential to recognize that our biases, driven by emotion, can contort our beliefs, which ultimately drive our behaviors. However, to avoid falling into these traps, we must, once again, ask ourselves: Do we want to be ‘right,’ or do we want to be ‘accurate?’

I want you to remember that the real challenge with ‘delusion’ is that you often don’t recognize it in yourself until you critically examine the validity of your ideas – instead of seeking information that confirms your belief. Those who are truly delusional are often convinced that others are the delusional ones, never considering that they themselves might be wrong. If you want to be accurate, act accordingly. Avoid the pitfalls of paradoxical behaviors and uninformed advocacy by truly examining what and why you are supporting something.

Keep learning! Read my article titled Mass Epistemic Rigidity: Tearing Ourselves Apart