The End of Facts? Why Our Brains Are Wired for Belief—and How to Fight Back
Nearly 70% of Americans believe misinformation is a major problem in the country today, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. But understanding why we’re so susceptible to falsehoods isn’t about intelligence or education level; it’s about the fundamental way our brains are wired. Skeptic Michael Shermer, in his forthcoming book Truth: What It Is, How to Find It, and Why It Still Matters, argues that the reports of truth’s death are greatly exaggerated, but acknowledges a critical vulnerability: our innate drive to belong often trumps our pursuit of accuracy.
The Rationality of Irrationality
Shermer illustrates this with a compelling thought experiment: a neighbor’s warning about potential intruders. Even if initially skeptical, escalating evidence – a moving truck, then people inside the house – would rationally compel action. This isn’t a failure of logic, but a prioritization of safety. The same impulse, Shermer contends, fueled the January 6th Capitol riot – a conviction that democracy was being stolen overriding reasoned doubt. We act on what we believe to be true, making the pursuit of actual truth perpetually essential.
My-Side Bias: The Power of Motivated Reasoning
This brings us to the core of the “post-truth” problem: motivated reasoning. Especially during times of uncertainty, our reasoning becomes a tool for reinforcing existing group affiliations. Psychologists call this “my-side bias,” and research shows it’s not limited to those with lower cognitive abilities. In fact, highly intelligent individuals are often better at rationalizing beliefs that align with their pre-existing worldview, as demonstrated by Keith Stanovich’s work.
Known Knowns, Unknown Unknowns, and Everything In Between
Shermer breaks down the landscape of belief formation, drawing from the famous Rumsfeldian framework. While “unknown unknowns” remain inherently unknowable, we can navigate “known knowns” (evidence, causation) and “known unknowns” (things we acknowledge we don’t know). His analysis reveals that belief isn’t a neutral search for truth, but a negotiation between evidence and identity. Consider the tribalization of science: climate change skepticism often stems from distrust of government, anti-vaxxers distrust pharmaceutical companies, and fundamentalists reject evolutionary biology. The dispute isn’t always about the facts themselves, but about the psychological need for belonging and maintaining group cohesion.
We’re Social Creatures, Not Independent Verifiers
This isn’t a sign of stupidity, but a reflection of our evolutionary history. As cognitive scientist Hugo Mercier argues, belief functions as a signal of trust within groups. We’re wired for alliance, not necessarily independent verification. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in The Righteous Mind, brilliantly observes that we approach moral judgments as lawyers defending a pre-determined position, rather than scientists seeking objective truth. This explains why arguments often fail to change minds – they need to shift identities first.
Reason as a Skill: Reclaiming the Enlightenment Project
However, Shermer’s outlook isn’t pessimistic. The same mental mechanisms that enable bias also enable reason – when properly trained. He champions the Enlightenment project, not as a relic of the past, but as a “cognitive technology” – a set of tools (science, skepticism, free speech) that extend our capacity for rational thought. He contrasts this with postmodernism’s claim that truth is entirely socially constructed, highlighting the importance of objective reality, as demonstrated by examples like physicist Richard Feynman’s investigation of the Challenger disaster. Feynman’s demonstration, dunking an O-ring in ice water, powerfully illustrated a critical flaw overlooked for the sake of public relations.
The Power of Diverse Perspectives
Science, when practiced correctly, isn’t about flawless individuals, but about bias correction through diverse, open communities. Historian Naomi Oreskes emphasizes that objectivity relies on critical scrutiny from multiple perspectives. This underscores the importance of diversity within universities and research institutions – a variety of thinkers with differing biases strengthens the pursuit of truth. Recent research, like that conducted at Ohio State by HyeKyung Park, shows that the “wisdom of crowds” improves accuracy, but only if biases aren’t consistently aligned in the same direction.
Breaking the Spiral of Silence: Pluralistic Ignorance and Courage
Shermer also explores “pluralistic ignorance” – the phenomenon where individuals assume others hold beliefs they don’t, leading to self-censorship and conformity. Drawing on Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago, he recounts the chilling example of the 11-minute standing ovation for Stalin, driven by fear of being the first to stop clapping. This mechanism isn’t confined to authoritarian regimes; it suppresses dissent today. Breaking this “spiral of silence” requires both knowledge and the courage to communicate honestly.
Beyond “Post-Truth”: An Emotional Crisis
Shermer argues we aren’t living in a “post-truth” era, because even the assertion that truth is irrelevant relies on an objective standard. The real crisis is emotional: our brains evolved to prioritize solidarity over accuracy. The challenge lies in creating institutions and habits that reward truth-seeking, rather than punishing it. This connects to broader psychological concepts like cognitive dissonance, the need for cognitive closure, and identity-protective cognition – not as pathologies, but as design flaws we can mitigate.
Skepticism as a Civic Duty and a Path Forward
Ultimately, Shermer echoes Stephen Jay Gould’s sentiment: reason must accompany moral decency. Skepticism, he argues, is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism. The antidote to misinformation isn’t simply scolding irrationality, but teaching the psychology of belief itself. Shermer’s approach mirrors cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), encouraging us to identify distortions, examine evidence, and replace automatic thoughts with reality-based ones. In essence, Truth offers a kind of therapy for civilization.
The future of truth isn’t about eliminating bias – that’s an unrealistic goal. It’s about cultivating a society that values critical thinking, embraces intellectual humility, and fosters environments where challenging assumptions is not only permitted but actively encouraged. What steps can we take, individually and collectively, to build that future? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
