When events unfold before our eyes or are reported through trustworthy sources, yet we deny them as non-events, we may be engaging in “motivated reasoning.”
Psychologists refer to this phenomenon as denialism. Denialism is not merely a refusal to acknowledge reality; it is a complex cognitive process where individuals reject established facts and evidence in favour of beliefs that align with their ideological, religious, or political identities.
Examples of Denialism
Denialism manifests in various forms and across different contexts. For instance:
Political Denialism: Former U.S. President Donald Trump initially downplayed the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, leading many of his supporters to dismiss the threat posed by the virus.
Similarly, in India, many among the upper and wealthy classes refused to acknowledge the dire conditions of migrant workers during the peak of the Coronavirus lockdown despite widespread media coverage.
Historical Denialism: One of the most notorious examples is Holocaust denial, where individuals or groups reject the historical fact of the genocide of six million Jews during World War II. Despite overwhelming evidence, Holocaust deniers claim that the event either never happened or was grossly exaggerated.
Scientific Denialism: The denial of climate change is a significant issue, with skeptics arguing that global warming is a myth despite a strong scientific consensus.
The rejection of the theory of evolution and the belief in a flat Earth, despite centuries of scientific evidence supporting both evolution and the Earth’s round shape, are also prime examples of scientific denialism.
The Mechanics of Denialism
Denialism is often rooted in our social behaviour and political or religious identities. These identities can become rigid, leading to selective acceptance of evidence that supports preconceived notions. This selective processing of information causes rationalization to become irrational, and fosters polarized societies where information is only received and acknowledged if it aligns with pre-existing beliefs.
Psychological Underpinnings
Several psychological mechanisms contribute to denialism:
Cognitive Dissonance: When confronted with information that contradicts deeply held beliefs, individuals experience discomfort. They may reject the new information to alleviate this discomfort, thus maintaining cognitive consonance.
Confirmation Bias: People tend to favour information that confirms their existing beliefs and dismiss information that challenges them. This bias reinforces denialism by creating an echo chamber of like-minded opinions.
Identity Protection: Individuals often tie their beliefs to their identity. Accepting contrary evidence can feel like a personal attack, leading them to deny facts that threaten their sense of self.
Societal and Cultural Factors
Denialism is also influenced by broader societal and cultural contexts:
Groupthink: In cohesive groups, the desire for harmony can lead to collective denial of uncomfortable truths. This phenomenon is common in political groups, religious communities, social or coffee table talks, and even corporations.
Misinformation: The spread of false information, whether intentional (disinformation) or unintentional, contributes to denialism. Social media platforms, in particular, play a significant role in the rapid dissemination of misinformation.
Authority Influence: Influential figures, such as politicians, religious leaders, or celebrities, can perpetuate denialism by publicly rejecting established facts. Their followers may adopt similar views, reinforcing the denialist stance.
Consequences of Denialism
Denialism has far-reaching consequences:
Public Health Risks: Denial of scientific facts, such as the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic or the importance of vaccinations, can lead to public health crises. When significant portions of the population ignore medical advice, the spread of disease becomes more difficult to control.
Environmental Degradation: Climate change denial hampers efforts to address environmental issues. Without acknowledging the problem, societies cannot implement the necessary measures to mitigate the impact of global warming.
Social Polarization: Denialism fosters division within societies. As people become entrenched in their beliefs, dialogue and compromise become challenging, leading to increased social and political polarization.
Erosion of Trust: Persistent denialism can erode trust in institutions, experts, and the media. When people consistently reject expert opinions and verifiable facts, it undermines the credibility of those sources and destabilizes societal cohesion.
Addressing Denialism
Combating denialism requires a multifaceted approach:
Education and Critical Thinking: Promoting education that emphasizes critical thinking skills can help individuals evaluate information more effectively and resist the allure of denialism.
Fact-Checking and Misinformation Control: Strengthening fact-checking mechanisms and controlling the spread of misinformation, especially on social media, can reduce the impact of false information.
Engaging Communication: Scientists, experts, and authorities should communicate clearly, empathetically, and accessiblely to bridge the gap between complex facts and public understanding.
Encouraging Open Dialogue: Creating spaces for open dialogue where individuals can discuss contentious issues respectfully can help break down the barriers of denialism and foster mutual understanding.
Conclusion
Denialism is a significant barrier to rational thinking and progress. By understanding its roots and addressing its manifestations, societies can work towards a more informed and cohesive future. Recognizing and combating denialism is essential for the well-being of individuals and the health of our global community.
(By Promod Puri with input from ChatGPT)
Promod Puri.com 