We’ve all called conspiracy theorists, truthers, and birthers ‘crazy’. I’d include racists as well since they, like conspiracy theorists and birthers, hold irrational beliefs in spite of evidence.
First, are they medically ‘crazy’? They believe things that have been exhaustively disproved. It’s as if a rational person believes that the sky is blue on a clear day, and someone else believes that the sky is actually the Colquhoun tartan. The evidence is before the latter’s eyes. Clinically speaking, is this a form of mental illness?
Second, is there a name for this illness? (e.g., ‘paranoia’, ‘neurosis’, ‘psychosis’… something like that.)
NOTE: I am only asking whether this is an illness, and the name of the illness. I am not interested in people who believe the evidence but make claims to the contrary for political or other reasons. I am not interested in the beliefs of a racist vs. the beliefs of Moon Hoaxers. I am not interested in the beliefs of atheists vs. those of religious people. This is a general question about a general condition where people hold beliefs contrary to overwhelming evidence. This is not a debate.
I don’t think that racism could be considered an illness. It seems to me that it is simply a matter of normal base instincts overpowering any rational opposing arguments. If you were to go bungy jumping it would be natural to be scared yes? Even though you know rationally that you are highly unlikely to come to any harm. So if you consider that a racist person has probably been brought up surrounded by racist people and has probably confirmed their racist beliefs through (biased) observation of the world around them, their racism is deeply ingrained and it is not surprising that the rational arguments against racism just don’t hold enough weight in their head to change their beliefs.
I don’t know that the same argument works for your other examples.
Edit: I don’t mean to imply that racism can’t be changed, I just think that rational argument is not necessarily the best way to change someone’s beliefs.
Not all racists are people who hold an irrational belief contrary to all available evidence. Lots of racists are people who have either had almost entirely negative experiences with people of that race, or rarely/never encountered people of that race in real life and are basing their opinion on what they were told by their parents as children. If there is no evidence available to a white racist that black people aren’t all fried-chicken-eating n-words, it would actually be irrational for that person NOT to be a racist.
The idea that some mental illnesses could have physical causes while others do not is flawed. The brain is a physical object, so by definition all behaviour has a physical cause.
To address your question, in the USA and other places the medical profession recognizes a text called the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” or DSM as the definitive list of mental disorders or illnesses (same thing). The book has changed over the years as society’s views changed - for example, homesexuality was considered a disorder for many years but now is not.
To make a long story short, simply believing in a conspiracy theory would not be sufficient grounds on its own to diagnose someone with a disorder based on criteria in the DSM. However, people with certain disorders, such as schizophrenia, would be more likely to hold irrational beliefs of this type.
And as a general comment, most people who believe these theories are aware that others claim to have evidence disproving the theories, they just don’t accept the evidence as credible or true. It’s like people that believe in young-earth creationism, for example - it’s not that they’re insane, they just look at things in a way that is radically different from the majority.
Not quite the same thing but there is now some evidence that political beliefs are related to the physical structure of the brain. An initial study undertaken by University College London’s Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience has shown that:
From this it’s not too big a leap to speculate that a CT mindset - whether 9/11, Kennedy, Moon Hoax, or whatever - comes from some physical difference in brain structure.
Looks like time for further research - anyone here got access to a brain scanner? Come to think of it, a study of Dopers’ brains might be revealing!
During the 1950s to '90s the soviets made great strides in diagnosing wrong thinking and experimented with many methods to find cures. Like the OP they concluded there was indeed serious mental illness in those unfortunates delusional enough not to think accepted thoughts. Although various psychiatric drugs could only do so much — in the pharmacutical limits of the day — therapeutic use of restraints, shocks and heavy narcotics did more, but most of these unfortunate mentally challenged patients had to be kept in institutions until such time as they realized reality or even then for years afterwards until it was safe to release them into the uncontaminated population.
Even today in the Russian Federation there are efforts* to continue this work, but the absence of funding and of sanctioned ideology means little can be done.
Hopefully, with clear-sighted questioning such as the OP’s, further search will be made into this distressing condition — which it must be emphasized, is not the fault of the disturbed sick people, who need our compassion and help, however rough it may be — and the scourge of people afflicted with thinking alien to science, to rationality, and to the beliefs of good citizens everywhere, will be a thing of the past.
There is a simple test everyone can take once a day to any time they consider anything: ‘Is my thought in line with society as a whole ? Am I thinking as the media tells me I should ? Ought I to report myself for thinking this thought ?’ Should one detect a difference between oneself and democratic approved thought then one simply shuts down that train of thinking and starts thinking happy thoughts.
Larisa Arap’s case. “One of the doctors asked whether I thought it was normal to write such things,” Taisiya Arap said. “She said, ‘It’s not possible to write such things. It’s forbidden.’”
I think a simpler explanation is that some people evade reason so they may retain their beliefs. The evasion may be deliberate or not. This explains faith in general.
I made no conclusion in the OP. If I had, I would have posted an opinion in IMHO. In your haste to post your satirical political screed, you’ve misunderstood the question.
We have mountains of evidence that men landed on the Moon in 1969. We have mountains of evidence that the WTC towers were not brought down by surreptitiously-planted explosives. Some people don’t believe the evidence. When it is explained, very carefully and in great detail, they deny it. It really is as if they look at a clear sky and say that the sky is green plaid. Your group-think comments have nothing to do with it.
Implicit linked to an article on True Believer Syndrome:
While the quoted paragraph refers to people who believe in paranormal events even after it was demonstrated that no paranormal event took place, the syndrome also applies to people who believe non-paranormal things that did not happen even after being shown irrefutable evidence. My question is: What is going on psychologically and/or physically, that people refuse to accept what is before their eyes? Many facts can be interpreted differently, which is how science progresses. Evidence is observed, hypotheses are made to explain them, the hypotheses are tested, and if they withstand the testing they become theories. The theories are challenged and they are discarded, modified, or remain in place depending on new evidence and the results of further testing. But some facts are beyond refute. One cannot reasonably claim the sky is green plaid, nor that JFK was never actually shot, for example.
When someone insists something is true in spite of evidence, something is amiss: 1) They are incapable of processing information that conflicts with what they have decided. Does this have a clinical cause? 2) They are able to process the information, but deny the validity of it. Why? 3) They are able to process the information, and they know that their stated beliefs conflict with reality; but they continue to state the fantasy. Is there a pathology wherein people knowingly propound theories that have been shown to be false?
True. I’m not suggesting that people who believe in conspiracies have a mental disorder. One may believe in any number of things based on the evidence they have. The question is whether there is something happening (clinically) when they are presented with real evidence that contradicts their beliefs.
…
I really don’t want this thread to be a debate. I’m asking for factual information about the inability to accept data. No politics, no ‘group think’. If the topics I chose for illustration are too controversial (and I’ll note that I intentionally did not bring religion into it, just to head that off), feel free to come up with other examples.
It’s just plain irrationality and instinctual behavior, and it’s perfectly normal. People can justify their beliefs by determining that the evidence that refutes the beliefs is invalid - and the reason given for invalidation is that it goes against their beliefs. The circularity may be apparent to them, but the validity of the argument does not matter because the beliefs are absolutely ingrained and cannot be changed.
There are a few of reasons it might happen, although be aware I’m not a psychologist and thus making this up as I go along. It’s probably a combination of all of this.
It’s possible these people have had some false things imprinted on them in the manner of their imprinting of their mothers’ face. That is, false information because part of their subconscious so they cannot even potentially argue against it.
Some people blindly listen to authority. They are told things by those in authority over them, and they never develop the skills to question them. Their authority starts with their parents, and passes through whoever their current authority seems to regard as authority. If you’re not in their authority set, what you say contradicting their authority is wrong by default. Unlike (1), if their authority changes their position, the person’s beliefs will change.
Most people never learn how to think logically. They base their beliefs on their gut, and have no conception of proper logic. Attempts to use anything resembling a complex argument will fail for lack of understanding; any simple argument is likely to be accepted regardless of its validity. Anyone can change their beliefs if they are able to provide an argument that fits in their realm of comprehension, but predicting which such arguments work is difficult.
People seem to think we are rational creatures who occasionally get irrational, or that we are logical creatures with emotions. Both of these are backwards. If anything, rationality or logical thinking is the outlier.
Also, one of the requirements of a mental disorder is that it has to severely impact the life of the individual or that of others. People have been getting along pretty well with many irrational thoughts.
Also, a rule of psychology is that everything you learn about it also applies to yourself. You have irrational thoughts as well.