March 16, 2022
All people have at least one ill-informed belief; the differences are in their severity. One may believe that a straw has one hole or that the Earth is a disc, supported on the back of a giant turtle swimming through space. To the first, the usual response is polite disagreement, and to the second, a suggestion that the Discworld-er may want to get their brain checked out, or a similar euphemism. It has always come across as odd that this is the response given to those with seemingly incorrect beliefs, as it is not guaranteed that the neurologist/therapist/psychiatrist has fully correct views and beliefs. It is an appeal to authority, in which one is supposed to derive their beliefs from a medical practitioner, presumably with more knowledge about the world.
The central issues with telling people with $x ill-informed belief (flat Earth, conservatives, etc.) are that telling them to do so stigmatizes psychology as their opponent’s tool, cutting off a potential real source of self-improvement, as well as opening up psychiatry as a potential tool for these ill-informed groups if they ever happen into power. When someone disagrees with you on a deeply held belief, you are less likely to take their advice - reinforcement theory in action. Arguing with someone on a deeply held belief rarely fails to convince, and instead makes the person holding that belief feel worse and associating that feeling with the concept of cognitive therapy is harmful because therapy may actually help the person, if not with this belief, at least with other life issues. A person with a strong belief in a flat Earth may benefit from emotional regulation counseling; a conservative stuck in their ways could be helped by marriage counseling. Blindly tying neurology/psychiatry/psychology to one’s beliefs when trying to sell it to the opposition is a lead balloon.
A common, but morally dubious response is, “I don’t want my opponents to get better - in fact, I want them to suffer more!” This is morally repugnant from my view, but if it is ideologically consistent for you, I’m not going to convince you otherwise. Instead, it should be pointed out that this weaponizes the institution of psychology, and it may not always work in your favor. Right now, psychology is perceived as left leaning. But other sciences historically have been used to advance right-wing causes, from genetics attempting to justify eugenics to medicine declaring queerness as a disease. We cannot blindly assume that psychology will always be on our side.
What can we do if someone has a belief we believe is wrong? We can attempt to convince them; it is not impossible to change someone’s mind. We can also ignore them if we do not want to engage, protest them if we do, and stop them from enacting their beliefs. But we need to consider what we want to use to change people’s minds.
On February 27, 2022, I thought it would be a great idea to create some sort of content - writing, art, coding, etc. - every day of the next month. Luckily, the alliteration worked out. This should be the sixteenth post in the series.