The Logic of False Beliefs

In order for humans to continue existing in the world, they require a perspective that is at least somewhat realistic. Every day will be a struggle for you to take activities that are beneficial if your model of reality is drastically different from the world as it actually exists.

However, truth and accuracy are not the only things that matter to the human mind. The human mind is concerned with other things as well. It appears that humans also have a strong need to feel like they belong somewhere.

I wrote about this in my book Atomic Habits: "Humans are herd creatures. We strive to be accepted by our peers, to form connections with those around us, and to garner their respect and approval. These kinds of impulses are necessary for our continued existence. Our predecessors lived in groups known as tribes for the majority of the time that evolution has recorded their existence. Being cut off from the rest of the community, or even worse, being expelled, was tantamount to a death sentence.

While it is essential to comprehend the reality of a circumstance, it is equally essential to maintain one's membership in a group. Although these two goals frequently complement one another nicely, there are times when they run counter to one another.

Understanding the veracity of a certain fact or concept is not always more helpful to people in their day-to-day lives than maintaining positive relationships with other people. Steven Pinker, a psychologist at Harvard University, put it in these terms: "People are embraced or condemned according to their beliefs, so one function of the mind may be to hold beliefs that bring the belief-holder the greatest number of allies, protectors, or disciples," rather than beliefs that are the most likely to be true.

Things don't always convince us to believe them simply because they are true. There are instances when we believe things simply because they put a positive spin on our character in the eyes of the people we care about.

I thought that Kevin Simler expressed it very well when he wrote, "If a brain anticipates that it will be rewarded for adopting a particular belief, it's perfectly happy to do so, and doesn't much care where the reward comes from — whether it's pragmatic (better outcomes resulting from better decisions), social (better treatment from one's peers), or some mix of the two." I found this to be a very insightful statement.

Even if they are not useful in a factual sense, false beliefs might still be valuable in the social context in which they are held. We may refer to this strategy as "factually false but socially accurate" if we did not have a better language at our disposal. When forced to choose between the two, most of us will go with our friends and family members rather than the facts.

This realisation not only explains why we might keep our opinions to ourselves during a conversation at a dinner party or turn a blind eye when our parents say something hurtful, but it also shows a more effective strategy to change the opinions of other people.