• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

BMJ article on denialism

Deetee

Illuminator
Deetee
Joined
Jul 8, 2003
Messages
3,789
This week's British Medical Journal had a great review of denialism and its detrimental effects on health.
"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
Characteristics of denialists:

  • Identification of conspiracies: Denialists argue that scientific consensus arises not as a result of independent researchers converging on the same view but instead because researchers have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. They are depicted as using the peer review process to suppress dissent rather than fulfil its legitimate role of excluding work that is devoid of evidence or logical thought.
  • Use of fake experts: It is rarely difficult to find individuals who purport to be experts on some topic but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. The tobacco industry coined the term “Whitecoats” for those scientists who were willing to advance its policies regardless of the growing scientific evidence on the harms of smoking
  • Selectivity of citation: Any paper, no matter how methodologically flawed, that challenges the dominant consensus is promoted extensively by denialists, whereas any minor weaknesses in papers that support the dominant position are highlighted and used to discredit their messages.
  • Creation of impossible expectations of research: This may involve corporate bodies sponsoring methodological workshops that espouse standards in research that are so high as to be unattainable in practice.
  • Misrepresentation and logical fallacies: An extreme example of this characteristic is the phenomenon of reductio ad hitlerum, in which anything that Hitler supported (especially restrictions on tobacco) is tainted by association. Other methods of misrepresentation include using “red herrings” (deliberate attempts to divert attention from what is important), “straw men” (misrepresentation of an opposing view so as to make it easier to attack), false analogies (for example, because both a watch and the universe are extremely complex, the universe must have been made by some cosmic watchmaker), and excluded middle fallacies (in which the “correct” answer is presented as one of two extremes, with no middle way. Thus, passive smoking causes either all forms of cancer or none, and as it can be shown not to cause some it must, it is argued, cause none).
  • Manufacture of doubt: Denialists highlight any scientific disagreement (whether real or imagined) as evidence that the entire topic is contested, and argue that it is thus premature to take action.
Click to expand...
 
A very good summation. It's a technique which has been perfected since the early days of tobacco-denial. You have to give Fred Singer a lot of credit for that.
 
Actually, I would disagree with the BMJ. I believe active denialism is actually a benefit to health, if not essential.

We are evolved to live in small tribes, where we live with close relatives and care about them. Yet we are now globally connected with a super-colony. I see pictures of people starving, gross injustices or genocide, and I am emotionally moved to act, yet there is little I can do. This is a classic stress condition.

The only way to cope is to not care about people who are not close friends or relatives (and there is generally an inverse relationship between caring and closeness), or simply just deny it exists.

Early humans had no knowledge of the many threats to existence, not only do we now know about them, they are plastered all over the media. People can't live perpetually scared to death. Denial is a logical and practical response to reduce stress.
 
bobc said:
Actually, I would disagree with the BMJ. I believe active denialism is actually a benefit to health, if not essential.

We are evolved to live in small tribes, where we live with close relatives and care about them. Yet we are now globally connected with a super-colony. I see pictures of people starving, gross injustices or genocide, and I am emotionally moved to act, yet there is little I can do. This is a classic stress condition.

The only way to cope is to not care about people who are not close friends or relatives (and there is generally an inverse relationship between caring and closeness), or simply just deny it exists.

Early humans had no knowledge of the many threats to existence, not only do we now know about them, they are plastered all over the media. People can't live perpetually scared to death. Denial is a logical and practical response to reduce stress.
Click to expand...

Your happiness depends on you denying the suffering in the world? If that were true you would not be able to admit it. You do not have to deny the existence of something to ignore it, not care about it, or not think about it. An obviously, if you accept tragedy you can live with it.

People can live in pretty ****** conditions and not be in denial as well.

Acceptance is actually much healthier than denial.
 
Last edited:
bobc said:
Actually, I would disagree with the BMJ. I believe active denialism is actually a benefit to health, if not essential.

We are evolved to live in small tribes, where we live with close relatives and care about them.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that that is strictly true. Development of cities and "civilisations" is a pretty basic evolution from basic hunter/gatherer and then agragian societies.
Yet we are now globally connected with a super-colony. I see pictures of people starving, gross injustices or genocide, and I am emotionally moved to act, yet there is little I can do.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Scenario 1: You live in a small tribe of people isolated from the world and your food and water supply is destroyed and you have no means of moving from the area or finding other sources of nutrition.

Result - you will probably all die - all your close relatives that you care about.

Scenario 2: You live in a small tribe of people isolated from the world and your food and water supply is destroyed and you have no means of moving from the area or finding other sources of nutrition, but your plight is brought to the attention of millions of people around the world.

Result - if even 99.9% in the world of the decide "there is little I can do" but the rest, say donate $1 each, there is a much better chance these days that all your close relatives that you care about will survive the crisis.
This is a classic stress condition.
Click to expand...
No. It is empathy. Some people choose to try to help others, some prefer to ignore the plight of others. Charity can be local (supporting your local Oxfam) or global (subscribing to Red Cross).
The only way to cope is to not care about people who are not close friends or relatives (and there is generally an inverse relationship between caring and closeness), or simply just deny it exists.
Click to expand...
So I presume then that this extends to public welfare, public schools and other services such as hospitals, transport etc ?

Why should we care if your family dies?
Early humans had no knowledge of the many threats to existence, not only do we now know about them, they are plastered all over the media. People can't live perpetually scared to death. Denial is a logical and practical response to reduce stress.
Click to expand...
I believe that empathy is the social glue that helps society (local and global) progress the existence of the human race. YVMV.

ETA: While neither side of this particular exchange is really relevant to the article in the OP.
 
Last edited:
bobc said:
Actually, I would disagree with the BMJ. I believe active denialism is actually a benefit to health, if not essential.

We are evolved to live in small tribes, where we live with close relatives and care about them. Yet we are now globally connected with a super-colony. I see pictures of people starving, gross injustices or genocide, and I am emotionally moved to act, yet there is little I can do. This is a classic stress condition.

The only way to cope is to not care about people who are not close friends or relatives (and there is generally an inverse relationship between caring and closeness), or simply just deny it exists.

Early humans had no knowledge of the many threats to existence, not only do we now know about them, they are plastered all over the media. People can't live perpetually scared to death. Denial is a logical and practical response to reduce stress.
Click to expand...

On a limited, individual level, yes, I can see your point.

On a larger, community level, no, denialism is dangerous.
 
bobc said:
Actually, I would disagree with the BMJ. I believe active denialism is actually a benefit to health, if not essential.

We are evolved to live in small tribes, where we live with close relatives and care about them. Yet we are now globally connected with a super-colony. I see pictures of people starving, gross injustices or genocide, and I am emotionally moved to act, yet there is little I can do. This is a classic stress condition.

The only way to cope is to not care about people who are not close friends or relatives (and there is generally an inverse relationship between caring and closeness), or simply just deny it exists.

Early humans had no knowledge of the many threats to existence, not only do we now know about them, they are plastered all over the media. People can't live perpetually scared to death. Denial is a logical and practical response to reduce stress.
Click to expand...

Mm. I'm not sure if I'd say 'logical' so much as 'natural' - the pragmatism can be evaluated in terms of outcomes. I suspect the outcomes are net negative, so I would say it's not practical, but rather maladaptive.

I would cateogize it as a response that is not healthy like many others we have.

A different type of mitigation for these types of psychological threats is to construct a way to manage them. Gilligan, for example, has examined our tendency to prefer relatives over strangers and [built a moral system around it]. Utilitarians and Objectivists have entirely different approaches. Denialism is the act of not dealing with the moral conflict - it's shoving it to the back until the situation ultimately blows up.

IOW I believe the healthy alternative to 'denial' is 'self-awareness' (and it's not my original idea: that's Socrates and Paul Kurz motive for bring skepticism to the public: "The unexamined life is not worth living").
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
Mm. I'm not sure if I'd say 'logical' so much as 'natural' - the pragmatism can be evaluated in terms of outcomes. I suspect the outcomes are net negative, so I would say it's not practical, but rather maladaptive.

I would cateogize it as a response that is not healthy like many others we have.
Click to expand...

Empathy aside, a more specific example is AIDS denial. The high-profile example is Christine MaggioreWP. Daughter diagnosed with AIDS. Solution: claim there is no such thing and refuse antivirals. Of course, the girl died, ending the gene line... not exactly a healthy adaptive response.

Take this back 200ky and it's "There's a tiger behind you." Response: "Well... I don't believe in tigers." This guy's chosen to become Tender VittlesWP.
 
Is there a better word that can be used than denialist? It doesn't seem exactly amiable.
 
EHocking said:
I'm not sure that that is strictly true. Development of cities and "civilisations" is a pretty basic evolution from basic hunter/gatherer and then agragian societies.
Click to expand...

That's not a genetic evolution. Our evolution as a species (including behaviour) mostly took place before agriculture, when you were unlikely to meet more than a handful of strangers in a long lifetime. When you did see strangers it would mostly be with a hostile eye. Tribalism is written deep in our behaviour.

How much our behaviour has evolved under the selection pressure of civilisation is an interesting question. It's certainly true that hostility to "outsiders" is much easier to evoke and exploit than compassion. History is about war, not rescue missions.

At least, in the 21stCE, we've got as far as selling wars as being charitable in intent. The world stage is still dominated by fear and hatred of "the other", and by flag-waving charlatans.

ETA: While neither side of this particular exchange is really relevant to the article in the OP.
Click to expand...

True. I think Tatyana makes a good point : that (irrational) denial can be a coping mechanism for an individual, but not for a community.
 
blutoski said:
Mm. I'm not sure if I'd say 'logical' so much as 'natural' - the pragmatism can be evaluated in terms of outcomes. I suspect the outcomes are net negative, so I would say it's not practical, but rather maladaptive.
Click to expand...

Individual denial is probably not maladaptive outside the group leadership. When the leadership denies reality in pressing matters it's probably maladaptive for the entire group.

This doesn't seem to apply when the group is a bank; I'm still trying to figure that one out.
 
CapelDodger said:
Individual denial is probably not maladaptive outside the group leadership. When the leadership denies reality in pressing matters it's probably maladaptive for the entire group.

This doesn't seem to apply when the group is a bank; I'm still trying to figure that one out.
Click to expand...

Ha. Yes. I just read a good one while re-reading Fleming's Live and Let Die:

A bank clerk hears his boss is not coming in for the afternoon, so he sneaks home after lunch. Lo! There's the bank manager banging his wife.

He heads back to the bank and tells the receptionist: "Whew, that was close. I almost got caught!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom