"Science" seems to be cautiously stepping clear of a phenomenon I realized existed a while back. Such things as "motivated reasoning" and "cognitive dissonance" are not only subsumed by it, they are examples of the phenomenon itself.
That is, we all believe (without evidence) that everyone reasons by gathering facts, analyzing them, then reaching conclusions. It turns out that in many circumstances, what we refer to as "normies" reason in the opposite direction: they begin with the conclusion.
Since they know what the "right answer" is, they just have to backfill the reasoning to support it. Even facts will give way to this, being ignored, distorted, or even invented. It's quite fascinating to study it in detail.
So imagine struggling on an algebra test, peeking at the smart kids paper, and seeing that the answer is pi/2. Since you have to show your work, you write down as much as you know, add in some BS, and then write down the answer, pi/2.
Get it? There's no way you're not ending up at pi/2. That is the answer, after all. All the of your "work"--true or not true, meaningful or meaningless--is irrelevant and need only superficially appear to be reasoning to the grader.
But at least you're aware you're cheating. In the phenomenon I observe, it's all done subconsciously, very quickly, invisibly and basically unknowably. But it's as real to that person as anything else in their reality.
The effect is extraordinarily powerful. I heard an interview with a hypnotist once, where he said he would implant a post-hypnotic suggestion in people in his office that there was a red-hot stove in the middle of the floor. When he brought them back, he would casually ask them to hand him a book on the far side of the office. They would all walk far around the perimeter, both coming and going.
Now here's the informative part: when he asked them why they took the long way, they each made up a "good reason": "I always do that," or "It was the best way," or even "That's what you asked me to do". They had absolutely no awareness any of this was happening.
This mode of "reasoning" is, in fact, what makes normies normies in the first place. It's also what makes normies programmable and controllable. "They" use it all the time, and that's why we aren't supposed to know about it.
"Science" seems to be cautiously stepping clear of a phenomenon I realized existed a while back. Such things as "motivated reasoning" and "cognitive dissonance" are not only subsumed by it, they are examples of the phenomenon itself.
That is, we all believe (without evidence) that everyone reasons by gathering facts, analyzing them, then reaching conclusions. It turns out that in many circumstances, what we refer to as "normies" reason in the opposite direction: they begin with the conclusion.
Since they know what the "right answer" is, they just have to backfill the reasoning to support it. Even facts will give way to this, being ignored, distorted, or even invented. It's quite fascinating to study it in detail.
So imagine struggling on an algebra test, peeking at the smart kids paper, and seeing that the answer is pi/2. Since you have to show your work, you write down as much as you know, add in some BS, and then write down the answer, pi/2.
Get it? There's no way you're not ending up at pi/2. That is the answer, after all. All the of your "work"--true or not true, meaningful or meaningless--is irrelevant and need only superficially appear to be reasoning to the grader.
But at least you're aware you're cheating. In the phenomenon I observe, it's all done subconsciously, very quickly, invisibly and basically unknowably. But it's as real to that person as anything else in their reality.
The effect is extraordinarily powerful. I heard an interview with a hypnotist once, where he said he would implant a post-hypnotic suggestion in people in his office that there was a red-hot stove in the middle of the floor. When he brought them back, he would casually ask them to hand him a book on the far side of the office. They would all walk far around the perimeter, both coming and going.
Now here's the informative part: when he asked them why they took the long way, they each made up a "good reason": "I always do that," or "It was the best way," or even "That's what you asked me to do". They had absolutely no awareness any of this was happening.
This mode of "reasoning" is, in fact, what makes normies normies in the first place. It's also what makes normies programmable and controllable. "They" use it all the time, and that's why we aren't supposed to know about it.