The unbearable seductiveness of superstition

Once I met an academic musician, a guitarist, who soon began to tell me excitedly about his "discovery": namely, he had recently learned that humans can feed themselves by looking at the sun. He found the idea in a Facebook group, where he received the corresponding "scientific" explanation. Hemoglobin and chlorophyll are supposedly almost the same, so humans could use solar energy like plants. The fact that the similarity of certain molecules does not give human cells the ability to photosynthesize did not help our conversation much. On the contrary, my questions quickly became part of the problem. The world, according to his firm conviction, did not want to accept this truth, and some even tried to hide it.

This phenomenon is the subject of this story. By superstition here I mean pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs that offer us special knowledge about the world, and persist in the face of evidence that directly refutes them. Pseudoscience and conspiracy theories are not the same, but in such stories they usually go hand in hand: the former gives the appearance of a scientific explanation, the latter explains why scientists reject it. Questions of worldview, ideology, and personal values ​​are not part of this topic; the claim that a person can live without food is subject to verification, no matter who it comes from and to what ideology or group it belongs.

How does an educated person accept such an idea? The simplest part of the answer is that knowledge in one field does not imply knowledge in another. However, some beliefs, in addition to explaining the world to us, also say something pleasant about ourselves: that we have seen through the deception, that we belong to a select group of "in the know", that we have not fallen for it like everyone else. Giving up such a belief can therefore mean giving up part of our self-image. And this change is not pleasant and is often avoided at all costs. Therefore, an inconvenient fact is often sacrificed to our seductive self-image.

U a famous experiment subjects interpreted the same table of numbers, presented as test results in two different contexts – researching the effects of skin cream or the effects of gun bans. When the topic was skin cream, people with better numerical skills performed better. But when the same numbers were presented in the politically sensitive context of studying the effects of gun bans, they showed a more pronounced difference in accuracy depending on whether the result matched their political affiliations.[1] These results highlight the possibility that reasoning skills can sometimes be used to reinforce rather than challenge mistaken beliefs.

A degree, therefore, is no guarantee of impartiality. After all, how carefully do we check a claim that confirms exactly what we want to hear, especially when it concerns our political option or the group to which we belong? It is therefore more useful to understand the guitarist at the beginning of the story as honest than as dishonest. When a belief becomes the supporting wall of identity, its refutation can be perceived as an attack on the integrity of the person, and is therefore defended. The discussion shifts from the evidence to the ulterior motives of the one who presents it. In a closed conspiracy theory, even its denial becomes evidence of a cover-up. The firefighter becomes an arsonist.

However, it does not follow that correcting misconceptions is futile. Large experimental research factual corrections have not confirmed the assumption that they regularly reinforce false beliefs.[2] To understand why someone resists evidence, it can help to have a conversation without ridicule and to try to understand the broader personal and social context. Facts are still important, but they are not enough.

We tend to assume that there are more superstitions today than ever before. However, analyzes published in 2022 did not find a consistent increase in belief in the conspiracy theories studied. Some American comparisons spanned decades, while the European section tracked six theories in six countries between 2016 and 2018.[3] This does not tell us what the situation is in Montenegro, but it does warn that the impression of a general increase and the evidence for it are not the same.

Even if the proportion of people who believe doesn’t change, the question remains what changes around them. A belief that once stayed at the kitchen table can now find thousands of like-minded people, get compelling graphics, and start generating advertising revenue. In a business model that ties revenue to audience attention, a message can be profitable even when it’s false. If it provokes fear or anger, its spread can be helped by those who bitterly challenge it.

Here, one man's psychological need is transformed into a business opportunity for another. A guitarist who sincerely believes and a merchant who consciously promotes his belief for profit may say the same thing, but do completely different things for completely different reasons. In this sense, we can speak of the industrialization of superstition: its organized use for profit or political gain. And the harmfulness of such commercialized spread of superstition becomes clear only when its human and material consequences are considered.

The consequences of superstition are not abstract, but very tangible and devastating. Montenegro recorded a measles epidemic in 2018 with 200 cases. Local epidemiologists in analizi describe the decline in vaccination coverage and the role of anti-vaccination messages in the circumstances leading up to the outbreak[4]. It is not possible to calculate how many illnesses a single announcement caused, but it is clear why attitudes towards vaccination go beyond personal belief. The claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism has been refuted by dozens of scientific studies, including large studies such as Danish studies with more than 650.000 children[5]. However, this does not prevent the spread of such beliefs among generations of parents and the resulting harmful consequences both for their own and for children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

ExxonMobil shows a different side of the same problem. Analyze published in 2023 in the journal Science found that most of the warming projections documented by the company's scientists between 1977 and 2003 were accurate, with an average prediction of about 0,2 degrees Celsius per decade. At the same time, the company's public messaging undermined confidence in climate science.[6] So, while internal knowledge of climate change existed, public doubt was being sown because it was in their commercial interest.

So how do we deal with superstition? Education needs to pay more attention to how we test claims, including those that we like. There are also encouraging findings on learning to recognize manipulation: short videos of procedures such as the false dilemma or scapegoating improved their recognition, and the effect was estimated in a field study on YouTube at around 22.600 respondents[7]. Recognizing the procedure is a modest but useful start; it is not proof that a single video changes a deeply held belief.

For each of us, there is also an important question that is useful: let's ask ourselves - what evidence would make me change my mind? If we can't even imagine such evidence, it's worth stopping and thinking about what we are actually defending. Checking the source before sharing a post also makes sense when the post was sent by our like-minded person.

However, responsibility cannot remain with the individual alone. Clear and visible media corrections of incorrect information, clear labeling of sponsored messages, and clear platform rules on recommending content and limiting revenue from repeated deception, with the possibility of appeal, are needed. In the case of health scams that profit from other people's fear, specific responsibility should be established. It is necessary to treat well-intentioned mistakes and deliberate deception differently, as indefinite punishment of "wrong opinions" could easily become another way of abuse of power.

Finally, institutions that seek trust must show that they deserve it, by explaining their decisions and admitting mistakes. It is difficult to expect people to believe the call for reason if their daily experience tells them that responsibility is being avoided and legitimate questions are met with arrogance and disdain. The fight against conspiracy theories therefore also includes the fight against real abuses of power. Otherwise, we ask citizens to be critical of everything except those who declaratively encourage them to be critical.

The author is a psychologist and public policy analyst with extensive professional experience gained in some of the most important international organizations, including OECD, UNESCO, EUROFOUND and CEDEFOP.

Sources:

[1] Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(1), 54-86. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.2

[2] Wood, T., & Porter, E. (2019). The elusive backfire effect: Mass attitudes' steadfast factual adherence. Political Behavior, 41(1), 135-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9443-y

[3] Uscinski, J., Enders, A., Klofstad, C., Seelig, M., Drochon, H., Premaratne, K., & Murthi, M. (2022). Have beliefs in conspiracy theories increased over time? PLOS ONE, 17(7), e0270429. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270429

[4] Mugoša, B., Ceccarelli, G., Begić, S., Vujošević, D., Zekovic, Z., Ciccozzi, M., & Vratnica, Z. (2022). Measles outbreak, Montenegro January-July 2018: Lessons learned. Journal of Medical Virology, 94(2), 514-520. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27377

[5] Hviid, A., Hansen, J. V., Frisch, M., & Melbye, M. (2019). Measles, mumps, rubella vaccination and autism: A nationwide cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 170(8), 513-520. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2101

[6] Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S., & Oreskes, N. (2023). Assessing ExxonMobil's global warming projections. Science, 379(6628), eabk0063. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0063

[7] Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Goldberg, B., Rathje, S., & Lewandowsky, S. (2022). Psychological inoculation improves resilience against misinformation on social media. Science Advances, 8(34), eabo6254. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo6254