#cognitive bias and distortion

[not-poignant]

Hi! I don't know if this has been asked yet. But reading falling falling stars, there's a bit where efnisien talks about how he was meant to be a culmination of the 'worst' parts of Crielle and penny (penny's brutality and Crielle's ability to control it). do you think instead he got the 'best' parts of them (beauty and brains) instead and is why he was still preferred to Gwyn, but not in the specific shape they wanted him in?

Hi anon,

I think Efnisien's assessment is understandable, but it's also like...just his thoughts about something, and not reflective of reality.

He didn't get the best or worst parts of Penny or Crielle. He was raised by abusers, and there were good things and terrible things in that household, but most of the things were terrible. Efnisien's beauty is 'fragile' because he was malnourished so badly, that's not a 'best' thing that he inherited from his family, that was something inflicted on him. His thinness is a symptom of his upbringing and abuse. His pretty face is genetics, he got that just as much from his ancestors as from Penny.

Likewise, his intelligence - as Crielle actually rightly points out - works against him often. It's not a 'best' part at all. People who are highly intellectual but raised in abusive homes often are prone to coping techniques like intellectualisation and catastrophisation, and highly intellectual people are actually more prone to mental illness. Efnisien's ability to think things through without wisdom or guidance or maturity meant he was able to convince himself that he was evil with far more complexity than what Crielle was saying, to reinforce everything she was saying.

These things are not 'best' traits for everyone, anon. Someone being 'ugly' is not the worst thing it's possible to be, and someone being intelligent isn't always the best. Crielle's intelligence was used to manipulate, torture, and sadistically brainwash Efnisien. Is that really her best quality? Her beauty was used to manipulate, deceive and convince people that she was harmless, because folks mistakenly think that 'beautiful' also means 'good' and 'pure' (they're wrong, but it's for this reason that attractive abusers are actually less likely to come to justice than 'ugly' ones). It wasn't one of her best qualities. And it also wasn't something she had a choice over. That's 100% down to genetics.

Also, he didn't inherit that from her anyway, he's Penny's son. And her beauty is also 100% down to genetics.

I'm very wary of attaching words like 'best' or 'good' to traits like beauty (subjective) and intelligence, anon. Like, philosophically, I would not say those were 'best traits' and nor where Penny and Crielle using these qualities in helpful, compassionate, useful, or caring ways. Efnisien didn't either for a long time. In fact he himself makes it clear that he used his prettiness and his beauty to deceive people, and this is why the story makes him look less pretty outside of scenes as the story goes on. He wears less handsome clothing, he wears more comfortable clothing, he doesn't make his hair fashionable any longer, etc.

The story itself is like 'uh, being beautiful and smart can still turn out psychopathic torturers.'

Not best traits, anon. Not worst traits either. Just things that exist, that are used as tools by people both consciously and unconsciously towards all ends. Be wary of thinking this way yourself anon, it sets up an unconscious bias towards believing that people who are ugly and not as smart are somehow 'worse' than people who are beautiful and intelligent.

And the world doesn't work like that at all.

[whatbigotspost]

I’m so genuinely tired of “all or nothing” thinking on this site.

I’ll be saying it until the day I die…most things in life are so much more complicated than good/bad binaries. Spending all your time trying to be “good” according to overly simplistic, false binaries is bound to fail you in the long run.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Cognitive Distortion in Thinking About Gender Issues: Gamma Bias and the Gender Distortion Matrix

By: Martin Seager and John A. Barry

Published: 2019

Introduction

The seed that grew into my (JB) interest in Male Psychology was planted at a seminar on clinical psychology during my undergraduate degree at a respected English university in the mid-1990s. The group had spent a lot of time exploring possible theory-based reasons for female depression (e.g. the female gender role leading to learned helplessness), but then swiftly glossed over the subject of high male suicide rates with a “humorous” remark: “men construct more lethal methods because they are better at DIY”. This raised a few giggles at the seminar, and the group quickly moved on to the next topic. However it struck me as odd that my educators—and psychologists in general—appeared to have little serious curiosity about the causes of a fatal issue like suicide. I presumed that this would change, but I heard the same DIY explanation in 2016 at a public talk on gender at LSE, also greeted with giggles from the audience. Clearly this phenomenon—a cognitive distortion involving the minimisation of the importance of male suicide to the point of near-invisibility—was difficult for people to overcome.

Cognitive distortions can be defined as “the result of processing information in ways that predictably result in identifiable errors in thinking” (Yurica et al. 2005). Since the 1960s, a growing number of distortions have been identified. Aaron T. Beck (1967) originally identified cognitive distortions in his work with depressed patients. The six errors he identified were: arbitrary inference; selective abstraction; overgeneralization; magnification and minimization; personalization; and absolutistic, dichotomous thinking. Since that time others have extended Beck’s list. In this chapter we are postulating a newly identified cognitive distortion, gamma bias.

Gamma Bias and the Gender Distortion Matrix

A range of examples of gamma bias are described in the gender distortion matrix, and they fall primarily under two categories: magnification and minimization. Magnification is defined as “the tendency to exaggerate or magnify either the positive or negative importance or consequence of some personal trait, event, or circumstance” (Yurica et al. 2005). Minimization is defined as “the process of minimizing or discounting the importance of some event, trait, or circumstance” (Yurica et al. 2005).

Table 1 describes the gender distortion matrix. It is a 2 × 2 matrix, and in each of the four cells, the experiences, behaviours or characteristics of men and women are either magnified or minimised. The matrix describes how it can be good or harmful to do certain things or receive certain experiences. Unlike either alpha bias (magnification) or beta bias (minimisation), each cell demonstrates that certain gender issues are both magnified and minimised. Whether an aspect of the gender issue is magnified or minimised depends upon whether the issue is related to men or women.

Table 1 The gender distortion matrix, describing examples of gamma bias i.e. situations in which aspects of our perceptions of men and women are magnified (upper case/italics) or minimised (lower case)

In this paper we argue that there is much evidence in everyday experience, and some in research, which supports the existence of gamma bias. Note that we do not suggest that gamma bias is eternal and unchangeable. To the degree that it is changeable, we suggest that it is very important that we rectify, or at least recognise, these distortions. When discussions of gender are distorted, this misshapes the narrative and warps our public attitudes, policies and conversations about gender. For example, as a result of widespread gamma bias we tend to believe that:

men are more harmful than helpful

women are more helpful than harmful

men are more privileged than disadvantaged

women are more disadvantaged than privileged.

Examples of Each Type of Distortion

We list below some preliminary examples of the very public ways that these distorted attitudes to gender are reinforced continually in the English-speaking or Western world. Examples will at this stage be brief and schematic, but hopefully sufficient to demonstrate the face validity of this new hypothesis, which will be subjected to rigorous empirical testing in research over the coming years.

Doing Good (Active Mode) (Celebration/ Appreciation)

Female Magnification

We celebrate women publicly—for their gender alone—in the archetypal realms of beauty, fashion, sexuality and motherhood.

The UN has got four days dedicated to women: International Day of Women and Girls in Science, International Women’s Day, International Day of Rural Women and International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women.

The Royal Society in the UK and other institutions worldwide have at various times held “Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon” days, when people are encouraged to add the names and achievements of women to Wikipedia, in order to make women in science more visible (Huffington Post 2012).

Suffragettes—female suffrage has been selectively celebrated in writings, films and the media as a gender issue, minimising the lack of suffrage for half of the male population in the same historical period.

The careers and achievements of women in science, politics, business and education are actively promoted and celebrated as a gender issue.

Women in the military and emergency services are celebrated for their gender and not just their actions.

Male Minimisation

We do not celebrate men collectively for their gender alone, only the particular achievements of individual men.

The UN has no special day to celebrate men. In many countries International Men’s Day has been celebrated on November 19th since around 2010, but this is not recognised by the UN.

The heroism within the military and the emergency services is often remarked upon in the news. However, the almost exclusively male gender of the heroes is not marked. In ceremonies to pay tribute to war heroes we acknowledge their brave deeds but not their masculine gender. We also include women when celebrating war sacrifice so that celebrations become gender-neutral rather than gender-specific. Recently, the rescue of a group of boys by male cave divers in Thailand was celebrated, but not marked as a gender issue or as an example of positive masculinity. In the Titanic disaster in 1912 most men were drowned (80%) but most women (75%) were saved. Men were clearly acting heroically to protect the women and children, but this, though a famous story, has not been celebrated as a story of positive masculinity.

Working class sacrifice—the complete physical infrastructure and security of the UK and other nations has been built and maintained almost exclusively by working class men. This is reflected in the fact that to this day in the UK men account for 96% of deaths at work. The same picture is found across the world. Clearly men continue to do the heavy, dirty and dangerous jobs in all societies. However, males who are builders, miners, firefighters, quarrymen, road workers, deep sea fishermen, scaffolders, steeplejacks, navvies and who occupy many other dangerous professions are not celebrated for their gender in a positive way. The image of male builders, for example, still tends to be more “wolf whistler” than “DIY SOS” hero.

Male suffrage—the vote for men has never been celebrated as a gender issue even though 44% men also only got the vote for the first time in 1918 and at a time when men had been sacrificed in large numbers in World War One for the protection of society.

We do not celebrate fatherhood or male childcare. Indeed in many ways public attitudes towards men as caregivers of children are negative, ambivalent and even suspicious, even amongst politicians (Dench 1996).

Male sexuality is typically viewed in public life and policy as a source of harm, threat, abuse and power. The joy and positivity of male sexuality is rarely celebrated today, except indirectly through the arts.

Doing Harm (Active Mode) (Perpetration/ Toxicity)

Male Magnification

Negative attitudes towards masculinity have become widely accepted in mainstream public discourse in recent years. In contrast to the “women are wonderful” effect (Eagly et al. 1991), contemporary men are subject to a “men are toxic” effect. The notion of “toxic masculinity” has emerged and has even gained widespread credence despite the lack of any empirical testing (see chapter on masculinity by Seager and Barry). In general terms it appears as if attitudes to men have been based on generalisations made from the most damaged and extreme individual males. An example of this is the case from 2016, when a young woman called India Chipchase was raped and murdered. There were two men in her story: the rapist/murderer, and her grieving father who movingly stated “I will never get to walk my daughter down the aisle”. However, the media attention following this tragic event focussed almost exclusively on a sense of urgent need to teach boys and men in general to respect women. This suggests that in terms of public attitudes, the rapist/murderer was being viewed as more representative of masculinity than the victim’s father.

The concept of ‘rape culture’ has also developed and gained credibility, originating in the USA in the 1970s. However, in 2012 figures for the USA as a whole show that 0.6% of adult males had been registered for sexual offences (including rape), meaning that 99.4% were not. Even allowing for some inevitable under-representation, and whilst recognising that one rape is one too many, the evidence suggests that the vast majority of adult males are not sexually violent or dangerous. The public perception, however, is very different, especially in an age of “#MeToo” and “Enough is enough”.

In the UK and elsewhere the image of domestic violence and intimate partner violence (IPV) is almost exclusively one of male perpetrators and female victims. This is reflected in “treatment” approaches to IPV such as the “Duluth model” which is aimed exclusively at males (see chapter by Powney and Graham-Kevan). It is also reflected in the provision of places in refuges for victims of IPV. In 2010 in the UK, for example, whilst male victims accounted for at least 33% of IPV victims, less than 1% of a total of 7650 refuge places were available for men. Research evidence of equal levels of IPV by females (e.g. Archer 2000) is still not being reflected in public attitudes in this area (Seager 2019, in this volume Chapter 12).

Female Minimisation

We have already seen (above) that evidence of equivalent levels of domestic and IPV by females (e.g. Archer 2000) is not reflected in public attitudes or policies.

There is evidence that women receive less severe sentences for the same crimes (e.g. Starr 2012; Mustard 2001).

The high level of online emotional abuse by women (cyber-bullying) (e.g. Marcum et al. 2012) is not reflected in public attitudes or policies.

52% of men in a sample of high-security prisoners who had committed serious offences against women and had been sexually abused in childhood were found to have been abused by female abusers acting independently of men (Murphy 2018). However, the picture of sexual abuse portrayed in the media does not reflect this complex gender picture of sexual abuse. Those who propose a social transmission theory of “toxic masculinity” would have to take account of the fact that male children spend significantly more of the developing years in the company of adult females than adult males.

Parental alienation, a diagnosis newly added to the ICD-11, is a form of child abuse involving one parent alienating their child from the other. Evidence has long shown that the father is more often the victim and the mother the perpetrator (e.g. Bala et al. 2010). Briggs, in another chapter in this volume, also shows examples of clinical cases in which mothers have alienated children from fathers prior to psychotherapeutic intervention.

Receive Good (Passive Mode) (or Privilege)

Male Magnification

The whole sociological concept of “patriarchy” (see also chapter on masculinity by Barry and Seager) is predicated on the idea that it is a “man’s world”. Specifically, society is viewed as inherently privileging and advantageous for men and organised in ways that empower men and disempower and exclude women. This bold and sweeping hypothesis has received widespread acceptance despite being subject to relatively little academic evaluation, let alone being subject to empirical testing as a scientific hypothesis. This uncritical acceptance of a radical theory by mainstream society in itself indicates that gender distortions may be in operation on a large scale. The concept of patriarchy focuses on an elite group of more powerful and wealthy males, whilst minimising the vast majority of men who are working class men, homeless men, parentally alienated men, suicidal men and other relatively disadvantaged male groups. It also minimises the benefits and protections involved in motherhood, family and domestic life for many women including the potential joys and rewards of raising children. Also the concept of patriarchy minimises the hardships of the traditional male role, such as fighting in wars, lower life expectancy, higher risk-taking and working in dangerous occupations.

Young women in the UK are now in fact earning more on average than their male counterparts (see below), yet the gender pay gap is misunderstood and presented as an example of women’s oppression, primarily because of dubious and selective methods of measuring and comparing pay. Even when men are earning more, there are other “trade-offs” and risks that men choose to take on that confer counterbalancing disadvantages (Farrell 2005). However, the public perception and emotional outrage on gender pay are out of proportion to the actual differences that emerge if the matter is analysed more scientifically.

Female Minimisation

As we saw above, there is evidence that women receive less severe sentences for the same crimes (e.g. Starr 2012; Mustard 2001). Women also enjoy better health and living conditions than men (Carcedo et al. 2008). Mothers who are prisoners also enjoy better access to their children than fathers who are prisoners (Collins et al. 2011). And yet in terms of public perception there is an image of women being “oppressed in a male-centric prison system” (e.g. Baroness Corston in The Guardian 2018).

In OECD countries at the present time significantly more young women than young men graduate from school and college. According to figures supplied by the Guardian newspaper (2017), for every 13 girls who entered university, only 10 boys did so. The education gap has seen boys fall behind girls in the UK since the 1980s, and 30 years later it has become usual for women in their 20s to be earning more than their male peers, and has been for some years (Guardian 2015). There are still more male senior academics and professors than female in academia, but apart from this 0.3% of jobs at the top of the educational hierarchy, the rest of the hierarchy—from primary school onwards—favours females (Brown 2016).

Parental privilege—it is a widespread practice in many countries that in legal cases of parental dispute over child custody, sole custody is awarded to mothers rather than fathers almost by default.

Maternity privilege—when children are born, antenatal, perinatal and postnatal services are highly female-centric and the role of the father is generally not thought about or included. The assumption is that fathers are not as important to children as mothers.

Protection—we have seen (above) that both in times of war and peace women enjoy the protection of men at times of great threat.

Elsewhere in this volume (Chapter 10) Belinda Brown presents evidence indicating that females enjoy power and privileges within the domestic and household domain.

Receive Bad (Passive Mode) (or Victimhood)

Male Minimisation

Men across the globe have a significantly lower average life expectancy than women. As we have also seen (above) men account for almost all deaths at work both in the UK and other nations. However, in terms of public attitudes and beliefs, these facts are relatively invisible. Certainly, no concept of a “gender death gap” has been proposed.

Although there are signs of this changing, for years there has been less investment in prostate cancer than breast cancer, even though the rates of death caused by each are similar (around 10,000 per year for each in the UK).

The vast majority of rough sleepers (85% in the UK) are male but there are no gender policies to address this.

Boys have been falling behind girls in education since the 1980s. Boys are now in the UK around a third less likely to attend university than girls. This however has met with no political action and has never been referred to as the “gender education gap”.

In almost every country across the world men kill themselves at a higher rate than women do. This is now starting to be recognised, but research into suicide and services for those at risk have remained relatively “gender-blind” (Seager, in this volume Chapter 12).

When in distress, women tend to want to talk about their feelings whereas men tend to want to fix whatever is causing the distress (Holloway et al. 2018). However our mental health services are delivered in a “gender blind” way, so that treatment options that might suit men better are rarely considered (Liddon et al. 2017).

Issues that impact males more than females such as colour blindness (in 8% of boys and 0.5% girls), tend to be overlooked, despite the significant impact on QoL (Barry et al. 2017). For example, although coloured graphs are difficult for colour blind students to read, a large educational board in the UK recently declined to make graphs in exam papers more colour blind friendly.

Bedi et al. (2016) found that there are significantly more psychology papers dedicated to women and women’s issues compared to men and men’s issues.

Field experiments of domestic violence show that bystanders intervene if the victim is a woman, but keep walking—or even laugh—when the victim is male and the perpetrator female (e.g. ABC News 2010).

In Nigeria in 2014, 300 female students were kidnapped by the terror group Boko Haram, prompting an international outcry. At the same time, however, and in the same country, as many as 10,000 boys were abducted and many even murdered. However, this even greater outrage went almost completely unnoticed in the media.

Whilst female genital mutilation (FGM) has rightly received widespread condemnation, male genital mutilation (MGM) has been relatively ignored, despite evidence of harm caused to those who are circumcised.

Female Magnification

We have already seen (above) that in the field of domestic violence and IPV, the emphasis is largely on female victims and treatments for male perpetrators, when the reality is that both genders are equally capable of such abuses (Archer 2000; Fiebert 2010).

We have also seen (above) that the concept of “rape culture” exaggerates the perception of men as potential rapists and creates a climate of fear for women. Campaigns such as “#MeToo” can also play into a sense of fear that is based on distorted generalisations from small samples of damaged men to the whole male population.

The Boko Haram example (above) provides strong evidence that there are much greater empathy levels for females than for males. Correspondingly, our sense of female victimhood is magnified and our sense of outrage is increased by virtue of the gender of the victim rather than the crime.

Why Do These Gender Distortions Exist?

It is challenging to think about the possible adaptive function of biases and errors, but an adaptive value helps us to understand their existence, as well as absolving people of blame for holding them. Haselton et al. (2015) highlight some of the adaptive functions of cognitive biases, and suggest that our evolved adaptive responses can sometimes act against our self-interest when faced with novel modern rules.

Why We Favour Women

The “women are wonderful” effect (Eagly et al. 1991) predicts a type of “halo effect” for women. This effect means that we magnify women in the Do/Good cell. This might involve a certain amount of what Beck (1979) call emotional reasoning, where one’s emotional state guides conclusions about self and others. Such views would be expected if the effect is the result of positive views about women being created from positive early experiences with mothers and other female caregivers. It also makes sense that women are more valuable than men, because of their importance in reproduction. A very basic way of understanding this is to think about the question of which hypothetical village would have the better chance of survival: the one with 100 women and one man or the village with 100 men and one woman? The answer to the question demonstrates the unquestionable value of women to human survival.

Why We Disfavour Men

On an evolutionary level, males can be seen as the providers of protection, not the recipients of protection (Seager et al. 2016). It makes sense that someone should have the role of protecting offspring, and also protect those who give birth to and nurture the offspring. Thus social attitudes would have been calibrated accordingly over many thousands of years to associate femininity with nurturing and vulnerability and masculinity with protection and strength. Because of this, it would be more difficult—both unconsciously and consciously—to feel the same level of emotional sympathy for a male than a female. For the man, it might also therefore be difficult to deviate from the script of the protector and seek help. By the same token, it might also be difficult for society to see men as victims rather than protectors.

Another explanation, which is probably an extension to the previous rather than an alternative explanation, is derived from research in social psychology. The phenomenon of ingroup favouritism and outgroup bias is a cornerstone of social psychology. The strength of such biases vary by group e.g. it is well-established that higher-status groups invoke more ingroup bias (e.g. Nosek et al. 2002). Men in general (historically and cross-culturally) have had higher status than women in the public realm (politics, finance etc.), so one might expect that male identity invokes a high level of ingroup bias. However research shows that—uniquely in social identity theory—male identity, unlike female identity, invokes no significant ingroup bias (e.g. Richeson and Ambady 2001).

Men support each other effectively when the identity is based on something other than being male (e.g. football teams), but how do we explain the incohesive effect of male identity? There are several possibilities. For example, it could be that because infant attachment mostly happens with mothers, this programmes for greater bias towards women in later life (Rudman 2004). Similarly, it could be that men are stereotypically more associated with violence and aggression and thus invoke less sympathy even from each other (Rudman and Goodwin 2004).

It is likely that seeing men as protectors rather than receivers of protection leads to a lack of sympathetic bias in their favour, and leads to male gender blindness (Seager et al. 2014), the phenomenon where men’s problems go relatively unseen. This in turn facilitates the gender empathy gap, the phenomenon where males receive less empathy than females, even when in a similar predicament (Barry 2016).

Intersectionality as Male Gender Blindness

According to a much-cited paper by Professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies, Stephanie Shields, “Intersectionality, the mutually constitutive relations amongst social identities, is a central tenet of feminist thinking and has transformed how gender is conceptualised in research” (Shields 2008, p. 301). According to this view, men are historically privileged and therefore don’t generally deserve help or attention unless they are also members of another historically oppressed, disempowered and marginalised group (e.g. gay, BAME or disabled men). Intersectionality is therefore sometimes used as a way of criticising or devaluing efforts to understand issues facing men in general by deflecting attention exclusively onto specific marginalised sub-groups of men, and so minimising the importance of universal issues facing men.

On one level, the idea of intersectionality has merit in the same way that interactions in ANOVA help identify interesting differences between subgroups of the main variable. But there is one major flaw with the intersectional level of analysis when it comes to understanding male psychology: there is a main effect of being male that runs through all levels of the variable. For example, when it comes to suicide, not only do men in general kill themselves more frequently than women, but BAME men kill themselves more frequently than BAME women (Oquendo et al. 2001), and gay men attempt to kill themselves more frequently than gay women (Bagley and Tremblay 2000). Similarly, the academic underperformance of boys cuts across all social strata and geographies (Curnock-Cook 2016). We should note that firm statistics are not always available related to demographic groups, but what evidence there is tends to support the idea that men in general, not just specific demographics of men, need our help. “Drilling down” into data can be enlightening, but focusing on a single tree might not tell us much about the forest. Focusing on specific issues facing subgroups is of value to the individuals in these groups, but should not be used to distract attention when we are trying to understand wider issues in male psychology.

There are various ways in which male gender blindness is both a cause and effect of the ways we study gender. For example, it can be argued that the concept of “masculinities” is largely based on subjective judgements by theorists trying to make the case for alternatives ‘hegemonic’ masculinity. Interestingly, at the same time as magnifying different varieties of masculinity, these theorists tend to minimize difference between men and women, an approach which is a type of gamma bias (see chapter on gamma bias by Seager and Barry). Moreover, in attempting to identify multiple versions of masculinity, theorists run the risk of obscuring masculinity as a unitary phenomenon. This means that focusing only on a plurality of “masculinities” doesn’t help us address more general issues related to masculinity and may even distract us from doing so.

By looking at men only in terms of the other sub-groups that their gender intersects with, there is in truth the great danger that we will miss the wider gender issues altogether. By defining men only in terms of their sub-group identities (e.g. by race or sexuality) without honouring their collective group identity as a gender, the needs of men of all kinds are likely to be overlooked. If men across various demographic groups, for example, appear to respond in a similar way to therapy (as suggested by Groth in his chapter on existential therapy), then it is likely that the concept of intersectionality is of much less practical or clinical value than the underlying concept of gender itself.

Like the blind man who touches the elephant’s tail and then thinks an elephant is like a snake, those who dismiss the idea that men in general need help are committing the cognitive bias of selective abstraction: instead of appreciating the whole picture, they focus on just one part of it. If science is to understand the problems facing men, scientific investigation needs to examine how some discussions about gender tend to distort the issues, making some parts of the picture invisible and magnifying others as if they were the whole picture.

Unconscious Bias Revisited

Some or all of the phenomena described in the cells of the matrix can be considered types of unconscious bias. Distorted narratives that put men perpetually in the role of toxic abuser, risk alienating men from themselves and others, leading to what might be called a state of gender alienation. As pointed out by Damien Ridge in his chapter in this book: “the disconnection between theoretical discussions and the daily reality of men promotes a poverty of understanding of male subjectivity... Masculinity has essentially become what different theorists and their followers say it is”, and something that probably means little to the average man.

The Patriarchy Revisited

Essentially, patriarchy theory (Walby 1990) is a distorted and untested way of explaining the differences we observe in the reproduction-based division of labour. For example, women are seen as oppressed by the role of “housewife”, and men are seen as liberated in the role of “breadwinner”. However this is not the only way of viewing traditional gender roles. For example, Dench (1996) suggests that women can have a much more rewarding role in the private realm, and men can have a much harder time in the dangerous, dirty and soulless world of the workplace. Dench also suggests that the idea of the traditional male role as desirable rather than a burden was a way to encourage men to accept a supporting role in society, one that is ultimately of lesser value. Similarly, Van Creveld in his book The Privileged Sex (van Creveld 2013) hypothesises that women have always had privileges (e.g. ‘women and children first’, less dangerous jobs) and that this is something that most people unquestioningly accept as a good thing.

Nobody’s life is without suffering, but the suggestion that women have been oppressed by the patriarchy is at best an untested theory and at worst a damaging distortion. At best, it is like looking at the famous rabbit/duck illusion and claiming that there is only a rabbit and no duck, or that the rabbit is being oppressed by the duck. Once evolutionary biology is honoured rather than dismissed, it can be seen that the traditional family structure is based primarily on reciprocal and evolved reproductive roles. Thus the greatest influence on the balance of gender relations, is perhaps none other than the great matriarch herself, “mother nature”.

Criticism of the Preliminary Evidence of Gamma Bias

The evidence that we have presented above might be criticised on the grounds of confirmatory bias i.e. the tendency to select only information that supports your view. At the time of writing (August 2018), gamma bias is being presented as a hypothesis that promises to explain broad patterns of data in relation to how issues of gender are perceived, expressed and responded to both in academia and elsewhere in life. The examples we have provided are incomplete and inevitably selective, but we are confident that they offer preliminary support for the existence of gamma bias.

Future Research

The gender distortion matrix offers many examples of how the gamma bias hypothesis can be tested. As we write, a new research programme is being organised by the Male Psychology Network, and no doubt our hypothesis will be modified in light of the findings. To enhance ecological validity, real-world examples might be found in newspapers (e.g. the Boka Haram comparison) or the cinema, and assessed. The same principle might be expanded to academic writing and work. It might even be possible to quantify the degree of distortion within a given news article or academic paper. These are just some very basic ideas which we are happy to see others elaborate upon.

Conclusions

In academia, beta-bias and the gender similarities hypothesis are encouraged to such a degree that the term “sex differences” now has an air of controversy, and to point out differences between men and women is considered somewhat distasteful. Perhaps a more acceptable term than “sex differences” is “gender distinctions” (Lemkey et al. 2016) with its connotations that both genders have attributes that are unique and positive.

There is a serious risk arising from using terms such as “toxic masculinity”. Unlike “male depression”, which helps identify a set of symptoms that can be alleviated with therapy, the term “toxic masculinity” has no clinical value. In fact it is an example of another cognitive distortion called labelling (Yurica et al. 2005). Negative labelling and terminology usually have a negative impact, including self-fulfilling prophecies and alienation of the groups who are being labelled. We wouldn’t use the term “toxic” to describe any other human demographic. Such a term would be unthinkable with reference to age, disability, ethnicity or religion. The same principle of respect must surely apply to the male gender. It is likely therefore that developing a more realistic and positive narrative about masculinity in our culture will be a good thing for everyone.

==

We sometimes imagine what the world would be like if we'd never had religion.

Imagine what the world would be like if Gender Studies and feminism had studied evolutionary biology, evolutionary anthropology and evolutionary psychology. If we understood men and women, male and female, though actual science, evidence and empiricism, rather than fundamentalist quasi-religious adherence to superstitions about invisible demonic forces and cabals of secret conspiracists.

Reminder that Implicit Association Tests as used in DEI training are famously unreliable. Part of it is that they're keyed to only a single variable, typically race, and have extremely low replicability. And the people conducting them are quacks and frauds. The same test, when taken again by the same person, yields radically different results. It functions as little more than dowsing.

However, when other variables are controlled for, the one and only consistently reproducible implicit bias is pro-female/anti-male bias.

[anarchyroll]

Be Aware of #CognitiveDistortions

Every day I have a reminder of my phone set to go off that says “I am Aware of Cognitive Distortions”. It only goes off once per day. I could probably use another two or three…dozen reminders over the course of the day, as could most people. Cognitive distortions or perceiving reality inaccurately, is as natural and normal and easy and automatic as breathing. Is it possible for people to not…

[paranormal-playground-podcast]

The Role of Suggestion and Expectation in Hauntings: Investigating the Power of Belief and Perception

The realm of the paranormal is a complex interplay of reported experiences, scientific inquiry, and cultural beliefs. Among the many factors that contribute to the perception of hauntings, suggestion and expectation play a significant role. This article delves into the fascinating influence of these psychological forces on paranormal phenomena, exploring how our beliefs and expectations can shape…

[0illuminated1]

Belief is Uncertainty - How Holding onto Belief Distorts Reality and Fuels Cognitive Bias

In this video, we explore the powerful link between belief and uncertainty. Belief is Uncertainty reveals how holding onto beliefs, whether conscious or unconscious, distorts our perception of reality. When we believe something, we’re admitting that we don’t know it for sure, leading us into cognitive bias and false conclusions. This video explains why suspending belief is crucial for breaking free from mental filters and seeing the world as it truly is. Learn how to identify the beliefs that are clouding your judgment and discover how to approach truth without the distortion of uncertainty.

[brainspiraling]

You don't know any better, but this doesn't absolve you for not even trying to—not really, not doing what you knew, or should've known would actually help make the difference.

There is no possibility of success when you don't actually try, however the amount when you do.

If you assume you will fail, it often (not always) becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[calicojack1718]

The Media's Role in Making Trump a Viable Acceptable Candidate: the Mere Exposure Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias

Reading time: 6 minutes Given that Trump led the 6 January Insurrection and that his sheer incompetence in the pandemic killed a million people, how could he be considered an acceptable and viable candidate by anyone but fascists much less the media?

SUMMARY: This post explores how cognitive biases and heuristics—specifically the mere exposure effect, availability heuristic, and confirmation bias—shape media narratives surrounding Trump. It highlights how repeated exposure to false claims can distort perceptions, leading both the public and reporters to accept these lies as truth. The post emphasizes that journalists, under pressure to meet…

[mde-creative-video]

People can deceive themselves

[darksisterk]

Hotd's Fandom Interpretation/Cognitive Dissonance

The fact that the Dance in Fire & Blood was recounted by biased maesters and yet even they couldn't resist praising the character of Rhaenyra's elder sons. Everyone knows them. The Velaryon boys—which are, arguably, some of the most controversial characters of the Dance in both canon and fandom.

Let's talk about them.

These so-called prejudiced maesters did not have to state themselves, that Jacaerys had proven himself worthy of the Iron Throne at only fourteen years of age.

They did not have to favor the Velaryon sons by acknowledging the fact that they were simultaneously, bold, savvy, and fiercely loyal...

That the lords of Westeros were practically vying to wed their daughters to one of them.

Or the fact that Rhaenyra and Daemon's eldest son, Aegon iii worshipped his three elder brothers, even after they were nothing but ash and memory to him.

No, it didn't say he worshipped his mother, the Black Queen. Nor his father, the Rogue Prince. He revered his elder brothers like no other, regardless of the matter of their birth.

They didn't have to include Daemon—the infamous Rogue Prince's "An eye for an eye, a son for a son, Lucerys shall be avenged." Lucerys' death that Daemon avenged by stabbing Aemond through the same eye Luke had taken, years prior. A poetic cycle come to fruition.

In spite of how these young men were confronted with much bigotry and prejudice on the account of their blood, they remained true to their design. Strong..as it were. Not only did they face familial dogmatism in canon events...in fiction. But they are faced with it on an ongoing basis. In fandom. In reality. As characters in a story. As an idea, a thought, a distortion in belief.

All of this goes to say that once again, fiction reflects people's tendency toward cognitive dissonance. That it is a struggle for us to hold two thoughts, conflicting or not, at once. George R.R. Martin's carefully crafted world of gray characters is too much for some to handle.

The truth of the matter is something that causes disparity in this fandom to a severe degree. That these characters were many things.

That they were collectively Velaryon, Targaryen, and yes...Strong. They were bastards, and yet they were still legitimate heirs. That they had "dirty blood" to some and were loved, admired, and revered by others. That they had grown to be something that many in their lifetime never actualize, and yet they died young.

The reality is that the Dance was tragic and many of its victims— Green and Black, died young. So who knows what would have become of these characters had they been able to develop into adulthood. But isn't that what fandom is for? We thrive in the unknown as much as the known. That's what imagination is for.

In essence, the argument of which side/characters of the Dance are more "interesting" falls short. Each side is equally fascinating in their own right. So don't let fandom's echo chamber of confirmation bias let you miss out on some pretty damn captivating characters and themes. Come exist in the world of shades of gray and complexities, it is much more satisfying.

[sphacelating]

i genuinely want to scream. the game ( the coffin of andy and leyley ) impacted me. it's so freaking depressing to imagine the pain of andrew and ashley endured for years under neglect, mainly when they've been abandoned. do you think it's possible to heal them with therapy and psychatry ? what do you think nemlei will reveal in the next chapter ?

i talked about this in a reply to an ask a while ago, mainly based on my own experiences in the mental healthcare system with the absurd amount of trauma i have and the depressing truth for many is that therapy and psychiatry cannot fix a brain that didn’t develop right for shit. the damage is very much neurological, as in shows up on a brain scan, it’s not just cognitive distortion and cognitive bias where you can redirect bad thought patterns, retrain your brain to let go of maladaptive associations and behaviors and utilize adaptive strategies.

it’s reduced thickness in the prefrontal cortex, it’s smaller hippocampal volume, it’s underdeveloped receptors, and so on. therapy cannot fix these defects. when your brain is fully developed already, the foundation is rotten. an intervention in childhood can reverse this to an extent— the brain is still malleable in, say, an eight year old. an adult brain is not.

you have to build everything you become on top of that foundation. imagine it as a house abandoned and unfinished, if you will, fuck if i know, it’s the best analogy i’ve got. you’ll always be that person, but you can certainly grow and become way more than the incomplete traumatized individual your childhood left you with.

so. do i think this is possible for andrew and ashley? i know it is considering i have done the work and been through that hell myself and grown into a way more functional and well-adjusted adult than i was. the twenty five or so therapists that have picked my brain through most of my life sure as hell didn’t do that. i chose to do the work and grow as a person. my wife and i dodged our splat and shots routes because we wanted to build a life together rather than be the end of each other. if it wasn’t for her, god knows where i’d still be.

if you cannot tell, i love my wife.

as for what nemlei will reveal, i prefer to not speculate too much as i have frankly no idea. @sunshine-jesse may be more equipped than i am to answer that question, as she has plenty of interesting theories.

[brightlotusmoon]

I decided to see a therapist to help me “adjust” to this dislocation of the middle-class professional I thought I was. Pete has me going for walks and cultivating gratitude for the things I do have. He talks to me about “catastrophizing,” the “recency bias” as a cognitive distortion, “all-or-nothing-thinking” and “fortune telling.” I’m guilty of all of them. He suggests broadening my possibilities by “thinking out of the box.” All I can think is I’ll be living in one if things don’t pick up soon. I am determined, though, to use this as a learning opportunity. I’ve only come up with “having no money totally sucks” and “more people than ever in America are in the same boat.”

So, forgive me if I have a hard time when I see tech giants sitting down for interviews wearing $900,000 watches or hear billionaire broligarchs extolling the virtues of belt-tightening sacrifice. Read the room, dudes. Millions of hard-working Americans are barely scraping by — and cutting SNAP, Medicaid or Social Security certainly won’t help.

I try to remain optimistic by telling myself more productive fairy tales about the way the universe works. Maybe I’ll write a book about this. Maybe I’ll win the lottery. Maybe I’ll sell a quart of macaroni salad so delicious that the customer immediately offers me a copywriting job in an advertising agency.

I don’t mind selling out. The problem right now is nobody’s buying.

[evidence-based-activism]

are there any studies on why women stay with abusive partners or what's the best way to help them?

I know the common reasons of financial dependence, fear of social backlash or lack of support system, etc. but I was looking for something more comprehensive. I know someone irl who doesn't face this common barriers but is still not leaving or accepting help to leave.

Hello! Given the topic, I'm moving this ask to the top of my queue. Anon, I hope this helps you! I may be reviewing some information you already know, but I think it's important for others who may not be aware.

Women stay in abusive relationships for a myriad of interconnected factors. I'll start with some research reviews on this topic:

This 2023 review of 10 qualitative studies [1] found the most commonly cited reasons women gave for remaining in a violent relationship were: feeling pessimistic about new relationships, feeling the relationships still provided for their need for affection, having positive experiences in the relationship, being dependent (i.e., materially or emotionally) on the partner, still having a positive view of their partner, feeling trapped, feeling social pressure to remain in the relationship, believing the conflict is normal, and feeling dating violence is taboo among some other factors. Together this suggests women remain in these relationships either because they justify or minimize the abuse (positive experiences, fulfill affection needs, normal conflict, etc.) or because they feel unable to leave or find a better alternative (social pressure, dependence, pessimism about other relationships, etc.).

This 2021 review of 14 studies [2] found "investment in the relationship, commitment, and the existence of structural barriers (e.g., with no own income) were negatively correlated with the breakup." This suggests that, beyond material needs, the sunk cost fallacy [3] is playing a role. Essentially, the sunk cost fallacy is a common cognitive bias that makes us feel as though we must continue investing resources in something (like a relationship) because we already devoted so many resources to it. Women in a committed abusive relationship may find it difficult to leave simply because they have already invested so much time and effort into the relationship.

This 2013 review [4] supports this idea, arguing that "while personal and contextual reasons for remaining in a relationship are important, we argue that factors such as the commitment process may be the most difficult to overcome." This is essentially the same argument as above, but discusses other potential mechanisms behind this, like the "Foot-in-the-Door effect and cognitive dissonance."

This 2005 dissertation [5] includes a section on the reasons women gave for staying in the relationship, including material deficiencies (e.g., no personal income, no safe place to retreat to, etc.), cognitive distortions about themselves (e.g., feelings of guilt or shame, feeling they deserved the abuse, etc.), cognitive distortions about the violence (e.g., believing it was normal conflict, minimizing the impact of the abuse, etc.), and beliefs about other people (e.g., believing the abuser would eventually change, fearing their family's reactions, believing no one else would make them happy, etc.). They also note that themes in women's choice to leave included: the impact of the abuse on their children, a shift in their sense of self-efficacy, an escalation in violence, and their partner's infidelity.

This 2003 review [6] also indicates that both structural (i.e., material) factors and psychological factors (like the ones discussed above) play a role in women's decisions to stay. External resources appear to be particularly important (i.e., leaving is unlikely if she has no external resources even if she wants to leave), but after those are taken into account, psychological factors play a large role in their decisions to stay.

This 1998 review [7] describes the same types of factors. They also note that "many women have two conflicting emotions; they are tired of being afraid and wish to leave the relationship, but they also fear for their physical safety and that of their children if they try to leave their abusive partner." Unfortunately, this assessment is often accurate; continual harassment (sometimes through the legal system or their children) is common for women who have escaped an abusive relationship.

Some additional studies:

This 2015 study [8] analyzing social media posts found women's reasons for staying included themes of: distortions surrounding the violence (e.g., minimizing or rationalizing the abuse), low self-worth, fear of the abuser, a desire to save or help their partner, the presence of children, their family's expectations, and financial issues. In contrast, reasons for leaving included themes of: changed views on themselves or their relationships (e.g., realizing they deserved better or their partner would never change), receiving external support, feeling the need to protect their children, and fearing the escalation of violence.

This 2010 study [9] discusses types of beliefs about their relationships that are associated with leaving or staying. For example, they found conceptualizing the abuser with a "dual identity" (i.e., a good man who sometimes "turns into" a bad guy) was associated with staying, whereas believing being alone rather than in a bad relationship was associated with leaving. They have many other examples, but the essential point is that women are influenced not just by their circumstances but their beliefs surrounding those circumstances.

This 2006 longitudinal study [10] found seeking and not receiving outside help was associated with remaining in an abusive relationship.

This 2017 thesis [11] describes a "model ... for why women leave abusive relationships." The model steps “include gaining education to acknowledge red flags, awareness of the quality of alternatives, and realizing individual unhappiness.”

In other words, both material contextual factors like economic support and internal psychological factors help explain women's decisions to leave or stay with an abusive partner. Many of these psychological factors are based on common cognitive distortions. In other words, these factors are not unique to women in abusive relationships; instead, they are common among the general population. They should not be considered an explanation for why a woman is in an abusive relationship, but a partial explanation for why a woman may stay in an abusive relationship.

---

Now, what can someone do to help a woman in an abusive relationship? It's an unfortunate truth that you often have to wait for the woman to be ready to leave herself. In particular, if the reason she is staying is one or more of the psychological factors discussed above, you cannot change the way she thinks about her situation.

Anon, I know you mentioned this isn't relevant to you, but for others: on the other hand, if the woman is ready to leave but restricted by material factors, then you can help immensely by providing material assistance.

Making a clear and unqualified offer of material assistance, should she ever need it in the future, will also likely be invaluable for a woman who is not yet ready to leave. Her material resources will likely decrease the longer she is in the relationship. As such, this offer may become helpful to her in the future. It’s important that this offer is not conditional (i.e., does not require her to act in a specific way or timeframe).

So, what can you do for someone who isn't ready to leave? These suggestions are based on statements from various domestic violence organizations, which all have slightly different worldviews. For examples, see [12-14], but you can likely find similar resources from an organization with your preferred worldview. (Or the worldview of the woman in the relationship.) I am also drawing from the book "Why Does He Do That?" by Lundy Bancroft [15]. (Also, Anon, I am using the general "you" here.)

You cannot force someone to leave, nor should you try. One of the central components to an abusive relationship is the control the abuser exerts over their victim. The victim is left feeling helpless, like she has no control over her life or her choices. Helping her regain a feeling of control over her life is a vital component for helping her eventually escape the relationship. This cannot be achieved by forcing her to leave, persistently arguing, or confronting her abuser, as all of these deprive her of further control.

Offer and provide emotional support (e.g., listening to her feelings, commiserating with her complaints, and taking her side in arguments).

Use supportive language. Don't say anything that could convey blame or disbelief (e.g., "What did you do to provoke him?", "That doesn't sound like him?", etc.) or judgment about her choices (e.g., "I always told you I hated him.", "I told you so.", etc.)

Maintaining contact with the victim. Abusers try to isolate their victims, so maintaining steady contact even if she seems to "drift away" will help prevent him from managing to fully isolate her. This is also another reason to try and avoid direct conflict or arguments with either her or her abuser. Abusers are skilled at manipulating people's interpretations of events; a well-meaning argument from you about how she "has to leave or he'll hurt her" will turn into "she's trying to drive us apart because she hates that you're happy" (or some other twisted interpretation) which he’ll use to isolate her from you.

In a similar vein, abusers do not just manipulate their victims; they manipulate the people around them as well. Women often recount being characterized as dramatic, crazy, or even abusive by their abusers, and the people around them often believe the abuser because he acts "rational" (around them) while she seems to break down or blow up over "little things" (in response to a sequence of unobserved abuse). All of this is to say, never assume the abuser's rendition of events is accurate, even if you don’t understand her behavior. Further, make sure she knows you'll help her even if she does do something wrong. (An abuser can often convince his victim that she has done something wrong. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant at that point; what is important is ensuring she knows you will help her regardless.)

If she is amenable, help her create a safety or escape plan. If she is not, do your best to prepare some things for her. For example, making a "go bag" with clothes, toiletries, cash, and supplies for her children or pets if relevant; gathering information on the process for obtaining a legal help or non-profit resources in your area; having records of some helpful resources phone numbers and a prepaid phone; etc.

Don't confront her abuser. This will put both you and her into danger.

If you have reason to believe she is in imminent danger (i.e., at risk of death or serious injury at that specific moment) then you should call the police. Calling the police outside of such situations will not help. They are unlikely to help her improve the situation when there is not clear and immediate evidence of abuse that would lead to his incarceration (i.e., the imminent danger mentioned) and it can both anger the abuser (putting her in further danger) and threaten your continued relationship with her.

In summary, maintain a relationship with the victim, support the victim emotionally and – if possible – materially, and do not exacerbate the situation by provoking the abuser. Most importantly, while it is understandable for you to be desperate to help her, you must not try to control her decisions. You cannot make her leave; she must choose to do so herself. You can only support her in the meantime.

I hope this helps you, Anon! I hope the person you know is able to leave soon.

References under the cut:

Swasti, N. K. C., Swandi, N. L. I. D., & Wulanyani, N. M. S. (2023). Reasons for Women to Stay in Violent Dating Relationships: Literature Review. Sinergi International Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 46-56.

Murta, S. G., & Parada, P. D. O. (2021). Leaving violent intimate relationships: a literature review. Psicologia USP, 32, e200046.

Gould, Wendy Rose. “The Sunk Cost Fallacy: How It Affects Your Decisions.” Verywell Mind, 7 Feb. 2023, https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-sunk-cost-fallacy-7106851.

Dare, B., Guadagno, R., & Nicole Muscanell, M. A. (2013). Commitment: The key to women staying in abusive relationships. Journal of interpersonal relations, intergroup relations and identity, 6, 58-64.

Brandt, J. E. (2005). Why she left: The psychological, relational, and contextual variables that contribute to a woman's decision to leave an abusive relationship. City University of New York.

Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2003). Leaving an abusive partner: An empirical review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being. Trauma, violence, & abuse, 4(2), 163-191.

Landenburger, K. M. (1998). The Dynamics of Leaving and Recovering from an Abusive Relationship. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 27(6), 700–706. doi:10.1111/j.1552-6909.1998.tb02641.x 

Cravens, J. D., Whiting, J. B., & Aamar, R. O. (2015). Why I stayed/left: An analysis of voices of intimate partner violence on social media. Contemporary Family Therapy, 37, 372-385.

Baly, A. R. (2010). Leaving abusive relationships: Constructions of self and situation by abused women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(12), 2297-2315.

Koepsell, J. K., Kernic, M. A., & Holt, V. L. (2006). Factors that influence battered women to leave their abusive relationships. Violence and victims, 21(2), 131-147.

Hamilton, A. (2017). Understanding the experiences of women who stay in abusive relationships.

I’m worried about someone else. (2025). Women’s Aid. https://www.womensaid.org.uk/information-support/the-survivors-handbook/im-worried-about-someone-else/

How you can help victims of domestic violence. (2025). Women’s Advocates. https://www.wadvocates.org/find-help/about-domestic-violence/how-you-can-help-victims-of-domestic-violence/

Drabinsky, H. (2020, July 28). How to help someone in an abusive relationship. Focus on the Family. https://www.focusonthefamily.com/marriage/marriage-problems/how-to-help-someone-in-an-abusive-relationship/

Bancroft, L. (2003). Why does he do that?: Inside the minds of angry and controlling men. Penguin.

[luxe-pauvre]

Psychologically, there are many reasons why someone might begin to lose sense of their appearance. Focusing too much on negative thoughts of yourself is what psychologists refer to as cognitive biases, or the spiraling thinking that can distort our perception of ourselves. Psychotherapist Kimberlin Shepard finds that these overly negative thoughts are usually the cause of perception drift. “Our minds have a troubling way of catastrophising something when we give it too much attention. By continually feeding into the negative narrative about a physical flaw, we train ourselves to believe it and distance ourselves from reality,” she says. Subsequently, becoming detached from reality can have serious consequences. Perception drift occurs when our looks become so altered that we begin to forget what we originally looked like. This is extremely common in the case of cosmetic surgery. When patients become especially critical of their looks, they’ll stop at nothing to change them. Because after you fix the “one thing” you dislike about yourself, it seems like tonnes of other things start to make themselves known. Perception drift literally distorts the way we see ourselves, and the perceived flaws we once didn’t even notice become another box to tick off. After one successful cosmetic procedure, the possibilities for improvement can begin to seem endless. Having warped ideas of ourselves is nothing new, especially because we rarely think of others as harshly as we do ourselves. “When thinking about ourselves, we are introspective, factoring our feelings and emotions into our perceptions of self,” Shepard says. According to her, we’re much more forgiving when it comes to others. “When we see others, we do not have an emotional bias distorting our view, therefore we see them strictly for what is truly observable.” Obsessing over your self-image can often lead to the undying desire to change it.

Kleigh Beluga, Perception drift: how people get addicted to filler and Botox

[unwelcome-ozian]

When faced with contradictory evidence, members experience cognitive dissonance, resulting in anxiety, guilt or confusion. To resolve this tension, they employ coping strategies to fortify their commitment. Some of these strategies include:

Dismissing or rationalizing conflicting information as misinformation, deception or bias from external sources, thereby maintaining the integrity of their beliefs and identity as loyal followers.

Seeking reaffirmation by consuming propaganda or attending indoctrination sessions led by the cult leader. This creates an echo chamber that shields them from contradictory information and reinforces their allegiance.

In extreme cases, they resort to self-persuasion or self-justification by distorting or reinterpreting memories and experiences to align with the cult’s beliefs, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This conviction helps ease their cognitive dissonance and maintain psychological equilibrium.

[calicojack1718]

Understanding Trump Support: How Cognitive Biases Distort Reality for Many Voters

Reading time: 5 minutes Given the unmitigated disaster that the Trump's term was, it is baffling as to why he has polled so well and kept the race competitive. Three cognitive biases help us tell the tale, though.

SUMMARY: This post explores how cognitive biases—nostalgia, optimism, and proportionality—distort perceptions of Trump’s presidency and influence independent voter support. Nostalgia bias leads voters to remember Trump’s first term more favorably, while optimism bias makes them underestimate the potential hardships of another term. Proportionality bias causes them to dismiss concerns about…