Compartmentalization: How Otherwise Rational People Believe Idiotic Things

The Dr. Bo Show with Bo Bennett, PhD

The Dr. Bo Show is a critical thinking-, reason-, and science-based approach to issues that matter. It is the podcast of social psychologist Bo Bennett. This podcast is a collection of topics related to all of his books. The podcast episodes, depending on the episode, are hosted by either Dr. Bennett or Jerry Sage, discussing the work of Dr. Bennett.

I was recently complimented on my level of tolerance I have for what I assumed was dealing with people who ask not-so-clear or even not-so-smart questions. This was on my public forum where I moderate the discussion of logical fallacies. The truth is, I don't consider myself a very tolerant or patient person... not all the time. As a professor, I am used to teaching those who are ignorant of the topic. As a debater, I am used to arguing with people who hold different views than I do. As a user of social media, I am used to dealing with, and often ignoring, idiots. But what I have a difficult time tolerating is people who I know are smart, rational, and reasonable on most topics except that one topic where they hold stupid, irrational, unreasonable, and most of all, unyielding views. In psychology, this is referred to as compartmentalization.

Imagine that you let your friend drive your car. Your friend is a good driver who knows and follows the rules of the road. However, in your car, your friend ignores all the rules of the road. They speed, blow stop signs, and drive on the wrong side of the road. You ask them, "what the hell are you thinking?" and they excuse their diversion from the rules by giving some reason why the rules don't apply in this situation. They may conjure some unfalsifiable narrative that justifies their behavior—in their mind. They may even call upon magic. Your attempts to help them see that the rules of the road actually do apply in this situation is fruitless. Your friend continues to drive recklessly and there is nothing you can do about it. It is frustrating as hell.

Now imagine your friend values logical thinking and reason so much that they actively and regularly participate in a forum dedicated to helping people understand logical fallacies. For years, they have helped people clarify their thinking by understanding the rules of critical thinking. But one day, they abandon everything they know about critical thinking due to an ideological commitment, but only for one issue. Perhaps it is political, religious, or social. The ideological commitment has been strengthened for years, not through critical thinking but through psychological persuasion techniques used for both benevolent and malevolent reasons. You do your best to explain the many ways they are abandoning critical thinking on this issue, but your explanations are deflected by special pleading, conspiracy theories, and even claims of divine knowledge that "override" logic and reason. It is frustrating as hell.

Here are some specific examples that will most likely hit close to home. But first, a word on conspiracy theories.

A conspiracy theory is a narrative that alleges secretive actions taken by two or more people, usually wielding power, and almost always for nefarious purposes. Like all theories, a strong conspiracy theory requires facts to directly support the theory. Theories are mostly left to members of the scientific community who are well-versed in evaluating evidence, knowing the strength of different types of evidence, understanding the difference between correlation and causation, and more. Conspiracy theories are mostly conjured and discussed among people who are not only ignorant of the methods involved in falsifying a theory, but who have a strong bias for accepting the theory. In other words, they have a desire for believing the conspiracy theory, as the truth of the theory would reinforce their ideological commitments (usually political, religious, or social). It is important to know that some people are biologically and environmentally prone to conspiratorial thinking. This is associated with personality traits such as lacking trust, as well as more pathological conditions such as the overwhelming feeling of paranoia, persecution, and victimhood. This article is not about people prone to conspiratorial thinking; but it may include critically-thinking and neurotypical individuals who, for one reason or another, have embraced a conspiracy theory regardless of rejecting similar theories for all the same reasons they should reject the theory embraced. This article is also not about people who are just unreasonable; it is about otherwise reasonable people who have managed to compartmentalize one issue that is immune from critical thought.

Election Fraud

When one accepts the results of an election when their candidate wins, but claims "fraud" when their candidate loses, this is a strong sign of problematic thinking. In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, die-hard Trump fans universally decided that the quality of evidence they are willing to accept comes in the form of an incoherent rant from a pillow salesman. Of course, evidence is evidence despite the source, but the pillow salesman referenced has provided nothing but incoherent rants for almost two years now. A documentary from an extreme right-wing convicted criminal who was pardoned by the very president the documentary was created to defend, is seen as "evidence," despite being repeatedly debunked. Again, these otherwise critically-thinking individuals would see such a documentary as a clear source of propaganda if it weren't for their strong ideological commitment. People who usually respect the legal system ignore the legal system when 60 of 61 cases of election fraud were either thrown out or lost by election deniers. Republican voters who usually listen to Republican officials (election officials, judges, senators, congressmen), stopped listening to these officials when they confirmed what they did not want to hear - that no system-wide fraud was found that would have any effect on the results in any state. Of course, many public figures who claim the 2020 election was "stolen" probably don't really believe it but continue to make this claim in order to appease the MAGA base. But many otherwise intelligent people continue to believe this regardless of level and quality of evidence that they would never consider compelling if not for such an ideologically-charged issue where their believing it is central to their identity.

In fairness to the MAGA crowd, election denialism is not new. It has been around in some form of another since elections were first held, practiced by all parties, including the Democrats in 2016. However, equating earlier forms of election denialism with what we are currently experiencing in 2022 is a false equivalence.

COVID

COVID is an interesting topic because it is a medical issue similar to hundreds of others where individuals never had issues following the advice of doctors and researchers. Again, we are not talking about serial vaccine deniers or people who routinely reject the advice of the medical industry in favor of "alternative" medicines and treatments. We are talking about the average person who is up-to-date on their vaccines, trusts the advice of their doctors, and accepts information from Johns Hopkins and other medical establishments on all sorts of disease prevention and treatment. As we all know, COVID has become politicized which likely led to the many conspiracy theories surrounding COVID. The rules that people have followed all their lives including trusting the medical community, valuing evidence from reputable peer-reviewed sources, and trusting data from institutions such as Johns Hopkins, were, not applicable to COVID for some reason. Some people have convinced themselves that COVID is different than every other virus in that COVID is the work of a nefarious cabal released to control people. These are the same people who have no problem accepting medical advice and data on the flu, cancer, heart-attacks, or any other medical condition not associated with politics.

Feelings over facts

A fairly recent phenomenon is one that is a significant threat to both science and universities. It is the rejection or suppression of the findings of science as well as the persecution of those involved in the research. This is mostly a result of the scientific process uncovering "uncomfortable" facts about the social and biological issues of reality. As a result, important topics dealing with race, gender, obesity, and others are being ignored in favor of more socially-acceptable research questions on those issues that are in-line with current, liberal, social norms. These uncomfortable facts are said to be the result of the "lack of diversity" in science. The fact is, scientific facts don't care what color the person is or what gender the person is who discovers them. If facts change based on the social characteristics of the researcher, then the researchers are not doing science; they are doing apologetics. If scientific institutions are ignoring uncomfortable data and penalizing researchers involved in collecting that data, then they are not promoting science; they are promoting activism. If one is a critical thinker who values the integrity of the scientific method, they must accept the findings equally regardless of how those results make one feel.

Religion and Trumpism

We have documented evidence that people have been using religion to control people for centuries. This may be difficult to hear if you are religious, but the religious, especially Christians, are already used to believing in things without evidence through Biblical "faith" (Hebrews 11:1). They are used to being part of a flock led by a charismatic leader. They are fine with believing in claims that are unfalsifiable. They are used to excusing all sorts of horrific acts as long as the being committing those acts is trusted to have a good reason for it. They are used to ignoring scientific facts (like the age of the earth, evolution, and the evidence that refutes a global flood) and reality in favor of what they have been told. And most of all, they have been waiting over for 2000 for Jesus to return, so waiting a couple years for "proof" of election fraud is not an issue. In other words, the highly religious are already primed to be (mis)led by a charismatic leader who is claimed to be God's representative on earth. It is obscene how the MAGA leaders have used religion to manipulate, control, and even weaponize their flock. These aren't all the crazy people we see in the media wearing horns with a painted chest; these are doctors, lawyers, teachers, and other respected members of the community who otherwise see through bullshit and are able to think critically when it comes to their profession and virtually all other areas of their personal life. These are people who don't use "faith" to believe in unicorns, fairies, or any other gods. They don't otherwise accept something as true unless it can be demonstrated—they are fine with saying "I don't know" and withholding acceptance until the evidence warrants such belief. They follow science and accept virtually every aspect that does not contradict their religious beliefs. And if some liberal businessperson were to claim that Trump "stole" the 2016 election by providing the same incoherent rants, ridiculous claims, and substandard "evidence" that is not worthy of being entertained in court or outright ruled to NOT be evidence for fraud, these same people would never accept such claims as true. Yet they believe in a myriad of outrageous religious claims from talking serpents to the efficacy of praying for rain, along with countless lies by a known conman who they have elevated to god-like status of perfection and honesty. This is compartmentalization. It is powerful, harmful to both the individual and society, and frustrating as hell.

Critical thinking is about embracing a valid and reliable epistemology. It is about using a methodology consistently to separate fact from fiction. The fallacy of special pleading is what is often used to excuse oneself from breaking from the consistent methodology in order to favor a fictional narrative that supports one's ideology over a factual reality that is difficult to accept. By sticking these special beliefs in a metaphorical compartment in our minds, we can protect them from not only other people's logical and rational arguments but our own critical thinking as well. This is compartmentalization. The best we can do as ones who recognize when others are compartmentalizing is to chip away by providing compelling arguments and facts demonstrating they are wrong. This, we hope, increases the cognitive dissonance they experience despite that our efforts show little or no immediate results. At some point, we hope, the cognitive dissonance is so strong that they cannot continue to believe they are a rational critical thinker without abandoning their compartmentalized belief. We hope.