Psychological Mechanisms to Deny Reality and Employ Optimism Bias

 

Backbone Rock in northern Tennessee

Previously in this space, I have tackled many different psychological mechanisms by which humans deny reality and employ optimism bias to think that certain things can be accomplished which in actuality cannot be accomplished because of reasons said humans do not understand. I pointed this out in Ignorance, Hubris, and Stupidity to highlight the fact that most people have a tendency to believe in the status quo, whether the facts to support it are there or not. The status quo can be cultural narratives, business as usual (BAU), industry hype, or fantasies, myths, and fairy tales. It took me a considerable amount of time to begin to see through the illusion of control, the pretense of civilization, the fantasy of electrification (and "green" or "clean" or "renewable" energy), the false dichotomy of "renewables" versus fossil fuels (generally not seeing that civilization is unsustainable and that powering it differently changes nothing), and the rationalizing, storytelling, and narrative-generation that is constantly taking place in society. Looking into psychology and comprehending why we behave the ways we do produces a considerable amount of answers as to how we got ourselves into this mess.

Recently, I saw a post regarding an article that really caught my eye about the current political landscape here in the United States. I generally tend to dislike politics because here in the US, we have more of an oligarchy than a democracy. Neither major party (Republicans/Democrats) truly offers anything revolutionary because revolutionary ideas don't often fall into the Overton window of acceptable discussion. Even when revolutionary ideas are brought about, the corporations (Military Industrial Complex) actually running this country generally very quickly quell discussion of anything they don't like and also approve only politicians who are friendly to their goals. Politicians seen as threats to those goals are dealt with in various ways to make certain that their ideas aren't followed through on. Additionally, since the major issues I find interesting are predicaments that don't have solutions, especially political solutions, there is frequently little to discuss in the political arena.

Nevertheless, the issues at stake now are whether we can keep the freedoms we currently have just a little bit longer or throw them away entirely by electing someone who doesn't have the intellect (see this new series beginning with this video) to understand how doing what he wants to undertake would accomplish nothing but speed the process of collapse up exponentially (and benefit him and other billionaires at the expense of the average citizen). This being said, it should now be obvious as to the connection to what I do discuss here. It appears rather clear to me that most Republicans are generally energy-blind and have little comprehension of what actually powers the economy. In some ways, collapsing the economy can be seen to be a good thing. The trouble is how the economy actually works - collapse any part of it and the whole thing will come undone in a jiffy. Look at the effect COVID-19 had on the global economy. The global economy still isn't back to where it was in 2018 and most likely never will return to those days. Simply speaking, the power of a 2018 dollar had more value and purchasing power than a 2024 dollar. Despite all the hype on how great the economy is doing and how many new jobs have been created, most people are still scraping just to get by. I'm no expert on the economy, but I do know that a certain amount of energy and resources are required just to keep everything humming along and that while some sectors are doing fine right now, catabolic collapse is beginning to take a toll on more than just retail establishments and restaurants. Artificial Intelligence, much unlike the marketing and hype the industry tells us, is likely to finish catabolic collapse by taking as much energy and resources as it can consume away from essential services and products. No political candidate has any ability whatsoever to change the physical and biological laws that make collapse inevitable, meaning that ultimately whoever holds these offices lacks agency to be able to accomplish changing the outcome of the predicaments we face. So, keeping political offices free from psychopaths, narcissists, and dark triads in an effort to prevent a repeat of the events of 1930s and 1940s Germany remains extremely important.

So, the reality of the scenario here is that a small perturbation of the system could easily cause a major collapse in short order, given the current circumstances. This same scenario repeats itself with regard to climate change...system sensitivity is much greater than most scientists ever thought it could be with one scientist in particular standing out - James Hansen. Systems can be highly resilient provided the right conditions are met, but when those conditions change, small changes can have disastrous results. The late Will Steffen was another forward-thinking scientist who could foresee things many others couldn't.

How can one balance the inevitable desire that other people understand these situations and issues with the knowledge that we can only control our own behavior and lack agency to control other people? As The Illusion of Control article (link above in the first paragraph) demonstrates, we have little if any agency to control many different things, not just other people. We often suffer optimism bias, thinking that we can do certain things, that in reality we really can't. This is why denial of reality is so pernicious - it creeps up on us many times without us being conscious of it. These reasons combined with more recent acceptance on my part has convinced me more and more that I need to just let it be. Yes, that iconic Beatles song has an actual meaning to it about acceptance of reality/actuality, in this case the inevitable demise of The Beatles as a group.  

One of the biggest passions of mine is to try to explain where we've been, where we are now, and where we are headed, in an attempt to get others to realize that much (all?) of the claims of "fixing" or "mitigating" symptom predicaments of overshoot are really nothing more than pure hype. It isn't that I want others to "give up" on their ideas and/or goals, it is that their goals must be realistic, first of all, and secondly, those goals must be feasible over the long haul (see this article). I think all activists go through the same cycles and learning the hard way (like I did) that not only are there no solutions to these predicaments (without reducing overshoot), but that even getting people to understand what all of this means is generally not possible. Much depends on their worldview and how open they are to new information that creates cognitive dissonance when contrasted to positive, hopeful tales which are really nothing more than reassuring lies. Of course, my desire is an attempt to help others understand all of this in order to save time, energy, and avoid the heartbreak of learning the hard way all of these specifics. 

I have a Facebook friend who is constantly telling me that our lack of agency is just my opinion. A while back, I told him that unless and until he has empirical evidence that Robert Sapolsky's (and many others) findings aren't true (that we do not have free will), that what he is saying is flat out false. Of course, he doesn't have any evidence - his claim is nothing more than his opinion whereas my claim comes from the science. I often hear bogus claims like his, but nowadays can only be bothered to respond in certain groups. I hear the "Let it Be" theme coming on. Still, the fact that humans (just like ALL species) follow the Maximum Power Principle and this is often played out through wetiko, the historical and archeological record demonstrate that we keep making the same mistake of using civilization as our living arrangements over and over again. If we truly had agency, why would we keep doing this? Why would we continue technology use? Why wouldn't society embark on a mission to reduce overshoot? Nobody likes the answers he or she finds with regard to all these predicaments we face, but at the end of the day, acceptance of these facts provides a sense of calm where anxiety previously flourished. There are people who chose to reject technology use because they had learned the lessons from using it. Countless examples of early civilizations in North America, for instance, prove that there were early civilizations or cities here such as Mesa Verde, Chaco Canyon, Cahokia, the Mayan cities, etc., and that these cities often suffered from a variety of issues such as disease, pollution loading, water and food security, and other symptom predicaments of overshoot. Why were these places abandoned? Obviously, collapse occurred and the people who lived there scattered. The descendants of these people shared stories created from the experiences of those who lived through those times and the culture that developed as a result was one which shunned advanced technology use. Some of the technologies remained, such as agriculture, but tribes remained in smaller communities instead of large-scale cities. In addition, many of the agricultural plots were small and located in areas away from living quarters. The tribes would visit these places occasionally to gather whatever was available but continued a semi-nomadic way of life. So, it appears as though Indigenous tribes who lived in North America prior to European colonization had learned that civilization was an unproductive pursuit long-term. Thinking 7 generations out would definitely give rise to considering sustainability and placing it above other, more selfish pursuits. In conclusion, it seems that anthropocentrism was rejected in favor of viewing humans as an integral part of nature, "part" being the key concept. One question which has been brought up is whether humans could stay in this more sustainable living pattern. I think that question has already been answered by what took place here in North America where humans who had more advanced technology were able to overpower the Indigenous tribes who previously occupied the continent. This same scenario has repeated itself over and over pretty much across the globe and is now beginning to infiltrate into areas occupied by uncontacted tribes. The Maximum Power Principle shows itself again and again in not only our behaviors, but those of every species. I wrote an article about invasive species which provides additional details of this process.

My fascination with psychological mechanisms, false beliefs, and denial appears to be mirrored by many others as well. This excellent article written by Rob Mielcarski highlights a set of 21 questions that many of us have asked ourselves as we absorbed more and more information about overshoot. Most of us have all followed the same general trajectory. What do we do once we understand and accept the reality of overshoot? [Here are the lyrics to that song.] We move on to continue asking questions about our psychology and the systems which surround us. One cannot "unsee" that which has been seen. 

I have embarked on a new set of posts regarding Living Now on the Treasured Traditions site here with a new post each Wednesday (here is the latest entry). Enjoy!