The Psychology of Denial

Introduction

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines several types of denial, including denial of truth, denial or refusal of a service (or a person), denial as ‘failure to admit responsibility, knowledge or status/condition’ (such as climate change denial) and finally psychological denial.

Medical denial is often closely related to psychological denial, and covers an entire gamut of conditions including willingly ignoring unpleasant or unavoidable facts about serious illnesses and mental states or other stressors in one’s personal life. Both (medical and psychological) are so-called ‘defense’ mechanisms.

These final two types (psychological denial, and failure or inability to acknowledge) may be the wellspring and source of all other types, and therefore the focus of this brief essay.

The several types of denial (as defined above) are usually (and eventually) merely damaging to individuals on a personal scale. However, another type of denial, which can be called historical or societal denial, can have much wider ranging effect across societies, nations, and the lesson of history itself.

Perhaps one of the best (if most controversial) examples of this type of denial is Holocaust denial’. Whether one thinks the Holocaust happened or not, failure to learn from (or at least acknowledge the possibility of) these types of events leads to history constantly repeating itself in nations all over the world, including Africa, Bosnia and Armenia. These devastating events are the prime result of a nationwide or societal need for denial, perhaps more damaging to the body politic than the body itself.

The Psychology of Denial

Most of the least desirable elements of human psychology do not bear well under close examination, if only because of the difficulty of confronting that part of ourselves which we would rather not look at too closely.

This state of mind is called denial.

Such behavior is responsible for enacting, and then concealing some of the most reprehensible crimes of human history. Such indiscretions, usually perpetrated on a large scale, are most commonly called ‘crimes against humanity’, possibly the highest (and lowest) types of crimes that human beings can commit against one another.

One of the starkest of these negative elements, the psychology (and act) of denial, can start in childhood (as habitual lying) and can sometimes grow as the indiscretions (and the child) grows. Denial at this age is typically used to cover up complicity in any number of childhood misbehaviors or perceived failings, to avoid punishment, or hide instances of recurring abuse for fear of reprisal from a predatory parent or other adult.

Between adolescence and adulthood, some children and young adults learn that denial (of their growing list of negative personality traits and actions) is an easier (short-term) solution to their problems than confronting them head on.

This form of lying and prevarication is an early defense system based on denial (of truth), which, if left unchecked, can sometimes grow into even worse behavior in adulthood, since it offers a seemingly easy solution to unpleasant realities. By extension, a culture of such behavior on a national scale can result in an idiosyncratic nationwide belief system based on half-truths and falsehoods. Such a state will become a system in which the complex shortcomings of that society can only be addressed by blaming them on (imagined) outside influences, such as political or cultural adversaries, or, more often than not, minority groups, indigenous or otherwise.

This behavior is a failing of the entire human race, not limited to one ethnic group or people.

From its childhood, beginning to quite possibly the highest practice of denial, (that of genocide and holocaust denial, and even climate change denial) the psychology and reasoning are the same. Arrogance is certainly a factor, and it is usually accompanied by a profession (usually false or perceived) of ignorance, fear of (international) retribution and swift justice, including (economic) sanctions and even ostracism.

When large groups of people or nations exercise denial on a massive scale, other elements of psychology come into play, including but not limited to a proclaimed ignorance of the (well-established) facts, or the inability to comprehend or even fathom or accept the (horrific) details, once they become known.

Therefore, nationalistic and governmental denial is a slightly different, even more peculiar type of feigned ignorance, a form of national/political self-delusion that masquerades as a shared idealism intensely stubborn at its core, and is a misuse of group and/or national power, made even more so if the ‘deniers’ find themselves outnumbered by those of opposing beliefs.

Yet it goes back to the same core psychology that children use when they decide to lie about their indiscretions instead of being taught how to own up to and correct them, if such behavior is allowed to go unchecked. To the blindness created by the mindset of denial, a dead bird is not much different from an exterminated people.

Conclusion

Denial (and its close cousins altruism, and self-sacrifice) most likely arose as evolutionary survival behaviors of proto human primates, which were then passed down to their present descendants by the simple process of being inherited from earlier forbears whom survived long enough (and often enough) to have their traits bequeathed to Homo sapiens.

(The ability to ignore danger to self in order to rush to the aid or service of another is, of course, a form of denial, albeit one of the highest caliber. It is a brief denial of the possibility of danger to self. One could assume, quite logically, that our altruistic ancestors probably survived more often than the self-sacrificing ones because they were able to pass on these tendencies, if self-sacrifice often resulted in the loss of life of those noble individuals.)

As an evolutionary behavior, the question must be asked if there any examples of this type of behavior in so-called lower species? Animal mothers often ignore or effectively deny the existence of considerable danger to themselves in defense their young. Could this behavior be called (denial of danger to self), altruism, or self-sacrifice? The question then becomes, ‘is this trait strictly limited to human beings and human societies, and if it is not (limited to us), then what lessons may we learn from those other life forms, if any?’

The idea of whether other types of animal life-forms (such as other primates) can experience denial or any of the other types of ‘higher’ mental/emotional aberrations (or even illnesses linked to higher intelligence) is one still contentiously debated. Our closest cousins the higher primates certainly display many of our mental and emotional states, and their societies suffer as much as ours do from their apparent inability (or, for our part, unwillingness) to learn the lessons of (our) history, or simply ignore those lessons by denying their historical antecedents.

Denial is a two-edged sword, having evolved, on the one hand, as an altruistic trait that helped ensure the survival of the group, and on the other hand detrimentally, as a way of evading or ignoring harsh truths about ourselves, our societies, and now, even our world. Those aspects (of denial) may have saved us just as surely as the other aspects could eventually end us. 

The following link is to a very long, 90s style website that discusses the psychology of denial (of holocausts and genocides) in detail: http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=27

The psychology of climate change denial is discussed here: https://www.bowdoin.edu/news/2018/04/psychology-of-climate-change-denial.html

Publish or Perish!

How an Excess of Money & Ego Are Ruining Scientific Publishing & Peer Review

 Once upon a time, the peer review process was relatively simple: After years and years of scientific research, experimentation, and hard work, scientists (and Institutions of Scientific Endeavor) presented their hard-won discoveries to their peers for review and validation. If their premise was sound, the data concrete, and the (lab) work reproducible, the results were published for the consumption of all the other facilities and institutions in the land, and the other kingdoms-at-large.

Afterward, after many award banquets where heartfelt acceptance speeches had been made, goblets had been hefted in toast, and golden trophies (along with monetary treasures) had been munificently bestowed to the humble practitioners of the Scientific Arts, revolutionary new discoveries in medicine, technology and industry soon followed, whereupon all proceeded to live happily (and prosperously) ever after, or at least until the next breakthrough.

The End

However, in the real world, the process is seldom that simple, having been tainted by other, less noble influences, such as money, prestige, ego, and competition among scientific peers for  the reputation and the grants and subsidies that come to those who ‘rush to publish’ first.

 This combination of persuasive factors creates a potential situation highly conducive to disaster, both for scientific research (and ongoing credibility). Also at stake are all the subsidiary industries (medicine, research & development, industry, technology, and so forth) that depend on the data that ‘trickles down’ from the research (reliable, faulty, or just plain false) eventually used to create and sustain societies and improve quality of life.

The scientific publishing industry has morphed into a multimillion-dollar business. In addition, millions of dollars are at stake (both governmental and private) for institutions that publish leading edge research, and publish it first. Because of that powerful incentive (cash), and another, almost equally persuasive (individual and institutional ego), the term ‘rush to publish’ has taken on an insidious undertone in the scientific community. It means publish first, credibility (and reliability) be damned. Those who publish first get first crack at governmental research dollars in the form of grants, and similar funds from powerful lobbies that depend on that research, and perhaps equally importantly, the publishing process itself. The (scientific) institutions (and scientists) themselves gain fame, prestige, notoriety, and, again, the enhanced status that brings even more money from those previously mentioned monetary sources.

This triumvirate of incentives (funds, prestige, and ego) has created a machine that more often than not produces questionable or faulty data, and results or conclusions that cannot be reproduced in another lab.

Further, scientists (perhaps the world over) are, mostly unwilling to release their work to their peers, especially if it is from a failed experiment (or years worth of questionable or sloppy, less-than-optimal research that led to that failure) fearing bruised egos, their standings in the scientific community, and their institution’s ability to attract future funds.

This results in their ‘muted failures’ being pointlessly reproduced in other research facilities, sometimes to the tune of wasted years by those institutions and scientists whom, had they known of such, would have been able to avoid valuable resources expended on a approach that has already been proven to be fruitless.

The showing of clinical data has become increasingly crucial to research as scientific methodologies and technologies have advanced, and as the need for more groundbreaking and lifesaving technologies have increased. However, the unwillingness or inability to show one’s data and work (especially critically important failed experiments) has also increased. Too many scientists are unwilling to do it, for fear of showing flaws in their techniques, their missed mistakes, and perhaps more frightening, what could be conceived or interpreted as a failure of a more intellectual nature. (Read: No one wants to look like a dummy in front of his or her peers.)

With all those powerful influences in play, institutions and their research fellows are more reluctant than ever to follow up on what has become a scientific version of that old high school dare ‘I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.’ The work that they do ‘rush to publish’ is often faulty, false, irreproducible, and even dangerous.

The more valuable body of data, the failed scientific research, is often safely hidden, or worse, destroyed, dooming other facilities, that could have benefited from that data, to spend time and money pursuing false leads and failed experiments down blind alleys which could have been avoided altogether in the pursuit of more fruitful research.

This must stop, if only to keep things like this from occurring.

Yet the powerful influences listed above (money, ego, reputation), are extremely difficult to overcome, especially in an industry (science) where credibility (or the perception of it) is everything. Ironic, then, that that same asset (credibility) is most often damaged by the early publishing of faulty data and experiments (or findings) that cannot be reproduced in any other lab by any other scientist.

Solutions to the Problem:

Allowing for redundancies and procedures, which may already be in place.

1.       Corral the check writer: Funds for scientific research should be withheld until all the following criteria (and time frames) have been met. (The money could be kept in an interest-bearing account separate from other funds.)

2.       Lock Patents, Grants, & Copyrights: While a body of work is being vetted and reviewed, a lock should be placed on the work in question to protect the rights of the individual and his/her institution. The duration of this ‘lock’ should exceed past the review process either until the work is proved to be faulty or false by a board (or boards) of peers such as those listed here, OR until the work has survived ‘in the wild’ for a predetermined amount of time that has shown it to be valid and viable. Any other organization (or individual) who has done, produced, or invested a considerable amount of work that greatly exceeds or contributes to the work in question should either share in any such patents, OR be granted such in full, but only if the work has been abandoned by the original entity.

3.       In-house verification before publication: Organizations should publish among their in-house peers first, before releasing their findings to the next (but not final) stage of verification outside their institution’s walls. This first step of verification could be used to check for proper procedures and protocols, proofing, lab work, initial findings, and reproducibility.

4.       Non-partisan Preview Board: A non-partisan, multi-institution review board which does not include any members from the submitting/publishing organization should vet and review the work next, with a critical eye toward predefined parameters of quality and procedure on which an overwhelming governing body of ALL institutions (academic, industrial, and otherwise) can all agree. The members of this panel (either institutions or individuals) should change regularly, and, again, never include members of the submitting or publishing organization.

5.       Valid and Viable: Where possible (and when possible), the research should be applied to real-world situations (ideally those situations for which the work was especially created in the first place). The final stage of verification should be to prove that the research/work/data actually addresses, supports, and solves the problem it was designed to tackle, and can be reproduced anywhere at any time by any other organization with the proper means to do so.

6.       Publish all Data: All data, experiments, and procedures, including and especially failed procedures, should be published on an open (inter-institutional) forum, and categorized by field of research, institution, and time frame. This data, once published in this fashion, should be considered community property (by all involved entities), leaving it open to any other organization to pursue, even the organization that had initially pursued it and given up on it. This data could be published anonymously, if the originating organization or individual desires it. (However, it should not be seen as a necessity.)

7.       Release the check writer: Release of funds should occur only after a thorough and reasonable amount of time has been allowed for all the previous steps to occur, perhaps 3-4 years. During that time, government offices (and organizations) are free to continue to fund research facilities as they see fit, however no unproven work should be released until it is fully verified, and re-created (‘x’ amount of  times) under all relevant conditions.

Featured Article: An Experiment That Didn’t Work

The Well-Tempered Argument

*”The Well-Tempered Clavier, BWV 846–893, is a collection of two series of Preludes and Fugues in all 24 major and minor keys, composed for solo keyboard by Johann Sebastian Bach.”

(From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-Tempered_Clavier)

For this piece, the term ‘argument’ will sometimes be used interchangeably with other types of (potentially) adversarial exchanges. However, because there are occasionally, valid and viable differences, those other types will be defined here:

a.       Argument: An argument is an unstructured adversarial confrontation, which usually involves uncontrolled emotional responses, anger, and eventually, a deviation from pure fact for the sole purpose of making one’s point or ‘winning’. (In math, an ‘argument’ is an input to a function normally as a subscript: In a(b), ‘b’ is the subscript or ‘argument’ of a.)

b.      Debate: A debate is a ‘formal’ and structured form of confrontation between two or more opponents that is an exchange of opposing views and ideas, with adherence to fact being paramount, at least in theory.

c.        Discourse: A discourse can either be a form of highly formalized type of debate, or an authoritative postulation (or expounding) on a scholarly (theological or political) subject.

d.      Disagreement: Similar to an argument, a disagreement is any type of dispute that connotes a lack of agreement, which can manifest as an argument, a debate, or a discourse, sometimes with varying degrees of civility.

e.      Theory/Hypothesis: If radical or new, often becomes as hotly defended and debated as any argument or other form of adversarial discourse.

 ******************************************

Posting any type of content on the Internet is opening oneself to a relatively new type of discourse with potentially negative results, especially if the material is scholarly, or ‘semi-scholarly’, controversial, or natively inflammatory, such as subjects concerning radical new theories, politics or religion. When allowed to go unchecked, the debates could conceivably grow to same level of vitriol as the Brooks-Sumner Affair, or other examples of legislative violence. These confrontations, begun online, can and have, in extreme cases, spilled out into the real world, with dire results, especially on less regulated social forums and websites used mostly by non-professionals.

The semi-real-time environment of the Internet, where posts can fly around the world in a matter of seconds, has made online posting as potentially volatile and confrontational as its verbal counterpart, with practically the same level of spontaneity of emotions and responses.

However, the written format of the Internet does allow a bit more consideration of words and ideas before putting them forth. That difference should be used to full advantage if an idea is to receive maximum coverage and consideration, even from those who disagree. (For comparison, the closest counterpart in real-time argument and confrontation where similar rules apply is the strictly regulated adversarial approach of the legal system.) 

 Following the advice here offered does not guarantee 100% acceptance, agreement or civility; dissenters will always dissent, and will even turn out to be correct occasionally, perhaps more times than the original writer would like. In such cases, it would be preferable to be able to correct, redact or reconsider, IF the original post allows such a gracious recant. Even more reason for the original argument (in the broadest sense of the word, defined above) to be well considered by it intended audience.

The Internet, by its very (open, unregulated) nature, has created an open forum that, in extreme cases, is more like a gladiatorial arena and less like the venerable old town hall meetings, or the hallowed lecture halls and auditoriums of old movies. A poster (or debater) can take one of two courses, one that, like the arena, is savagely adversarial, or, he or she can choose to maintain an almost unheard of format of civil decorum, letting the words defend themselves. To do that, an argument (posted, published, or otherwise) must be self-sustaining, self-defending, and well-tempered.

The post can be considered ‘tempered’ in that the work always maintains a civil, non-abrasive tone, is scrupulously researched from diverse sources (not just the Internet), is scholarly and keeps to the facts. It should also flexible enough in its presentation to allow other, opinions, including divergent ones, and above all, should ask more than it answers, to better and more fully engage the reader.  Such arguments, thus constructed and presented, could also be considered ‘harmonious’. If anything, civility combined with scrupulous research (and a dash of humility) increases the chance of acceptance of the post, or at least equally civil disagreement, if it should arise, keeping in mind that the forum is still the Internet, and as such, does not guarantee any degree of civility.

Once an exchange becomes unnecessarily disrespectful, rude, or devolves to insults, slurs, or name-calling, it would be best to end the correspondence as soon as possible. Failing to do so could result in being dragged into an argument which will more than likely not, in the end, not be as demeaning to the detractor (who may well engage in such behavior all the time), than it is to the original author.

Monty-Python Argument Clinic

 That harmony of composition will cause the argument to be much like its musical counterpart: a ‘well-tempered’ instrument (typically of the fixed pitch keyboard variety). A tempered instrument is flexible enough in its tuning to allow both an acceptable approximation of pitch (or, more correctly, pitch interval), while maintaining acceptable intonation across all key (signatures.) This scheme of temperament tuning is necessary because some naturally occurring intervals (between pitches) across some key (signatures) are more dissonant than consonant and can therefore be not only less melodious, but downright abrasive. The same could be said for certain ideas (or passages) of potentially controversial or radical ideas in online posts, arguments, and especially responses to volatile subjects.

The various types of temperament tuning systems (such as well-tempered, equal-tempered, dynamic tonality, regular temperament, and Kirnberger temperament), all attempt to resolve a problem of Pythagorean tuning (and physics) where correctly sized intervals eventually result in a tonal dissonance called a wolf interval. The distance between note intervals (measured in money-like units called cents) in any given key (particularly in Western music) and what is generally perceived to be pleasant (to the human ear in general) creates a problem that occurs when the circle of fifths is imposed on the twelve tones of the chromatic scale (while trying to make an ‘exact’ octave). This imposition always resulting in the previously mentioned ‘wolf interval’ or sometimes a wolf chord, the avoidance of which (called temperament tuning) makes it impossible to play all keys in precise intonation, that is without adjusting/resizing their natural intervals to some degree, a process called ‘tempering’ for better overall tonality.

The temperament tuning systems (see above) constitute a compromise between adhering to strict musical written notation in regard to interval ratios and ‘perfect’ intonation, and what is actually heard (and considered pleasant or consonant) by the human ear (again, mostly in Western music). The technique has changed throughout the development of music, with the most common system in use today being equal temperament.

******************************************

This type of ideological flexibility and compromise in music can serve the same purpose in a ‘well-tempered’ argument, dissertation, debate, or discourse that is more or less ‘fixed’, once it enters cyberspace, just as the strings of ‘fixed pitch’ (non-digital) keyboard instruments are irrevocably set. If a piece is ‘well-tempered’, adhering as closely to the facts as possible, while allowing some ‘leeway’, for other opinions, potential inaccuracies, is flexible and not too pedantic (or dictatorial), it should be able to stand on its own, indefinitely, with little or no defense or tinkering.

Such a post, argument, (or even theory) well written and well-tempered (or even-tempered, to take the musical analogy further), once posted, should never have to be defended, but merely supplemented, and then only rarely.

*Das Wohltemperierte Klavier I, BWV 846-869 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)