Was it a Lie, a Delusion, or a Mistake?

For Real

I. Background

For many years we have noticed some strange but massive and obvious events, and yet all or some of the reasons for those events can be "hidden in plain sight" to many of us.

Before I share any Dredd Blog series links to illustrate that point, let me lead-in with this clue: "psychosis can be communicable ... This insidious self-deception occurs not only in couples, but in families, friendships, groups, religious cults, political parties and entire countries." (Psychology Today).

The word 'communicable' in this sense means spread from one entity (e.g. person or group) to another (as in an epidemic).

Now, before we jump to light speed, let me add more clues to that lead-in:  Toynbee wrote volumes about two dozen or so civilizations that we only think about when we are in a history class or a library, however, unlike us he didn't just skim the surface, no, he followed ugly all the way to the bone:

"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown."

(A Study of History, by Arnold J. Toynbee). What? Suicide? Murder? ... He was no ordinary historian was he?

That is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, as a world famous encyclopedia points out:

"In the Study Toynbee examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders. Civilizations declined when their leaders stopped responding creatively, and the civilizations then sank owing to the sins of nationalism, militarism, and the tyranny of a despotic minority.

(Encyclopedia Britannica, emphasis added). I would argue that suicide and murder come about by some mixture of delusions, and/or lies, and/or mistakes.

The 'militarism' segment of that particular delusion was well understood by some 'founding fathers' in the sense of 'communicable':

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.

War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.

The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both.

No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

Those truths are well established."

(American Feudalism, quoting President James Madison; red word emphasis added). Note that like the 'Psychology Today' clue above, Madison understood that militarism 'develops the germ' ... which is another way of indicating a communicable dynamic at work.

II. On To The Point

One word used above ('suicide') IMO generally indicates the final result after entering into a deep delusion.

Another word used above ('civilization') requires me to emphasize that we are not focusing on individuals to point out the ultimate conclusion which this communicable dynamic brings forth.

Even though it may begin with an individual, and that is the better place to address the beginning of the delusion,  historically as Toynbee revealed it becomes a group dynamic which must be focused on.

The father of psychoanalysis also addressed that reality:

If the evolution of civilization has such a far reaching similarity with the development of an individual, and if the same methods are employed in both, would not the diagnosis be justified that many systems of civilization——or epochs of it——possibly even the whole of humanity——have become neurotic under the pressure of the civilizing trends? To analytic dissection of these neuroses, therapeutic recommendations might follow which could claim a great practical interest. I would not say that such an attempt to apply psychoanalysis to civilized society would be fanciful or doomed to fruitlessness. But it behooves us to be very careful, not to forget that after all we are dealing only with analogies, and that it is dangerous, not only with men but also with concepts, to drag them out of the region where they originated and have matured. The diagnosis of collective neuroses, moreover, will be confronted by a special difficulty. In the neurosis of an individual we can use as a starting point the contrast presented to us between the patient and his environment which we assume to be normal. No such background as this would be available for any society similarly affected; it would have to be supplied in some other way. And with regard to any therapeutic application of our knowledge, what would be the use of the most acute analysis of social neuroses, since no one possesses power to compel the community to adopt the therapy? In spite of all these difficulties, we may expect that one day someone will venture upon this research into the pathology of civilized communities. [p. 39]

...

Men have brought their powers of subduing the forces of nature
to such a pitch that by using them they could now very easily exterminate one another to the last man. They know this——hence arises a great part of their current unrest, their dejection, their mood of apprehension. [p. 40]

(Civilization and Its Discontents, S. Freud, 1929, emphasis added). There is little doubt that this form of psychiatry has not yet been mastered, or even brought to bear upon the problem of mass suicide.

III. A Reason Or Two

At the end of an analysis why doesn't an individual recognize that a mistake has been made in their conclusion, or why do they decide to tell a lie as part of their conclusion, or why more broadly, because of their culture, upbringing, and education, are they deluded about how to deal with their analysis?

We see this in politics, in religion, and other forms of group dynamics that is often described as "group think".

In that regard a recent event, the setting of the Doomsday Clock, included a surprise:

"On 20 January 2022, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set their infamous Doomsday Clock at 100 seconds to midnight for the third year running. Their accompanying report — entitled ‘At Doom’s Doorstep’ — identified three key factors which brought humanity “the closest it has ever been to civilisation-ending apocalypse”.

Two of these factors are unlikely to surprise many readers: namely, climate change and the growing threat of nuclear war. The third might be a little surprising: “a corrupted information ecosphere that undermines rational decision-making”. Though some media outlets do deal with the concentration of media influence, this is rarely seen as an existential threat."

(The Brussels Times, 2023, interview of Noam Chomsky, emphasis added). Yes, it is one thing when an individual communicates the germ, but it is an existential threat when the mass media spreads it:

"We are in the midst of times that seem increasingly dangerous for the future of both humans and the planet. In this article, we will cover some very tentative predictions about the future of some social psychiatric challenges, or what I call social psychopathologies. If we ignore or do not successfully address these future risks, we may need more than luck to avoid these looming disasters."

(Social Psychiatric Predictions). Yes, luck is mostly something left to gamblers.

 IV. Closing Comments

When an individual makes a mistake during an analysis, then communicates a recognizable falsity thereafter, how should it be dealt with?

Should we call that person a liar if 'in the moment' they believe their conclusion is accurate, or should we simply tell them we think it is a mistake and explain why?

The harshness of calling them a liar might drive them into denial, and then drive them into a stronger form of delusion if we persist in calling them a liar when it was actually a mistake or a delusion (Pathological Lying: Symptom or Disease?).

I see the left-wing media as well as the right-wing media doing this professionally.

Yes, they call each other liars sometimes when the issue is simply a mistake or a professional delusion (Liz Loftus, Memory Expert).

A 'doubling down' can then take place, which is the first step into an even deeper delusion or an even worse mistake.

On the other hand if we are sympathetic and considerate to an individual and initially offer help and consolation (or collectively to a group that has gone astray), we may solve a problem before it gets out of control.

Same with the left-wing and right-wing media ... conferences, meetings, gatherings to find solutions leading to better reporting are worthwhile endeavors.

I have seen both the harsh and the considerate approaches being tried.

But, if we want to avoid the whole gambit of reactionary efforts to solve problems, then we have to, as individuals or as groups, embrace an intense adherence to developing foresight in individuals ("an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" - Benjamin Franklin).

---

---