The Dangers of Identity-Protected Cognition

A 2017 paper by Dan M. Kahan of Yale University explains identity-protective cognition. In his paper, he explores how people's political, cultural, sexual, and social identities have a major influence on their beliefs. Kahan originally termed this phenomenon "identity-protective cognition." Intelligence evolved more as a tool to enhance personal well-being, social status, and group belonging than a means of determining objective truth. He explains that intelligent individuals can reject scientifically accurate data in favor of information that aligns with the beliefs of their cultural, political, or social groups. As a result, we should expect individuals to acquire habits of mind that guide them to form and persist in beliefs that express their membership in and loyalty to a particular identity-defining affinity group. For example, Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked what defines a woman during her hearing to become a Supreme Court justice. She said she could not give the definition as she is not a biologist. A person uninvolved in gender ideology culture can easily describe a woman. Identity-protective cognition goes a long way in explaining how insanely polarizing things get when it comes to health, diet, medication, Covid, and most other current science, politics, and community standards. This post will help explain Kahan's perspectives.

Covid-19 Two Years Later: Are We Following the Science We Already Knew?

The scientific literature was clear in 2020, and it still is: Lockdowns don't work. But, unfortunately, nobody was allowed to talk about it until now. So those of us who read the research and history books back then feel we may speak more freely without fear of disdain, ridicule, or censorship. We read the studies from the vaccine companies that clearly never looked at prevention or spread, only symptoms. We knew the previous studies on masks and quarantining showed they are no use. But things are changing.

The media and politicians are now having trouble maintaining their narratives. For instance, just recently in The Studies In Applied Economics Journal, a January 2022 paper entitled A LITERATURE REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTS OF LOCKDOWNS ON COVID-19 MORTALITY by Jonas Herby, Lars Jonung, and Steve H. Hanke stated that "…during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns have had devastating effects. They have contributed to reducing economic activity, rising unemployment, reducing schooling, causing political unrest, contributing to domestic violence, and undermining liberal democracy. These costs to society must be compared to the benefits of lockdowns, which our meta-analysis has shown are marginal at best. Such a standard benefit-cost calculation leads to a strong conclusion: lockdowns should be rejected out of hand as a pandemic policy instrument." Their statement would have been taken off all social media and ignored by the mainstream press last year. This post will cover my previous observations about the pandemic over the last few years showing that the governments around the world did not “follow the science” as they claim.