© 2010-2011 Coert Visser, www.solutionfocusedchange.com

Each set of beliefs or convictions that: 1.is not true: it is not grounded in evidence 2.can be harmful for both for the person who holds it, and for society3.is attractive and ‘sticky’4.spreads easily throughout a population.

What is contaminated mindware?

1. when it is packaged in an appealing narrative which promises some kind of benefit to the person

2. when it rides on the back of more valid ideas by copying superficial characteristics from those (for example scientific looking graphs),

3. when it contains self-replication instructions (‘send this mail on to 10 different people', 'recruit two new participants for this training course’),

4. when it has evaluation-disabling properties (for instance by claiming that evidence is not relevant or possible, by denying that evidence exists, by making belief which is unsupported by evidence into a virtue, by encouraging adherents to attack non-believers, etc).

Conditions under which contaminated mindware spreads easily:

You might think that intelligence would guarantee a good protection against contaminated mindware but this turns out to be wrong. By making narratives complex, highly intelligent people can even become extra attracted to them.

Further, studies have demonstrated that intelligent people may be more capable of creating ‘islands of false beliefs’ or ’webs of falsity’ by using their considerable intellectual power to rationalize their beliefs and to ward off the arguments of skeptics.

Intelligence alone does not protect against contaminated mindware

The question is whether a head-on attack of popular contaminated mindware will lead to its demise or runs the risk of making it even more popular.

A head-on attack might lead to further publicity for the contaminated mindware, thus exposing more people to its attractiveness.

How can you protect yourself against contaminated mindware?

Recent research has demonstrated that people whose confidence in closely held beliefs gets undermined may become stronger advocates of those beliefs.

Another reason why a head-on attack may be ineffective is that contaminated mindware may even contain an instruction to attack opponents.

A direct challenge may lead to a defensive response and a strengthening of the convictions

This defensive response may be even stronger when the contaminated mindware contains the above mentioned evaluation-disabling properties ("When someone says so or so, don't listen! That is the Devil talking!").

Philosopher Daniel Dennett has said: "You seldom talk anybody out of a position by arguing directly with their premises and inferences. Sometimes it is more effective to nudge them sideways with images, examples, helpful formulations that stick to their habits of thought." Or might a different approach work better? For instance an approach of teaching people to recognize contaminated mindware more easily and protect themselves better against it? Or might satire be a good way to help people see through contaminated mindware?

Alternative strategies

1. How well would you be able to recognize contaminated mindware when you'd come across it? 

2. How well could you protect yourself against it? 3. How would you be able to recognize 

the evaluation-disabling properties of the contaminated mindware? 

4. Have you ever freed yourself from contaminated mindware which you were already 'infected' with?

5. How did you do that?

Questions: my suggestion is to try to answer these for yourself:

© 2010-2011 Coert Visser, www.solutionfocusedchange.com

References:

Keith Stanovich:•Decision Making and Rationality in the Modern World (2009)•What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought (2009)

© 2010-2011 Coert Visser, www.solutionfocusedchange.com

References:

Keith Stanovich:•Decision Making and Rationality in the Modern World (2009)•What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought (2009)