I read your blog, Informed Consent & the Joe Rogan Experience.

Essentially I agree.

When a person takes an extreme position, or even one just not generally accepted, there is a tendency to insulate oneself from criticism by claiming little known but important information that only a brave person, like themselves, will continue to hold despite others' disbelief or even outrage.

Consider a staunch religious believer - scorn, ridicule, dismissal actually strengthens the person's conviction. The believer will usually feign esoteric understanding, a higher purpose, & even display sorrow for the unbeliever.

There is an element of the straw man fallacy. Informed consent is not the issue - but it is put forward as a central issue which the proponent is bravely putting forward against opposition.

The whole situation resembles a Christian contending that unless one has read the whole bible, nay further, has memorized chapter & verse of the bible, then one cannot make a valid argument against Christianity.

> Consider a staunch religious believer - scorn, ridicule, dismissal actually strengthens the person's conviction. The believer will usually feign esoteric understanding, a higher purpose, & even display sorrow for the unbeliever.

Now consider how similarly this behavior manifests in those who hold different ideological beliefs, such as Scientific Materialists - then consider that these people typically have much better education, and yet so often fall victim to the same cognitive errors.

If you ask me, this is something that science could extract a lot of valuable knowledge from....but alas, the human mind appears to dynamically downgrade curiosity when it dares to examine itself.

> The whole situation resembles a Christian contending that unless one has read the whole bible, nay further, has memorized chapter & verse of the bible, then one cannot make a valid argument against Christianity.

Once again, a similarity exists: if one observes internet arguments about "science", it is quite common for pro-science people to assert that those who dare criticize science necessarily do not understand what they are talking about.

Human beings are fascinating creatures.

Great discussion points - thank you for your reply.

I agree, whenever a moral stance or ideological stance is at the top of the approval rating by mass media, social media, & the general populace you will have a entitled, snobbish, dismissive, even hostile attitude towards different stances.

The term that seems to best encompass this self-justifying attitude is egregore. This term signifies a thought form accepted by large numbers which persists over generations - a lot of definitions include an occult bit which I think is a symptom of the dismissive attitude of those immersed in the egregore).

Possible examples: 1) an economy must continue to grow, capitalism 2) electricity via solar power & wind power will reverse climate change 3) humanism 4) MAGA & Trumpism 5) systemic racism 6) systemic genderism 7) the monarchy 8) theism, 9) human rights, & 10) your last point from your reply, scientism.

Have you any theories on how something substantial could be done towards improving this hilarious yet unfortunate state of affairs?

On an individual basis, or I suppose in a small process therapy group, the underlying values & beliefs could be brought, at least in part, to the surface & discussed.

We take so much of our foundational beliefs, without even noticing it, from our upbringing, social interactions & education. These foundational aspects are important to the stability of society but they are seldom examined in an objective way for their actual plausibility. These beliefs often persist when their function & usefulness has long passed.

On a larger scale, such beliefs gradually evolve often with great suffering & turmoil. Consider the transition of western cultures from Christianity & feudalism, to Capitalism, scientific inquiry, & triumphant technology, and now to recognition of life extinction on a mass scale & what to do about an 8,000,000,000 population. (Shades of Hegel's dialectic in all of this.)

Or for that matter, the Islamic belief system fighting for relevancy in the modern world of science, capitalism, democracy, religious freedom, value fluidity, & gender issues.

This is an amazingly good answer, thank you!