4 ms·

It certainly would be a form of cognitive dissonance, but that's much more general; I experienced cognitive dissonance hearing the word "nicht" pronounced by a

by gwd 3y ago

It certainly would be a form of cognitive dissonance, but that's much more general; I experienced cognitive dissonance hearing the word "nicht" pronounced by a native German speaker yesterday evening, because it wasn't at all like what I expected it to sound like. "Confirmation bias", where you tend to see what you expect to see, is narrower; but still I think doesn't capture what we're talking about. We're specifically talking about resistance to accepting the idea because accepting it would mean reclassifying actions you yourself had taken from "very good" to "very bad". It's kind of weird that it doesn't have a name -- I'm convinced it plays a pretty big part of human behavior, much more than is commonly acknowledged.

rossant 3y ago
> We're specifically talking about resistance to accepting the idea because accepting it would mean reclassifying actions you yourself had taken from "very good" to "very bad". That's exactly it. I'd love to discover scientific literature about this phenomenon, and I'd also be surprised if it doesn't already have a name and an extensive literature. But if that's the case: I think there are research carriers in psychology to make here... Edit: ChatGPT found "belief perseverance" [1] but, again, that's not exactly what we're talking about, which also relates to a personal sense of morality and "being one of the good guys". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
- gwd 3y ago
  You could call it "moral self-image maintenance bias": A bias towards maintaining your self-image as an upright, moral person.
  - tivert 3y ago
    I think it's probably just a kind of "avoidance" or "denial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(Freud) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(Freud) HN and software engineers have bias to over-focus on the cognitive, but I think the key experience here is emotional distress.
    - rossant 3y ago
      I agree. It's kind of ironic you mention "denial". It turns out this is one of the favorite attacks by "SBS proponents" against those who challenge the scientific reliability of the diagnosis. We are called "denialists" and we're accused of "denying the existence of child abuse" (?). Parents in my organization (Adikia) who face false allegations of abuse are said to be in "denial" of their own abusive behavior. This story line appears to be quite credible and powerful within the medical and judicial communities. Here's one among thousands of examples, from a really terrible paper by one such powerful SBS proponent here in France [1] (another of his papers was actually retracted this year [2]). "Fake news 11: the caretakers’ denial is sincere Clinicians and defenders can become intoxicated by the denials of parents suffering the agony of having their child in dire condition, and at the same time being grilled for their possible responsibility. The mental mechanisms of self-denial are well-known to psychiatrists. A perpetrator, after a violent burst, and faced with its terrible consequences, can experience a dissociation mechanism similar to witnesses of catastrophes, dissociation being understood as “a break between the memory, the perception, the consciousness and the identity…when faced with unbearable feelings”. Sincere denial easily elicits compassion from the medical staff as well as defenders, a natural response which is enhanced by professional training. Some authors have documented with functional imaging the sincerity of denial in a case of convicted child abuse and concluded that the sincerity of denial is not a criterion for innocence." [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-021-05357-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-021-05357-8 [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-023-05889-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-023-05889-1
      - gwd 3y ago
        You obviously have more experience than I do; but two phrases I'd be tempted to try out in these discussions are, "If you were wrong, would you want to know?" And at some point later "How would you know if you were wrong?"
        rossant 3y ago
        That could only happen if such discussions could actually take place. So far, the controversy has been so polarized that there has been almost no communication between the two "sides". Norman Guthkelch himself (the first to hypothesize a causal link between shaking and subdural/retinal hemorrhage) wrote in 2012 [1]: "While controversy is a normal and necessary part of scientific discourse, there has arisen a level of emotion and divisiveness on shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma that has interfered with our commitment to pursue the truth." A French neuropediatrician wrote a medical book in French a few years ago about this issue. When interrogated by a lawyer in a symposium a couple of years ago, the author of the papers linked in my comment above said: "I haven't read this book because I absolutely can't agree with it, since it's written by one of the leaders of a denialist and revisionist school of thought". How can you even start a discussion in a context where a Godwin point is reached with the very term they use to call you? [1] https://law.uh.edu/hjhlp/volumes/Vol_12_2/Guthkelch.pdf https://law.uh.edu/hjhlp/volumes/Vol_12_2/Guthkelch.pdf

by gwd 3y ago

rossant 3y ago

> We're specifically talking about resistance to accepting the idea because accepting it would mean reclassifying actions you yourself had taken from "very good" to "very bad". That's exactly it. I'd love to discover scientific literature about this phenomenon, and I'd also be surprised if it doesn't already have a name and an extensive literature. But if that's the case: I think there are research carriers in psychology to make here... Edit: ChatGPT found "belief perseverance" [1] but, again, that's not exactly what we're talking about, which also relates to a personal sense of morality and "being one of the good guys". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance

gwd 3y ago
You could call it "moral self-image maintenance bias": A bias towards maintaining your self-image as an upright, moral person.
- tivert 3y ago
  I think it's probably just a kind of "avoidance" or "denial." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_avoidance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(Freud) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(Freud) HN and software engineers have bias to over-focus on the cognitive, but I think the key experience here is emotional distress.
  - rossant 3y ago
    I agree. It's kind of ironic you mention "denial". It turns out this is one of the favorite attacks by "SBS proponents" against those who challenge the scientific reliability of the diagnosis. We are called "denialists" and we're accused of "denying the existence of child abuse" (?). Parents in my organization (Adikia) who face false allegations of abuse are said to be in "denial" of their own abusive behavior. This story line appears to be quite credible and powerful within the medical and judicial communities. Here's one among thousands of examples, from a really terrible paper by one such powerful SBS proponent here in France [1] (another of his papers was actually retracted this year [2]). "Fake news 11: the caretakers’ denial is sincere Clinicians and defenders can become intoxicated by the denials of parents suffering the agony of having their child in dire condition, and at the same time being grilled for their possible responsibility. The mental mechanisms of self-denial are well-known to psychiatrists. A perpetrator, after a violent burst, and faced with its terrible consequences, can experience a dissociation mechanism similar to witnesses of catastrophes, dissociation being understood as “a break between the memory, the perception, the consciousness and the identity…when faced with unbearable feelings”. Sincere denial easily elicits compassion from the medical staff as well as defenders, a natural response which is enhanced by professional training. Some authors have documented with functional imaging the sincerity of denial in a case of convicted child abuse and concluded that the sincerity of denial is not a criterion for innocence." [1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-021-05357-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-021-05357-8 [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-023-05889-1 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00381-023-05889-1
    - gwd 3y ago
      You obviously have more experience than I do; but two phrases I'd be tempted to try out in these discussions are, "If you were wrong, would you want to know?" And at some point later "How would you know if you were wrong?"
      - rossant 3y ago
        That could only happen if such discussions could actually take place. So far, the controversy has been so polarized that there has been almost no communication between the two "sides". Norman Guthkelch himself (the first to hypothesize a causal link between shaking and subdural/retinal hemorrhage) wrote in 2012 [1]: "While controversy is a normal and necessary part of scientific discourse, there has arisen a level of emotion and divisiveness on shaken baby syndrome/abusive head trauma that has interfered with our commitment to pursue the truth." A French neuropediatrician wrote a medical book in French a few years ago about this issue. When interrogated by a lawyer in a symposium a couple of years ago, the author of the papers linked in my comment above said: "I haven't read this book because I absolutely can't agree with it, since it's written by one of the leaders of a denialist and revisionist school of thought". How can you even start a discussion in a context where a Godwin point is reached with the very term they use to call you? [1] https://law.uh.edu/hjhlp/volumes/Vol_12_2/Guthkelch.pdf https://law.uh.edu/hjhlp/volumes/Vol_12_2/Guthkelch.pdf