I think it is good to bear in mind that the distinction between perception, cognition and action/behaviour is in reality a reduction. There is more to these cat

I think it is good to bear in mind that the distinction between perception, cognition and action/behaviour is in reality a reduction. There is more to these categories about the way we communicate and organise our society rather than mapping to a corresponding reality. We cannot really handle incogruencies between these domains. The meanings we give to things, situations, people are not merely thoughts, they are stuff we enact on them. We can perceive something as unfair or destructive, but if nothing can be done to change it (or what can be done has too high a cost so it is practically inaccessible) we will tend to seek whatever sort of congruence we can. It is hard to think one way and act another, because that requires more energy which we are evolved to try to minimise. Hard realisations are that hard because they imply a sharp change in behaviour and way of living that we may not want, and because the implications span many domains that need to change. Author's family realising the reality of the mother would require changes in the perception of the family situation that was too uncomfortable. It is easier to hide things under the carpet to preserve the facade of a normal family life, than enact all the changes required. This is why such situations are so common when it is about families. So, I do not quite agree with the premise and conclusion of the article, in the sense that I do not think that there is anything ingrained in our primate brains regarding how we judge incoming negative information, but rather something ingrained in our cultural institutions and social reality, which is what makes them both stable and dysfunctional. Seemingly irrational behaviours make perfect sense once one can understand how to contextualise them.