One thing I'd highlight is that the mechanism the OP notices in all the actors is a low-cost way of reducing uncertainty. At each step, what does it cost to ad

One thing I'd highlight is that the mechanism the OP notices in all the actors is a low-cost way of reducing uncertainty. At each step, what does it cost to admit uncertainty or error vs what is gained from doing so? For a powerful person, appearing decisive often has a lower immediate cost than being indecisive. For a committed supporter, doubting the figure they've invested in has social, psychological and identity costs that outweigh any benefit of changing their beliefs. When the local cost of uncertainty is higher than the perceived benefit of being right, people resolve toward certainty. So the phenomenon could be seen as a cost-minimizing collapse where beliefs and actions settle on whatever preserves stability, even if it means denying something real. So: Benefit(belief update) < Cost(belief update) => certainty collapse -> people believe weird shit