I think that almost everyone has beliefs that are essentially unchangeable. These don’t feel to us like beliefs but like incontrovertible truths. Counter-evidence can’t touch them. They are beliefs we can’t change our mind about. I call these “Anchor Beliefs.”

When Anchor Beliefs are false, we distort reality to fit them. So, what distortions do some reasonably common Anchor Beliefs cause?

Anchor Belief 1: “I’m entirely good” or “I don’t do unethical things”

What happens when someone with these Anchor Beliefs acts highly unethically? Well, since the Anchor Belief can’t change, that means the action must have been ethically okay to do, or else it was someone else’s fault or impossible to avoid. Victim blaming, denial, or shirking of responsibility ensues.

“My whole foundation, life, what I believed in, devotion to the company, was based on believing [Ramesh Balwani] was this person…He told me he didn’t know what I was doing in business, that my convictions were wrong…There was no way I could save our company if he was there…We were trying to do the right thing. We were trying to report results that we believed in and not report results if we thought there was any issue” -Elizabeth Holmes, who was found guilty on four counts of defrauding the investors in her company, Theranos

“All I ever wanted was to love women and, in turn, to be loved by them back. Their behavior towards me has only earned my hatred, and rightfully so! I am the true victim in all of this. I am the good guy.” -Elliot Rodger, in his manifesto about why he planned to commit murder before murdering six people.

Anchor Belief 2: “I’m not good enough”

What happens when someone with this anchor belief gets a great job, performs really well, or achieves success? Well, it must have been a fluke or mistake; eventually, others will figure it out. Imposter syndrome ensues.

“No matter what we’ve done, there comes a point where you think, ‘How did I get here? When are they going to discover that I am, in fact, a fraud and take everything away from me?” – Tom Hanks, winner of two consecutive Academy Awards for Best Actor

“I have written 11 books, but each time I think, ‘Uh oh, they’re going to find out now. I’ve run a game on everybody, and they’re going to find me out.” – Maya Angelou, legendary poet and winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Anchor Belief 3: “This thing I’ve devoted a great deal of time/energy/identity into works and is good” [that doesn’t work or is harmful]

What happens when it’s criticized? The criticism must be bad faith. Any imperfection in counter-evidence fully invalidates that evidence. Confirmation bias, cherry-picking, and motivated reasoning ensues.

“Those who have attacked my work on Vitamin C are scoundrels.” – Linus Pauling, two-time Nobel prize winner, defending his theory that vitamin C cures cancer and heart disease.

“We do not find critics of Scientology who do not have criminal pasts…Politician A stands up on his hind legs in a Parliament and brays for a condemnation of Scientology. When we look him over we find crimes – embezzled funds, moral lapses, a thirst for young boys – sordid stuff. Wife B howls at her husband for attending a Scientology group. We look her up and find she had a baby he didn’t know about.” – L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology

Anchor Belief 4: “My group is good.”

What happens when their group does something really bad? The victims must be lying or have deserved it. Or acting badly must be justified in this case because it’s done for some more important greater good. Denial of and justification of immoral actions ensues.

“When we show a statement by Donald Trump that’s not truthful, Republicans will say it’s okay if it’s not true because it sends the right message, whereas Democrats will say that a statement needs to be factual…With a statement from Joe Biden, Democrats will say it’s okay if it’s not based on evidence, that it supports a generally true message, while Republicans will then have a higher bar and say every statement needs to be based on facts.” – Ethan Poskanzer, based on his studies on moral flexibility

So, what are the takeaways here? I think that the following three things are important and true:

(1) Almost everyone has at least one Anchor Belief – a belief that is so sticky that it’s nearly impossible for it to change in the face of even extremely strong counter-evidence. Some people have more of these, and perhaps a small number of people have none, but I think Anchor beliefs are a near-universal among us humans.

(2) When our Anchor Beliefs are false (or partially false), because the beliefs won’t change, we distort reality when we get evidence against them in order to keep them intact while also somehow “making sense” of that counter-evidence.

(3) By looking at fairly common Anchor Beliefs people have, we can start to understand some recurring distortions in people’s thinking. Since people’s Anchor Beliefs are fixed but reality sometimes provides strong counter-evidence against these beliefs, that leads to predictable patterns of distortions that people’s minds deploy to keep the beliefs intact around those Anchor Beliefs.

In particular, I think that we find:

• Anchor Beliefs related to being good may lead to victim blaming and denial of responsibility.

• Anchor Beliefs about not being good enough may lead to imposter syndrome.

• Anchor Beliefs about something we’ve invested a lot of time/energy/identity into working on and being good may lead to confirmation bias, cherry-picking, and motivated reasoning.

• Anchor Beliefs about our group being good may lead us to deny or justify immoral actions by our group.

There are no strong studies that I’m aware of that identify or map out anchor beliefs and their frequency in the population – I believe the points above are true based on my experiences and observations.

This piece was first written on August 13, 2024, and first appeared on my website on September 2, 2024.

1) Belief because you think something’s true.

For instance, you may think that the evidence supports the idea that you will eventually find love, or you may feel convinced by logical arguments you’ve heard in favor of god’s existence.

2) Belief because you think it’s useful to believe. 

Regardless of whether you predict something’s true, you can predict that believing it will be more helpful than harmful to you in the long term, and so be motivated to believe for that pragmatic benefit.

For instance, you may intuit that you’ll be better off long-term believing that you will eventually find love (because that will make love more likely) or perceive that you’ll be happier believing in god (even if it turns out there is no god).

3) Belief because it feels good in the moment. 

Regardless of whether it’s true or helpful to you in the long term, you may be motivated to believe something because it feels good right now (or prevents you from feeling bad). 

For instance, you may feel comforted right now by thinking you’ll eventually find love or feel good in the moment, believing a god is watching over you.

Rationalists typically recommend striving to have your beliefs be of type 1: believing based on what’s most likely to be true.

Pragmatists often recommend aiming for type 2 beliefs: believing based on what’s ultimately most useful to you.

I favor striving to have type 1 beliefs rather than type 2 beliefs, in part because I intrinsically value truth, but also because I think that for beliefs in category 2 that are *not* actually true, there are typically some beliefs in category 1 that will help you just as much, but which have the advantage of also being true. So often (but not always), there is a low cost to replacing beliefs from 2 with beliefs from 1 that have the added benefit of being true.

I also think that if you allow yourself to indiscriminately hold type 2 beliefs, it makes it hard to suddenly switch to rigorous truth-oriented thinking when it’s important to figure out the truth (e.g., when you have to make a very important decision based on evidence).

On the other hand, many people have lots of type 3 beliefs, and all of us, myself included, have some type 3 beliefs. Whether you think that type 1 or type 2 beliefs are ultimately preferable, I think a valuable aspiration is to replace some of our type 3 beliefs with either 1s or 2s.

It’s very, very easy for us humans to delude ourselves based on what it feels good to believe at the moment because the reward cycle is so fast. Type 3 beliefs are immediately rewarding, incentivizing more such beliefs. But they are like the social media addiction version of believing, where you pursue what gives the greatest instantaneous reward rather than what’s actually good for you.

This piece was first written on April 20, 2024, and first appeared on my website on May 7, 2024.

Gaslighting, where someone causes another person to doubt their sanity or senses, can cause psychological damage.

There’s an opposite thing, though, that can also be damaging. As far as I know, it has no name. I call it “lightgassing” (or “light gassing”). Here, I explain how lightgassing works.

Lightgassing is when one person agrees with or validates another person’s false beliefs or misconceptions in order to be supportive. 

Unlike gaslighting, a tactic of jerks and abusers, lightgassing is an (unintentionally harmful) tactic of friends and supporters.

Here are common examples I’ve seen that are sometimes, but obviously not always, lightgassing:

• “Since they did X, they don’t deserve to be with you.”

• “It was reasonable for you to do Y because they made you feel bad.”

• “You did nothing wrong. It was 100% their fault.”

Ideally, when you’re upset, friends should validate your feelings and help you feel heard and understood, but they should do so without agreeing with statements they themselves know to be false.

We do a disservice to people when we encourage their false beliefs. Most people have a value of truth-telling (and knowing the truth), and by avoiding lightgassing, we stay truer to these values.

But how does one listen with openness and empathy to an upset friend and still validate *feelings*, without validating *false beliefs*? This can be a tricky maneuver, which I think is one reason people feel tempted to lightgas.

If you want to avoid lightgassing, the key is to validate those elements of a person’s *beliefs* that you know to be true while empathizing with them and validating that their *emotions* are understandable and okay to feel. But the key is to do this without reinforcing beliefs in false things.

I think it’s usually not helpful to challenge what another person believes is true right in the heat of emotion when that person is sad or upset. So avoiding lightgassing will often initially involve simply not validating/agreeing with what you believe is false. Later, when the person is feeling better, if they ask for your opinion on the facts (or you feel it’s important for them to hear your opinion), you can tell them what you believe to be true at that point.

A caveat that I think is worth mentioning is that sometimes, the only thing we know about a situation is what our upset friend or loved one has told us. In such cases, I think we should start with the assumption that what they have described is an accurate representation of what they experienced (unless any reason to doubt it emerges).

Lightgassing (or light gassing) typically happens in ordinary situations where someone feels hurt or upset. But it can also happen in more extreme situations, such as when you’re trying to help someone who is feeling upset due to severe delusions caused by psychosis. 

In the case of someone with psychosis, the path of least resistance is to lightgas them by agreeing with their delusions, but this is not in their own interest. On the other hand, if you invalidate their emotions, you will likely make them more upset and may lose their trust. The tightrope to walk is to help them feel cared about, listened to, empathized with, and understood, without saying that their delusions are reality. In other words, to avoid lightgassing them while also not causing them to feel gaslit.

Does lightgassing really deserve its own term? Why not just call it “enabling”? Well, lightgassing can be a type of enabling, similar to how gaslighting is typically a form of manipulation. But lightgassing is much more specific than enabling, and enabling can include lots of things that are not lightgassing (e.g., buying an alcoholic some alcohol is a form of enabling but not lightgassing). Having a more specific term (lightgassing) makes it easier to spot and communicate about this specific pattern of behavior.

This piece was first written on October 1, 2023, and first appeared on my website on May 13, 2024.

Whereas with most of our beliefs, when we get strong counter-evidence, we become at least a bit less confident in those beliefs, with anchor beliefs, strong counter-evidence doesn’t budge us at all – it just bounces off. That means we either ignore the evidence (e.g., just don’t let ourselves think about it), explain it away (e.g., “I must have misunderstood what happened”), or change our mind about other facts to incorporate the counter-evidence without our anchor belief budging (e.g., “they must have been lying to me.”)

Understanding the role that Anchor Beliefs play in human psychology – and identifying your own personal Anchor Beliefs – can help you make better sense of the world around you. Additionally, such an understanding can help you search for false Anchor Beliefs – those apparently unquestionable truths that make up the foundations of some people’s worldviews despite being wrong! Challenging your own false anchors is very difficult, but the consequences may be life-changing.

This article provides an introduction to Anchor Beliefs, including an explanation of how they differ from other beliefs, what can make them so hard to change, and a list of common categories of Anchor Beliefs that can help you identify your own. We also give some proposals for how false Anchor Beliefs form, how you can identify these false beliefs in yourself, and what you can do to question them in a safe and productive way. If you care about understanding your own mind and the minds of other people, we think you may find this write-up valuable! 

How do Anchor Beliefs work? Instead of shifting with evidence, they shape how we see evidence.

With many low-stakes, shallow-rooted beliefs (such as which turn to take to get to a restaurant), our commitment to the belief tends to adjust when we get counter-evidence (for example, “this doesn’t look familiar – I wonder if I took the wrong turn back there”). This behavior looks like an approximate form of Bayesian updating. Anchor Beliefs don’t work like this. 

Anchor Beliefs almost never change, yet we still have to make sense of new information that we come across (some of which may strongly contradict our Anchor Beliefs). As mentioned, one solution is to warp the evidence that we receive such that we can fit it into our worldview AND keep our Anchor Belief intact at the same time. This is how Anchor Beliefs get their name: they are like huge, steel anchors securing boats to the ocean floor – only an enormously powerful current will be able to make them budge; any lesser current will simply swirl around the anchor. In this way, only incredibly powerful evidence can pose a threat to our Anchor Beliefs. And even then, our brains are highly adept at interpreting evidence so that our original Anchor Belief remains steadfast. 

Here’s a silly example to show how this might look in reality. Imagine that you HAVE to believe the walls of your house are blue. If you don’t, then everyone you love will reject you (or something equally catastrophic). So it’s really important that you believe the walls of your house are blue. This means you must bend the evidence that you receive so that your perception is compatible with this belief. But the walls of your house don’t look blue. How can you make sense of this? Maybe there is some strange-colored light in the house that makes the walls appear white. Or maybe there’s something wrong with your vision. Or maybe the walls are just an incredibly pale shade of blue that is very close to white. It’s not clear which explanation is correct, but it’s not worth wasting your time worrying about why blue walls would appear white.

While you may think that you wouldn’t fall for a false Anchor Belief like this, being particularly smart or logical doesn’t necessarily help you challenge these kinds of beliefs. You’re more likely to come up with smarter and more logical reasons why your Anchor Belief must be correct (regardless of whether or not it is). If you search hard enough, there is almost always a way to reinterpret the evidence so that your Anchor Belief can remain steadfast. 

Examples of common Anchor Beliefs

Some Anchor Beliefs are profound (say, about the origins of life), but many are prosaic (say, about the earth being spherical rather than flat). We all have large numbers of boring and trivial-sounding Anchor Beliefs such as:

• 1+1 = 2
• humans have teeth
• you live in [whatever country you believe you live in]

Consider for a moment how hard it would be for someone to convince you that you were wrong about any of these beliefs! And consider for a moment how INSANE things would be for your worldview if you did correctly come to believe that these beliefs were false. The ramifications would be so shocking that it is hard to comprehend the implications of being wrong.

What makes the above Anchor Beliefs “trivial” is they have a really high probability of being true, and virtually everyone concurs about them. Much more interesting and important to consider are Anchor Beliefs that may be false. False Anchor Beliefs are often acquired through social and cultural influences, though they can also come about in other ways (e.g., as defense mechanisms or by generalizing from a small number of traumatic experiences). Here are some common categories of Anchor Beliefs that could be false:

• Things that almost everyone you know is taught
• Certain religious beliefs learned in childhood
• Perceptions of ourselves (e.g., as good/bad)
• Views about one’s community
• Views about “enemy” groups
• Inferences from viscerally shocking first-hand experiences (e.g., “the world’s unsafe”)
• Beliefs your social group REQUIRES
• Claims that the reputation of your most trusted authority figures are staked on
• Beliefs that, if you stopped believing them, would leave you very confused about what to believe or what to do

The idea of an Anchor Belief is connected to (though not the same as) a number of other ideas, including:

• sacred values (social psychology)
• soldier vs. scout mindset (see Julia Galef’s book on the topic)
• shibboleths (the Bible)
• conflict vs. mistake theory (see Slate Star Codex)
• trapped priors (see Astral Codex Ten)
• belief updating (Connection Theory)
• core beliefs (CBT)
• leaving lines of retreat (see LessWrong)

What does changing an Anchor Belief involve?

While Anchor Beliefs almost never change, on rare occasions, we cut an anchor loose, and our boat suddenly lurches forward into the unknown. Jettisoning an anchor doesn’t necessarily take you where you want to go. It is scary, and it isn’t always safe. It may even lead you to abandon other, even more steadfast anchors. But abandoning an Anchor Belief is sometimes the only way to move forward. There’s no guarantee that the new beliefs you adopt will be correct. Consider your belief “the earth is round” (i.e., approximately an oblate spheroid, rather than flat like a disk). 

Imagine, for a moment, what would happen if you came to believe in a flat earth, and you traced out the consequences of that belief. What is NASA, then? And SpaceX? What is the field of astronomy, or geology, or cartography? Surely our government must know – so why are they keeping it from us? How long have they known this? How do they prevent the truth from getting out? Is the whole world involved in this conspiracy? Am I in danger if I publicly say it’s a conspiracy? Why don’t more people speak out about this? Have all of my friends and family also been misled? Is gravity real (and if so, how does it work on a disk)? What are the stars in the sky? 

It would be incredibly disorienting to work through all the implications that would follow from changing this once previously-unquestioned belief. Additionally, many of us have never checked whether the earth is actually round! Have you looked carefully at the arguments for this claim? And at the counterarguments to those arguments? Have you ever doubted (for even one minute of your entire adult life) that the earth is round? If we trust the evidence we receive from our eyes, many of us might assume that the earth is flat. So, how do we know that it is not? We learn this fact through our social world. (Unless, perhaps, you’ve lived by the ocean and had a habit of watching tall sailboats on the horizon.) 

Fortunately, the earth isn’t flat. At least, our Anchor Beliefs say so – we’ve never personally run experiments to check, nor have we closely scrutinized the arguments for and against this claim. (If you wanted to, there are simple experiments that you can run – for example, you could attach a camera to a helium-filled high altitude weather balloon and see the round horizon from the vantage point of the camera.) Notice that most scientific facts you believe are not as fundamental as “the earth is round,” which is a fact that has many important implications for our belief systems. Other scientific facts have fewer implications. For example, people were interested to learn that dinosaurs probably had feathers, but few (if any) had reasons to resist this update in their beliefs – because it didn’t challenge a core part of their worldview. In contrast, questioning a belief like “the earth is round” would throw most people’s belief systems into disarray. 

Interestingly enough, if you already believed there was a cabal secretly ruling the world and that scientists were controlled by this cabal, then the earth being round may merely be an ordinary belief rather than an Anchor Belief. In that case, switching your view from believing in a round earth to believing in a flat earth is not likely to be perspective-shattering – it’s easy to incorporate it into your worldview as just another thing the cabal has manipulated people to believe. 

What happens when our anchor beliefs are wrong?

Anchor Beliefs aren’t necessarily false. A lot of them are true. They just aren’t necessarily true. So, it’s important to distinguish between two types of Anchor Beliefs: (1) “False Anchors” and (2) Anchor Beliefs that happen to be true. False Anchors are obviously much more worrisome. However, they often aren’t easy to spot.

Remember, Anchor Beliefs feel to us (the believer) not like mere beliefs but like indisputable truths. However, it’s almost certain that we learned them from the people around us or derived them from shoddy generalizations, and they may not be obvious truths at all (that doesn’t mean they are false, just that they may not be indisputable like they seem). Our own Anchor Beliefs are like the dark matter of the self. They flow through us without detection, and they influence our actions.

It’s not that doubting these beliefs is impossible, but we tend to automatically dismiss skepticism towards our Anchor Beliefs (or entirely ignore evidence that contradicts them) so that we don’t have to face abandoning our worldview. False Anchor Beliefs can have negative consequences the way any false belief can: by causing your predictions to be out of sync with reality. What makes them worse than your average false belief is that they are hard to change, largely because so many other beliefs tend to rely on them. But remember that not all Anchor Beliefs are false (so it wouldn’t make sense to give up a belief merely because it’s an Anchor). 

Why is it that some of our beliefs become Anchor Beliefs?

In the simplest examples (such as 1+1=2), a belief can become an Anchor Belief (i.e., almost impossible to change) because we have so much valid evidence for it being true that our prior probability of it being true is almost 100%. These are Anchor Beliefs that we’re almost certainly right about – we’ll call them Steel Anchors because they provide a sturdy foundation for an accurate worldview. But what about those Anchor Beliefs we may well be wrong about? Beliefs that are foundational to us but are not the result of witnessing tons of valid evidence?

Let’s call these Anchor Beliefs Tin Anchors. We are almost completely unable to change our mind about Tin Anchors, despite the fact that they don’t provide a valid foundation for an accurate worldview. Five reasons that we may form Tin Anchor Beliefs:

1. It could be that Tin Anchors are a consequence of too many beliefs being piled on top of one fundamental belief, such that the fundamental belief can’t be questioned without challenging the whole pile of beliefs.
2. Tin Anchors might also be explained by the fact that it is better to have some model of the world than to have no model at all; without any kind of model, you fail to make predictions about the world, which is essential for understanding it. When an Anchor Belief falls, we’re often temporarily thrown into a state of confusion about what to believe, which makes predictions difficult. Tin Anchors, like real anchors, keep us stabilized.
3. Another explanation behind Tin Anchors is that people might grow up in social communities with poor epistemic standards; if everyone you trust tells you that something is true despite not having good evidence (especially if this starts in childhood and if this continues for a long time), these beliefs may become unmovable aspects of your worldview.
4. You might also find yourself forming Tin Anchors when you are in a situation where your brain predicts highly negative consequences from abandoning a belief. This makes changing our minds about that thing very painful and difficult. We will find all kinds of ways to cling to a belief if the alternative involves losing something that seems essential to our survival. Doubting one of these beliefs is like sticking your hand into a cage full of poisonous snakes: your mind wants to get away from the doubt as fast as possible (to avoid the severe predicted danger).
5. Tin Anchors sometimes occur when we generalize from shocking or traumatizing experiences. For instance, someone who is abused as a child might have an unshakable belief that they can’t trust other people not to hurt them (of course, some people truly cannot be trusted, but their brain may have overgeneralized this).

Finding your Anchor Beliefs

It may be valuable to ask yourself: “What are my own Tin Anchors?” If you want to consider what Tin Anchor Beliefs you may have, here are some questions that it might be helpful to ask yourself: 

• “What beliefs did I pick up from those around me that I can’t imagine not believing (yet many people in other social groups somehow manage not to believe)?”
• “What viscerally shocking experience might I have overgeneralized from that explains my worldview now?”
• “What might other people from another community claim my Anchor Beliefs are?”

These are pretty safe queries, as you’re very unlikely to stop believing your Tin Anchor Beliefs. And identifying one of your beliefs as a Tin Anchor doesn’t make it change, though it might be useful to know where your Anchors lie. Of course, it might be valuable (though costly) to try to change such an Anchor Belief if you want to. This might be something worth considering. 

So, how do you challenge your Anchor Beliefs?

Suppose you think that you’ve found one of your own Tin Anchors that you think has important implications for your life, and you actually want to examine whether it’s true. One strategy that may help is to try and clearly imagine the world where this Tin Anchor Belief turns out to be false. What is that world like? Can you deal with and accept that world? How would believing that you live in that world change your behavior and relationships? Can you accept those changes?

If you DO live in that world (where your Anchor Belief is false), would you want to believe you live in it, or would you rather pretend that your Anchor Belief isn’t false? If the answer is truly “yes” – you really would want to know if the belief is false, and you’re prepared to face the ramifications and consequences of losing that belief – then now you can truly start to put the belief to the test. Consider the strongest arguments on each side by, for instance, using our Clearer Thinking Belief Challenger program. Seek out evidence that might disconfirm the belief. Ask people that disagree with this belief why they disagree with it. Surround yourself with some people who don’t have that Anchor Belief for a little while. See if the belief survives these tests. 

How can you work around someone else’s false Anchor Beliefs?

Suppose you know someone who you think has a harmful, false belief. If your goal is to help them understand the world accurately, it is simplest to first identify the relevant Anchor Belief that this false belief relies on and assume that it cannot be changed. (Changing someone else’s foundational Anchor Belief will require an IMMENSE current or, in other words, powerful evidence that is impossible to ignore or misinterpret.) Consider what you’d say to this person to nudge them towards truth GIVEN their Anchor Beliefs. Too often, we try to change other people’s minds by attempting to shift 20-ton anchors. Instead, it is more effective to identify those Anchor Beliefs and then act as best you can under the assumption that you will almost certainly not be able to change them.

Is it bad to have Tin Anchors? Some of these Anchor Beliefs are bad, but others are fine. In any event, it seems like we may not have a choice – Anchor Beliefs might be part of the construction of human minds. Once we acknowledge that people have these almost entirely unquestionable beliefs, the world – and how people act in it – begins to make much more sense. There’s a reason so many boats are just stuck where they are (no matter how much paddling appears to be happening on the surface).

For more about Anchor Beliefs, see part 2 of this series.

This essay was first written on November 21, 2021, was published on Clearer Thinking on December 22, 2021, and was cross-posted here on December 24, 2021.

It’s when someone has a persistent belief that’s both highly inaccurate and substantially harmful. Here are some examples:

• A false belief that you are unlovable
• Being convinced that God punishes pre-marital with death
• Believing that “no usually means yes” in sexual encounters

Whereas a psychological disorder consists of emotions, thoughts, and personality traits creating distress or impairment, many WITHOUT psychological challenges have “Philosophical Disorders.” All it takes is being infected by false ideas that either harm the believer or lead them to harm others.

Since people will naturally disagree regarding which ideas are false or harmful, I think the term “Philosophical Disorder” is best reserved just for the extreme cases, where it’s easy for an outside observer to see both the falsity and harm of a belief.

Furthermore, much like it would rarely be a good idea to tell someone (outside of a therapeutic relationship or very trusting friendship) that you think they have a “psychological disorder,” telling someone you think they have a “philosophical disorder” is not advisable.

A true belief that causes harm at least has the virtue of being accurate, and trying to change it would imply some form of deception. Some people would rather believe a difficult truth than a comforting falsehood. On the other hand, a false belief that causes no problems can at least be said to be harmless, and one could argue that it’s not worth taking the time to correct it. Philosophical disorders, on the other hand, must (by definition) be both highly inaccurate and substantially harmful – they are the category of beliefs we can unequivocally say are worth correcting.

I require a belief to be “persistent” to meet the definition of philosophical disorder because if it is going to go away on its own anyway (e.g., a temporary harmful, false belief while someone is having a drug trip), it feels like it’s in a fundamentally different category (and action to change the belief is usually not as important since it is time-limited).

— A Better Understanding of “Evil” —

Pretty often, when large groups do what seems to be extreme evil, they are led by either a low-empathy narcissist or a sociopath. But chances are that most of the rank-and-file members of that group have philosophical disorders, not psychological disorders. Pretty often, even the leader has a philosophical disorder.

As an example, consider the case of religious zealots who are truly convinced that blowing up civilians is a holy act. Or the many groups whose members have become convinced they are inherently superior to other groups, whom they then kill or subjugate.

It’s understandable that people call those who commit atrocious acts “evil” regardless of their motivations, but there is a big difference between doing something highly harmful that you’re truly convinced is a good deed and doing a highly harmful act selfishly or with indifference towards the suffering of others.

While plenty of harm is caused by people due to their having some psychological traits, like sociopathy or low empathy narcissism, it may well be that as much or even more is caused by people who are pretty typical psychologically but who have philosophical disorders.

— Philosophical Disorders vs. Psychological Disorders —

Philosophical disorders can cause very bizarre behavior that is easily confused with a psychological disorder. As an example, some school shooters are well-characterized as having psychological disorders (e.g., showing signs of psychosis or sociopathy – like being convinced monsters lived in their basement at home or torturing animals for fun), whereas other school shooters may have been infected with harmful false belief systems (e.g., that others deserve death), hence, they might be better understood to have philosophical disorders. But without a careful inspection, the behavior (a “school shooting”) looks the same. The same outcome is coming from a different cause. I think it can be a clarifying question to ask: is this particular case best explained by a psychological disorder or philosophical disorder (or both simultaneously).

The link between psychological and philosophical disorders is complex. Philosophical disorders can both cause and be caused by psychological ones. For instance, falsely believing that nobody likes you could make you depressed. And schizophrenia can cause false, harmful beliefs (such as paranoid beliefs that others are out to get you).

In Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, “negative core beliefs” are sometimes uncovered as being a major factor causing a person’s depression or anxiety. That being said, typically, other factors are at play as well, such as patterns of behavior, reactivity to negative stimuli, disruptive thoughts, and so on.

But occasionally, a psychological disorder can be said to very directly result from a philosophical disorder (e.g., constant anxiety because of being convinced that lustful urges imply eternity in hell). In other cases, philosophical disorders are really not the right level of explanation for a psychological challenge (since emotional reactions, behavioral patterns, disruptive thoughts, etc., may better characterize what’s happening). Additionally, it’s possible to have a severe philosophical disorder without having a psychological disorder.

— Categorizing Philosophical Disorders —

As with psychological disorders, we might attempt to organize philosophical disorders. To do so, we might consider different aspects along which they can vary. Here’s a first attempt:

(1) Who is substantially harmed?

A. Self harmed (e.g., “I will fail at everything I try”)

B. Others harmed (e.g., “people of group X are inferior”)

C. Both harmed, meaning the belief harms both self and others (e.g., a man believing that “no men are trustworthy”)

(2) What is the false belief about?

A. Self (e.g., “My angry thoughts prove I am evil, even if I don’t act on them”)

B. Humanity (e.g., “Pretty much everyone is a bad person”)

C. People of importance in your life (e.g., a false belief that “my wife is cheating on me”)

D. Future events (e.g., “It is inevitable that the world ends in a nuclear holocaust sometime in the near future”)

E. Past events (e.g., “Mistakes my parents made when raising me have forever doomed me to being miserable”)

F. God (e.g., “God hates group X”)

G. Reality (e.g., “What if the whole world is just my imagination, and nobody else is real? I can’t prove that anyone else other than me exists.”)

(3) How was this belief acquired?

A. Caregivers who raised you (e.g., “you’re a bad child, nobody is ever going to love you”)

B. Culture of your region (e.g., “female circumcision is an important right of passage”)

C. Religion (e.g., “you will be rewarded in heaven if you die as a martyr killing the enemy”)

D. Group membership (e.g., falling into a social circle that has a shared philosophical disorder, for instance, a cult or movement)

E. Argumentation (e.g., reading an essay that convinces you that humanity should be wiped out)

F. Personality (e.g., narcissists tending to believe they are inherently superior to others)

G. Drugs (e.g., when someone forms an upsetting false belief while on drugs that persists afterward, such as that nothing is real)

H. Psychosis (e.g., the paranoid beliefs that schizophrenia sometimes causes)

I. Previously accurate but now resolved (e.g., you have a belief that people are not trustworthy because when you were young, the people around you really weren’t trustworthy, but you haven’t updated your belief even now that you are around mainly trustworthy people)

Of course, there are a lot of overlaps between the categories above.

When you hear of someone engaging in really a harmful behavior, it may be worth asking whether it better fits the hypothesis of a psychological disorder or of a philosophical one.

This essay was first written on July 20, 2020, and first appeared on this site on November 19, 2021.