Book #14

Misbelief

By Dan Ariely

Fake Controversy

Dan Ariely begins this book by talking about being confronted with a series of disturbing rumors that he is apparently an evil mastermind with a nefarious plot related to the COVID-19 pandemic. He found this incredibly unnerving and disorienting due to how little the story had to do with reality and how strongly certain people believed it.

The misbelievers weren’t just strangers online but also people who knew him personally and who he had shared a good relationship with for years. By the time he realized the rumours existed, it was too late to talk those people out of their opinions. So there he was, in the middle of this misinformation tornado that he did not start.

Genuine Controversy

Around this same time, Ariely was involved in a data fraud controversy.

I was hesitant to read this book for my 2025 Reading Challenge because I was aware of ongoing questions regarding the data integrity of some of Ariely’s previous work. Data integrity is incredibly important and holding scientists to the highest standards is crucial for public trust.

Ultimately, however, I chose to read this book because both controversies demonstrate the potential real-world consequences of misrepresented information and, along with the book itself, engage with deeply relevant themes like uncertainty and misbelief.

Misbelief

Before our modern age of misinformation, my hypothesis would have been this: it is easier to convince others of a lie that is close to reality rather than one that is incredibly far-fetched. However, I no longer think this is true. I think the more far-fetched a lie is, the more it incites people. Then misbelievers start thinking with their emotions, not their minds.

Unfortunately, though, just because false information isn’t real doesn’t mean the damage isn’t.

The following is a high-level framework for understanding misbelief. This is not a recommendation, but rather a brief examination of common tactics used in misinformation campaigns, cult dynamics, and abusive power structures. Understanding these patterns can prevent a person from falling for them in the first place.

How Misbelief is Manufactured

---

1. Trust is Earned

Misbelief often begins with the strategic creation of trust. This frequently involves the following:

• emphasizing in-group belonging
• performative generosity from leaders
  • such as future faking (making promises that are never intended to be kept)
• identifying emotional vulnerabilities in followers
• gradually desensitizing the victim(s) to future harmful behaviour

2. Misinformation Begins

Rumours and misinformation are introduced and may be incubated in an echo chamber so they are allowed to grow without correction or contradiction. During this early phase, the subject of the rumour is often unaware of it and therefore makes no attempt to refute it. This does not mean they agree with it; but, the absence of contradiction allows the rumour to gain credibility as the singular narrative.

When the echo chamber solidifies further, the believers start to see the lies as inarguable truth and begin to see those who do not agree with them as “other”. This is when emotions typically start to escalate.

3. Confirmation Through Manufactured “Evidence”

Once a rumour exists, scenarios are cultivated that appear to confirm it. Ambiguous events are reinterpreted and coincidences are framed as proof. This affirms the misbelievers, and they begin to see themselves as someone with “insider knowledge”. Those that don’t have this knowledge are judged, pitied, or seen as misinformed.

4. The Misinformer Adopts the Moral High Ground

Leaders often position themselves as martyred truth-tellers, devil’s advocates, or noble crusaders. Therefore anyone who questions them is seen as disgusting, ridiculous, or disrespectful to truth itself.

Leaders may adopt phrases of critical thinking, such as, “just asking questions”, “wanting all the facts”, and “doing independent research” without actually engaging in those practices.

This positioning shields them from criticism and reframes dissent as ignorance or moral failure.

5. The Subject of the Lie is Framed as the Bad Person, Regardless of What Action They Take

The subject of the lie often gets placed in a no-win position. Silence is framed as admission of wrongdoing, confusion as ignorance or dishonesty, and denial is framed as defensiveness. This makes the misbelief immune to correction because all outcomes are interpreted in the same direction.

6. An Escalating Price for Misbelievers Realizing the Truth

Gradual Losses Lead to Irretractable Outcomes

People will hold on to falsehoods if realizing the truth costs them everything.

So leaders will little by little ask followers to invest valuable things into their misbelief, such as time, money, their reputation, lifestyle, stability, other relationships, and individual identity. They do this gradually so that by the time the misbeliever realizes what they have lost, they are already separated from it- the bridge having been burned. This makes them even more reliant on the leader, as they have fewer options to leave to a healthier social environment.

Fear of Loss of Community or Status

Leaders will make it clear that deserters will lose their position in the tribe if they question the truth or decide to leave. This can make followers desperate not to lose everything.

The followers may go from being a king or queen in this toxic social situation, to an ordinary person in a healthy one.

And they may also have to confront all that they have done while keeping up the falsehood. Their life outside this toxic environment has been neglected and may very well be in tatters- and this can be uncomfortable to face.

Who Pays a Greater Price For Lies, Leaders or Followers?

Asymmetric Risk

Followers often pay higher costs for falsehoods compared to leaders.

Leaders like to benefit from these dynamics, while followers pay the price- either unwittingly, or framed as honourable sacrifice.

Leaders will have their followers do their dirty work and take the fall if things go south. The leader protects their interests above their followers. They will blame their followers for the failures of the cause and for personal failures.

An Example:

An example of this might be a toxic online influencer.

They get more engagement the more incendiary they are, but their followers pay for engaging with their teaching- in time, lost relationships, money given, increased isolation, consequences of mimicking their behaviour, like getting dumped by a partner, losing a relationship with their kids, getting arrested, getting kicked out of school, etc., while the influencer benefits from the followers’ viewership.

But the follower still often reveres the influencer in a parasocial way.

Look For These Red Flags

Unfortunately, these patterns are all too common- they are not confined to any one political ideology, profession, or social group. They appear wherever power, fear, and identity become entangled. Learning these dynamics can help you spot toxic dynamics sooner. In my experience, these are the red flags you should look for:

• You are experiencing situational vulnerability
  • Ex. loss of a loved one, just moved to a new city, went through a breakup, etc.
• The leader is on a pedestal
• The leader is always right/ all-knowing
• You aren’t encouraged to question the leader
• You are expected to work for free
• You are expected to give what you don’t have
  • Ex. time, money, emotional resources
• You are expected to do things that make you uncomfortable
  • Expressing this discomfort is interpreted as a sign of weakness, disobedience, or lack of faith
• Your opinion doesn’t matter
• Other areas of your life are suffering
• The leader wants to be the centre of your life

Who May Be Vulnerable?

Anyone can be vulnerable, especially when they are experiencing great change on a personal or societal level. In these cases, people look for community and a sense of reassurance. Sometimes they find these in healthy ways, other times in toxic ones.

Those who deliberately spread falsehoods are cunning, and will often opportunistically seek out vulnerable people. These dynamics do not happen accidentally. It is hard for ordinary people to imagine the depths nefarious people will go.

So failing to see the signs is not a moral failure; but failing to rectify the harm might be.

Messy Bun Book Lover

(Originally posted on May 23, 2025, Edited Jan. 2026)