Executive Summary
In 1997, science historian and skeptic Michael Shermer published Why People Believe Weird Things, a penetrating study of pseudoscience, conspiracy thinking, and ideological extremism.
The book’s central thesis was neither that people are foolish nor that belief in strange ideas is rare.
Rather, Shermer argued that belief formation is a natural cognitive process shaped by pattern recognition, agency detection, emotional reinforcement, and social identity. Humans are belief-driven creatures who rationalize after the fact.
Shermer’s analysis, initially focused on UFO cults, Holocaust denial, and fringe science, now appears acutely relevant to modern geopolitics.
In an era marked by digital amplification, algorithmic reinforcement, polarized media ecosystems, and strategic disinformation campaigns, irrational beliefs no longer remain marginal.
They increasingly influence elections, foreign policy debates, and interstate conflict narratives.
FAF article delves into Shermer’s key arguments, situates them within contemporary global developments, and assesses whether current events reflect his warnings.
It concludes that while Shermer did not predict specific crises, he identified structural vulnerabilities in democratic societies that are now strategically exploited in geopolitical competition.
The central danger is not that people believe odd things; it is that belief systems can be mobilized as instruments of power.
Foreward
Belief as a Political Force
Shermer’s foundational insight is deceptively simple: people believe first and justify later.
The human brain evolved to detect patterns rapidly. In evolutionary terms, mistaking wind in the grass for a predator was safer than ignoring a real threat.
This cognitive bias toward agency and pattern recognition remains embedded in modern psychology.
In ordinary circumstances, these tendencies produce religion, superstition, and occasional pseudoscience.
In political contexts, however, they can produce nationalism, paranoia, ideological extremism, and susceptibility to manipulation.
When Shermer wrote in the late 1990s, the internet was expanding but not yet dominant. He examined belief systems largely in localized communities and niche movements.
Today, digital platforms allow fringe ideas to reach global audiences within hours. The boundary between eccentric belief and political mobilization has thinned.
The geopolitical consequence is profound. Beliefs shape voting behavior, foreign policy preferences, public health compliance, and support for war. In this sense, belief is not merely psychological; it is strategic.
History and Current Status
From Fringe Movements to Networked Conspiracies
Shermer’s early chapters examined historical episodes such as witch hunts, racial pseudoscience, and Holocaust denial.
He argued that extraordinary claims persist not because evidence is strong but because belief communities reinforce them socially.
In the decades since publication, the structure of belief communities has transformed. Digital communication has replaced geographic proximity with algorithmic proximity.
Individuals no longer need physical gatherings to sustain fringe worldviews. Online forums, encrypted messaging groups, and influencer ecosystems provide continuous reinforcement.
The early 2000s saw the proliferation of online conspiracy networks. By the 2010s, foreign state actors recognized the potential of digital disinformation as an asymmetric tool. Coordinated campaigns sought to amplify social divisions in rival states.
In the United States and Europe, conspiracy narratives entered mainstream political discourse.
Electoral fraud claims, anti-scientific movements, and extremist ideologies gained visibility. Trust in institutions declined.
Polling data indicated that significant portions of populations endorsed demonstrably false claims.
Simultaneously, authoritarian governments refined domestic narrative control. State media and digital censorship created curated realities.
Internationally, strategic narratives framed liberal democracies as chaotic and morally decayed.
Shermer’s thesis that belief precedes evidence now intersects with global power competition.
Key Developments
Cognitive Bias Meets Algorithmic Amplification
Confirmation bias
One of Shermer’s central concepts is confirmation bias.
Once individuals adopt a belief, they seek information that confirms it and dismiss contradictory evidence.
In the pre-digital era, this bias operated within limited information environments. Today, algorithms intensify it.
Digital platforms prioritize engagement
Content that provokes outrage or fear spreads more rapidly. As a result, extreme claims often outperform nuanced analysis.
Identity-Protective Cognition
Another key development is identity-protective cognition.
Beliefs become markers of group loyalty. Rejecting a conspiracy theory may feel like betraying one’s political tribe. Thus, belief persistence becomes socially reinforced.
In geopolitics, identity-based narratives shape perceptions of allies and adversaries.
For example, strategic competitors portray liberal institutions as hypocritical, exploiting domestic polarization to undermine credibility.
Denialism
Shermer also analyzed denialism, including Holocaust denial. He demonstrated how ideological commitments can override overwhelming evidence.
Contemporary parallels include denial of electoral outcomes, scientific consensus, and documented human rights abuses.
Latest Facts and Concerns
The Globalization of Conspiratorial Politics
Recent elections across democratic states reveal heightened susceptibility to misinformation.
Political campaigns increasingly incorporate emotionally charged narratives that blur fact and opinion.
Hybrid warfare strategies now integrate cyber operations, information campaigns, and economic coercion.
Belief manipulation reduces the cost of confrontation. If a rival state’s population doubts its own institutions, strategic cohesion weakens.
Public health crises exposed vulnerabilities in belief systems. Competing narratives about vaccines, treatments, and origins circulated widely. Compliance varied along partisan lines.
Financial markets, too, reflect belief volatility. Rumors can trigger rapid shifts in asset values. In an interconnected economy, belief contagion can carry material consequences.
The broader concern is epistemic fragmentation. Without shared factual baselines, policymaking becomes reactive and unstable.
Cause-and-Effect Analysis
From Cognitive Bias to Strategic Instability
Shermer’s framework suggests a causal chain beginning with evolved cognitive biases. Pattern recognition and agency detection generate beliefs. Social identity reinforces them. Digital amplification accelerates their spread. Political entrepreneurs mobilize them. Geopolitical actors exploit them.
The effect is strategic instability. Democracies rely on informed consent. When citizens disagree fundamentally on empirical reality, consensus becomes elusive.
Moreover, foreign policy requires public legitimacy. If segments of society distrust intelligence assessments or diplomatic commitments, decision-making narrows.
Belief polarization can also provoke internal unrest. When opposing groups view each other not merely as competitors but as existential threats, compromise becomes morally suspect.
Future Steps
Institutional Resilience and Cognitive Literacy
Addressing belief-driven instability requires multi-layered responses. Education systems must emphasize critical thinking, probabilistic reasoning, and scientific method.
Media institutions must rebuild credibility through transparency and accountability.
Digital platforms face pressure to balance open discourse with mitigation of coordinated manipulation.
Governments may develop strategies to counter foreign information operations while safeguarding civil liberties.
International cooperation could establish norms against large-scale disinformation campaigns, though enforcement remains challenging.
Ultimately, cultural reinforcement of epistemic humility is essential. Recognizing cognitive bias does not eliminate it but mitigates overconfidence.
Conclusion
Prediction or Diagnosis?
Did Shermer predict contemporary turmoil? Not in specific detail. He did not foresee particular elections or geopolitical crises. However, he diagnosed enduring psychological mechanisms that, when combined with technological acceleration, produce systemic risk.
What is unfolding today aligns with his core insight: belief is primary, evidence secondary. In a hyperconnected world, this sequence acquires strategic significance.
The question is not whether people will continue to believe unusual things.
They will. The question is whether institutions can withstand the political mobilization of those beliefs.
The answer will shape the future of democratic governance and global order.
