To deny the seeker's path is not the way—
Join our ranks; cease denying what we say.
The truth need not be clad in false display,
From proud self-righteous saints, I turn away!
Poem by: Ibn Hesam Khosfi
Translated from the original Persian by: Faraz Forghan Parast
To better understand why some might seek to deny facts, or perhaps more importantly, why mis- or disinformation might be well received by some, we look to establish a foundational underpinning of this psychological tendency to deny. In examining why it is that people deny facts, we find research indicating there is an unconscious human tendency to deny uncomfortable truths, which is distinct from denialism, which is an active, and often shared, narrative that seeks out a fertile audience, often with preexisting anti-government or -institutional inclinations (Bardon, 2019, p. 3).
In this section we explore the concept of denialism, its psychological underpinnings, and its distinction from related phenomena like ignorance, wishful thinking, and delusion, while shedding light on why individuals—regardless of education or expertise—persistently deny realities that challenge their beliefs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denialism has been identified as a complex and deeply ingrained human tendency, arising from emotional and psychological mechanisms designed to protect individuals from discomforting truths (e.g. Ariely, 2023; Bardon, 2019). Unlike simple ignorance or misinformation, denialism represents a conscious or subconscious rejection of well-established facts, often to preserve one's worldview, identity, or sense of security. Rooted in motivated reasoning, denialism extends beyond individual cognition, frequently shaping collective ideologies and public discourse.
When people feel powerless or unable to influence their environment, they may gravitate towards beliefs that offer a sense of control or empowerment (Ariely, 2023). For some, denying the atrocities of residential schools might be a way to assert control over their understanding of history and protect their cultural or national identity.
Scholars Mark Hoofnagle and Chris Jay Hoofnagle, who have significantly contributed to shaping the concept of denialism in the academic literature, add a definite note of intentionality to denialism:
“Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary” (Hoofnagle & Hoofnagle, 2007, p. 1).
As such, denialism can be observed across a wide range of subjects. Kahn-Harris (2018, p. ix) points out that some common examples include the rejection of evolution through Creationism or Intelligent Design, the denial of climate change, Holocaust denial, skepticism about the link between HIV and AIDS, conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, and the dismissal of evidence on the harmful effects of tobacco (which marked the first coordinated corporate denial campaign). Yet more examples can include anti-vaccination movements, claims about links between mercury and autism, and opposition to animal testing from extremist animal rights groups.
References:
The concepts of denial and denialism have been explored extensively by scholars and psychologists, often raising questions about whether they are distinct or interchangeable. Understanding their similarities and differences is essential to clarify their usage and implications. Kahn-Harris (2018) characterizes denialism as an intensified and amplified form of denial. Both denial and denialism, he explains, are rooted in the human tendency to use language as a tool for deception—whether to mislead others or to obscure truths from ourselves, however, denialism goes beyond individual deception:
"Denialism is more than just another manifestation of the humdrum intricacies of our deceptions and self-deceptions. It represents the transformation of the everyday practice of denial into a whole new way of seeing the world and – most important – a collective accomplishment" (p. 3).
Thus Kahn-Harris contrasts the two types of denial, the unthinking psychological tendency and the active participation in collective action. Denial is typically subtle and routine, operating in the background of human interactions, while denialism is combative and extraordinary, actively constructing an alternate reality.
Expanding on this distinction, Bardon (2019) emphasizes that denial appears across both personal and public contexts, often reflecting individual beliefs, such as faith in fate, supernatural powers, or personal competence. These examples, while reflective of denial, remain private and circumstantial. In contrast, denialism involves the collective construction of a worldview designed to sustain and justify the rejection of inconvenient truths, such as Canada's Residential School system as anything but well-intentioned and educational. Bardon points out that denialism often aligns with ideological frameworks, influencing public policies and societal beliefs. Examples he provides include the rejection of scientific evidence on climate change, the denial of racial equality, the support for authoritarian practices, and resistance to vaccines.
References:
To better understand denialism, it is crucial to distinguish what it is—and what it is not. Denialism should not be confused with simple misinformation or lack of knowledge. The following breakdown, adapted from Bardon’s The Truth About Denial: Bias and Self-Deception in Science, Politics, and Religion (pp. 9–10), provides a clear summary to refine our understanding.
Denialism is not being misinformed, ignorant, mendacity:
“It does not refer, for instance, simply to being misinformed" (Bardon, p. 4). It's more a kind of self-protective self-deception, as Bardon calls it. He claims that denial "presumes some exposure to relevant—and unwelcome—facts and constitutes a kind of reaction to them. This sort of self-deception is different from mendacity, wherein one purposefully lies to others about the existence of evidence for something, or deliberately misrepresents the evidence” (Bardon, p. 4).
Denialism is not wishful thinking:
“What wishful thinking has in common with denial is that each fulfills an emotional need of some kind. However, with wishful thinking, there is a belief without solid evidence for a conclusion one way or the other" (Bardon, 2020, p. 5), such as a wished-for outcome, like doing well on an exam without studying.
Denialism is not delusion:
Denialists can find themselves believing a thing based on a construct of alternate facts. “Delusion is unusual, abnormal, and pathological, whereas denial is common, normal, and requires no malfunction” (Bardon, p. 7). In this sense, delusions are distinct from denialism. Delusions are caused by illness or psychiatric disorder or from injury, separate from an emotional need. Delusions are beliefs that the believer may not actually expect others to accept, whereas the person in denial is rational in the sense that evidence still matters (Bardon, 2020, P. 6).
Denialism is not compartmentalization:
Bardon has also written about how compartmentalizing uncomfortable facts or truths is different and distinct from denying their existence. He claims that when we encounter uncomfortable truths we can experience a cognitive dissonance that causes us to compartmentalize our thinking in order to avoid facts that are inconsistent with our behavior. This compartmentalizing is an unconscious human defensive response, wherein the unpleasant or challenging fact is suppressed rather than denied (Bardon, p. 9). In this way, compartmentalizing is not denying a fact, but instead avoiding it. And, as Bardon explains, "the denier is harder to dislodge because he or she has devoted cognitive resources to eliminating dissonance, rather than just ignoring it" (p. 9).
Reference:
Bardon, A. (2019). The Truth About Denial: Bias and Self-Deception in Science, Politics, and Religion. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190062262.001.0001
Ask us