1. © 2010-2011 Coert Visser,
www.solutionfocusedchange.com

2. Each set of beliefs or convictions that:
1.is not true: it is not grounded in evidence
2.can be harmful for both for the person who
holds it, and for society
3.is attractive and ‘sticky’
4.spreads easily throughout a population.
What is contaminated mindware?

3. 1. when it is packaged in an appealing narrative which
promises some kind of benefit to the person
2. when it rides on the back of more valid ideas by copying
superficial characteristics from those (for example
scientific looking graphs),
3. when it contains self-replication instructions (‘send this
mail on to 10 different people', 'recruit two new
participants for this training course’),
4. when it has evaluation-disabling properties (for instance
by claiming that evidence is not relevant or possible, by
denying that evidence exists, by making belief which is
unsupported by evidence into a virtue, by encouraging
adherents to attack non-believers, etc).
Conditions under which contaminated
mindware spreads easily:

4. You might think that intelligence would guarantee a
good protection against contaminated mindware but
this turns out to be wrong. By making narratives
complex, highly intelligent people can even become
extra attracted to them.
Further, studies have demonstrated that intelligent
people may be more capable of creating ‘islands of false
beliefs’ or ’webs of falsity’ by using their considerable
intellectual power to rationalize their beliefs and to ward
off the arguments of skeptics.
Intelligence alone does not protect
against contaminated mindware

5. The question is whether a head-on attack of
popular contaminated mindware will lead to
its demise or runs the risk of making it even
more popular.
A head-on attack might lead to further
publicity for the contaminated mindware,
thus exposing more people to its
attractiveness.
How can you protect yourself against
contaminated mindware?

6. Recent research has demonstrated that people whose
confidence in closely held beliefs gets undermined may
become stronger advocates of those beliefs.
Another reason why a head-on attack may be ineffective is
that contaminated mindware may even contain an
instruction to attack opponents.
A direct challenge may lead to a
defensive response and a strengthening
of the convictions
This defensive response may be even stronger when the
contaminated mindware contains the above mentioned
evaluation-disabling properties ("When someone says so or
so, don't listen! That is the Devil talking!").

7. Philosopher Daniel Dennett has said: "You seldom talk
anybody out of a position by arguing directly with their
premises and inferences. Sometimes it is more effective to
nudge them sideways with images, examples, helpful
formulations that stick to their habits of thought."
Or might a different approach work better?
For instance an approach of teaching people to recognize
contaminated mindware more easily and protect
themselves better against it?
Or might satire be a good way to help people see through
contaminated mindware?
Alternative strategies

8. 1. How well would you be able to recognize
contaminated mindware when you'd come
across it?
2. How well could you protect yourself against it?
3. How would you be able to recognize
the evaluation-disabling properties of the
contaminated mindware?
4. Have you ever freed yourself from contaminated
mindware which you were already 'infected'
with?
5. How did you do that?
Questions: my suggestion is to try to
answer these for yourself:

9. © 2010-2011 Coert Visser,
www.solutionfocusedchange.com
References:
Keith Stanovich:
•Decision Making and Rationality in the Modern World (2009)
•What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational
Thought (2009)

10. © 2010-2011 Coert Visser,
www.solutionfocusedchange.com
References:
Keith Stanovich:
•Decision Making and Rationality in the Modern World (2009)
•What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational
Thought (2009)