Connecting the Dots Between Cognitive Dissonance and OSINT

Public figures (including Russell Brand) will come to believe the messages that they repeat

"Madame Two Face" by San Diego Shooter is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Trigger warning: this column discusses the accusations of sexual abuse against Russell Brand, as well as Donald Trump’s liability for sexual abuse

The Sharpen Your Axe project is based on an awareness of cognitive dissonance, one of the key planks of modern psychology. It is a sad truth that none of us like to be contradicted; and there will always be a temptation to double down on our previous beliefs and our self-image when someone tells us we are wrong.

People who hold inflexible beliefs will always be quick to deploy conspiracy theories as bodyguards to protect their worldview from a kicking from nasty fact-checkers or inconvenient witnesses. In a recent example, British comedian turned conspiracy theorist Russell Brand reacted to multiple accusations from women that he had allegedly acted as a sexual predator with counter-accusations of “a serious and concerted agenda” to silence him for his unconventional views about vaccines - a worldview which is largely based on misunderstanding exponential risks.

The alleged plot to discredit Russell is clearly acting as a bodyguard to his self-image as a contrarian truth-seeker with a colourful past as a loveable rogue. It also serves as a loyalty test for people who follow his conspiracy videos. Strangely, a number of loud-mouthed male commentators, from Alex Jones to Elon Musk, jumped to endorse his defence - a view which only begins to make sense if you decide to completely ignore the testimony of the comedian’s alleged victims, let alone an interview with an ex-girlfriend from 2015, who said Brand had abused her. This was long before he started producing conspiracy content in 2020.

Whatever the truth of the matter, those of us who know about cognitive dissonance will realise that arguing about the issue on social media is unlikely to end well. Instead, we can have a healthier and more productive conversation by stepping back and talking about our research methodology instead. How should we think about the investigation and the counter-claims?

The approach we suggest in these parts is grounded in suspending judgement (a technique borrowed from the Ancient Greek philosophy of skepticism). All beliefs are provisional. Anything can be discussed. Honest criticism and fact-checking both make beliefs stronger. Be wary of building your identity around sacred or tribal beliefs that can never be criticised by anyone!

The next step is to try and assign our beliefs a probability, like a Bayesian. The magic happens when we start to move our beliefs up and down an imaginary sliding scale based on the changing evidence. Double-loop thinking - being able to change our minds based on an assessment of the evidence - is the end point. It is effectively the opposite of cognitive dissonance.

We have also suggested thinking about the quality of our news sources. News stories in the mainstream press (including The Times and The Sunday Times, which broke the Brand story in collaboration with Channel Four’s Dispatches) tend to be better than speculation on conspiracy websites (like Jones’ Infowars), largely because they take legal risks about defamation very seriously, which makes them more careful.

Like many conspiracy sites, Infowars regularly promotes speculation from Vladimir Putin’s notorious disinformation sites, which are designed to undermine democratic institutions in the West. Any connection with the outside world is purely coincidental. Jones is also learning about the legal risks of defamatory content the hard way in multiple lawsuits.

Reading the press while downplaying conspiracy sites has parallels with the methodology used by open-source intelligence (OSINT) analysts, as we discussed here and here. In fact, OSINT is something of a critical-thinking red pill. Paying close attention to primary sources (first-hand accounts of what happened) is very different from seeking out secondary sources (commentary on material presented elsewhere) that tell you what you want to hear, while seeking to develop tribal affinities with other like-minded people.

Funnily enough, OSINT is also grounded in the principles of cognitive dissonance. Imagine you are a politician. You rather cynically decide to include a line in your speeches about the importance of X (it doesn’t really matter what it is) in order to appeal to certain donors or voters. At first you aren’t entirely sincere. The more you say the words, though, the more you come to believe them. After a while, you will fully believe your speech.

OSINT works because cognitive dissonance makes its very hard to defend one belief in public while defending another contradictory belief in private. Even con artists half-believe their own shtick, as discussed before. Doing so makes them more convincing.

Obviously, we shouldn’t take this too far and imply that all public figures are entirely honest all the time or that every news story is completely correct in every detail. Our understanding of cognitive dissonance needs to be tempered by another finding of psychology, called social-desirability bias. People want to appear good, so they will over-report good behaviour, under-report bad behaviour and skip over inconvenient details, often with big doses of self-deception.

In other words, OSINT can help us understand how politicians and other public figures want to be seen, but our findings need to be contextualised with results from other credible primary sources. Having said that, reading someone’s own words should form the basis of your literature review.

"Russell Brand" by Eva Rinaldi Celebrity Photographer is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

In the case of Brand, he said he has always been open about his “promiscuous consensual conduct in the past.” However, OSINT analysts would also pay attention to the accounts of the five alleged victims (four of them anonymous); as well as the decision of his agent, publisher and public relations (PR) firm to drop him.

Previous well-documented cases - like Brand’s decision to brag about flashing at a random stranger or offering to pimp his personal assistant to Jimmy Savile or making “jokes” about his sexual partners’ mascara running during blow jobs - are also relevant for people interested in OSINT and weighing the probabilities. It is worth noting that in 2013 Brand described himself as a “sex narcissist.”

As a professional journalist, though, I must warn you that there are legal risks in publishing any firm conclusions about whether you think Brand is guilty, as well as in speculating about the reliability (or not) of the women making the accusations. The question of Brand’s sexual conduct is extremely likely to end up in the courts. If it does, a court judgement will create privilege for journalists, bloggers and the like - we will be able to openly discuss any legal findings. If in doubt about the rules, please consult a lawyer.

It became much safer to discuss former US President Donald Trump’s track record of sex abuse after he lost a lawsuit in May. Trump is a narcissist; and narcissists are grandiose and lack empathy for other people. This makes it hard for them to understand that other people might not want to have rough sex with them. It is worth doing some reading about narcissistic sexual abuse if you want to understand Trump’s issues in more depth.

"CSW60 - UN Commission on the Status of Women urges gender-responsive implementation of Agenda 2030" by UN Women Gallery is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Finally, don’t take my word for the power of OSINT: try it! You have probably heard conspiracy theorists like Jones of Infowars speculating about Agenda 2030. If you want to look into what it really is, check out the official website here. Spend some time on it. Take notes. Doing so will help vaccinate you from disinformation from malignant forces later. Also, feel free to share this week’s column with any of Brand’s fans who have bought into his conspiratorial defence against the allegations. The comments are open. See you next week!

Further Reading

Brand’s conspiracy schtick is based on relativism

You shouldn’t give all beliefs an equal weighting

Cognitive Dissonance: 50 Years of a Classic Theory by Joel M. Cooper

Sharpen Your Axe is a project to develop a community who want to think critically about the media, conspiracy theories and current affairs without getting conned by gurus selling fringe views. Please subscribe to get this content in your inbox every week. Shares on social media are appreciated!

If this is the first post you have seen, I recommend starting with the second anniversary post. You can also find an ultra-cheap Kindle book here. If you want to read the book on your phone, tablet or computer, you can download the Kindle software for Android, Apple or Windows for free.

Opinions expressed on Substack, Twitter, Mastodon and Post are those of Rupert Cocke as an individual and do not reflect the opinions or views of the organization where he works or its subsidiaries.