> At that age, I didn’t yet understand why some people are incapable of changing their point of view. To be honest, I still don’t fully understand how ideology can cloud the mind so thoroughly that only a single way of thinking remains possible.

Are you describing Erich von Däniken's inability to change his mind when evidence clearly contradicted his theories?

I think, that the people that are criticizing Erich von Däniken are doing so from modern viewpoint. People in his time had very limited POV, mostly because there was not much data, compared to how it is now, but modern people also forget that science is not a religion and it can't be based on beliefs only - it requires evidence and without any such evidence all the ideas has to be thrown out. Also, if there are better explanations - old ones are thrown out as well, because that is how it is in science. Unfortunately, no matter how good and exiting his ideas were as a read, but as a science theory they simply did not pass test of time, however IMO he has earned his place as someone as an example to have wider horizons to look around.

> I still don’t fully understand how ideology can cloud the mind so thoroughly that only a single way of thinking remains possible.

I'm envious of those true believer kind of people.

My father is one of them and he's held absurd ideas as 100% facts and we've had many nasty quarrels about it, BUT it also means he 100% believes in whatever his current goal is and he's achieved a lot more than I ever will because he's unwavering in his beliefs and goals, whereas I'm always doubting and second guessing.

I share your confusion about how ideology clouds judgement but I have a little anecdote.

I sometimes give people the Monty Hall problem. When they get it wrong, it often falls into the category of staying with the initial pick increases chances or switching has equal odds. I then proceed to give them the example of N=100 doors, opening 98 others, leaving their pick and another closed and then asking them whether that makes a difference.

If they insist that it makes no difference, I then start to play the actual game with them, writing down the prize door before the game starts and then proceeding with the game as normal. Only after a few rounds of them losing do they accept the proofs of what the optimal strategy is.

My interpretation is that, before playing the actual game, they refuse to believe me. They don't trust me or the logic and so dismiss it. Once actual stakes are involved, even if it's their pride, only then do they start to be open to arguments as to why their intuition was wrong.

Incapable: that happens when the acceptance of an idea implies that their perception of their identity is flawed and has, logically to change in order to adapt for the new reality where the idea has its place. Denial is a protection mechanism, and it is very effective when the reality is too difficult to support as it is. Identity is so essential in our beliefs, attitudes and behaviours that most of us won't accept anything that requires it to change. Unless we accept that failure is part of our identity and that this means that our identity sometimes has to evolve. But that has to be done willingly, explicitly (in our minds).

You could make a similar case for Victor Lustig or Ferdinand Waldo Demara. Or, more recently: Lance Armstrong or Donald Trump.

Or for an organization such as the Flat Earth Society (with 'members all around the globe').

> A quite unique and interesting person departed this planet yesterday.

Any decent conspiracy theorist could've introduced you to this idea. In fact, any marketeer could've, too. I was introduced to this idea at the age of five. Yes, five years old. We had these fairytales in class, stories from the bible. All I did was asking questions, and it didn't take long to figure adults were believing in unproven nonsense. I don't remember who it was, but eventually I got convinced the stories were figurally meant, as lessons. I still value them as such these days, but I am convinced many people who call themselves religious do not follow these teachings at a decent level.

The practice from what we call con artists (in the form of conspiracy theories) is rather common these days, I'm afraid. As in: con artists are able to organize cons on massive levels. Before, if the ground got too hot they'd flee law enforcement and try their luck elsewhere. Just have a look at the lives of Victor Lustig and Ferdinand Waldo Demara, for example.

Either way, the whole conspiracy movement is arguably where MAGA stemmed from. That is how large they've become.

Like Trump, von Däniken had a criminal record, btw.

Everything you wrote, could also apply to say L. Ron Hubbard. Because we should factor in cults work similar, too.

The works themselves aren't the problem. The specific issue is that fiction, lies are sold as non-fiction, truth. You can add force, manipulation, terror, financial gains, and other forms of intimidation on top of that. A person like Lance Armstrong destructiveness was that his web of lies was kept intact while everyone around him was a fraud, too. He achieved this with matters of terror and manipulation. A person like Madoff was as destructive as he was because of the sheer volume of the (financial) scam.

> why some people are incapable of changing their point of view

I've thought about this and the conclusion was:

What you believe you know makes you what you currently are. You can't just believe in a contradictory position. You could believe that you have been proven wrong, which would then change your belief.

Changing your point of view, looking at things from the vantage of someone else with different life experiences and the resulting belief systems would be dishonest at best, and claiming that you are capable of changing your beliefs on a whim is like being able to rip your arm off.

You can, at best, adapt your own belief to encompass theirs with caveats or simply not care about your truths.

> To be honest, I still don’t fully understand how ideology can cloud the mind so thoroughly that only a single way of thinking remains possible.

From what I know, and please correct me if I am wrong; it relates to fear and cognitive dissonance. First, by creating FUD the perpetrator can cause physical narrow-mindedness within the brain, the amygdala — centre of emotions if you will — takes control which reduces reasoning capabilities. Second, by introducing multiple conflicting viewpoints in that state, you induce what we call cognitive dissonance. The brain is unable to reconcile the two opposing (or even just differing) views. This is a conflict at the circuit level of the brain, and the brain needs to reach a conclusion, and conveniently the conclusion is produced by the perpetrators of fud, those who seek to control/exploit others.

Yeah, whatever...

One way or the other he still was a bullshitter, blowhard, huckster,...

That means that in the end, the "single way of thinking" was the right way of thinking.

But don't despair, there is still a lot of pseudoscience around: creationism, global warming denialism, anti-vax, astrology, etc. Some of these are even oficial policy for governments around the world.

> why some people are incapable of changing their point of view

Do you really want the answer?

People don't always say what they think and aren't consistent because they may hold multiple conflicting beliefs. This isn't lying or a lack of curiosity. It's the opposite, and perfectly rational.

Actually, if you don't think you have any conflicting beliefs you should think about it harder or seriously question how open-minded you really are.

You can give someone all the evidence that convinced you about something, but it will only convince them if they share enough of your foundational assumptions. At the core of all beliefs lie some assumptions, not facts.

This quickly becomes philosophy, but I encourage you to seek more if you really want this answer. You are pulling on a thread that I promise will bring enlightenment. I wish more people asked this more often and really meant it. It would resolve a lot of pointless conflict.

What I see instead, especially on places like HN or Reddit, is people trying to reassure themselves because they want to settle a question "once and for all" instead of seeking better answers. They want praise for what they "know" and to take a break, but there is no perfect truth, just better answers, and this process never ends.

> the what if, the “wouldn’t it be cool if this premise were true,” still lingers in my mind from time to time.

This stops being as relevant when you're put under pressure to make real decisions based on what you believe is true. You are forced to weigh the consequences of the decision, not just what you think might be true. This is a compromise, but I struggle to call this dishonesty.