Are Humans Wired for Folly?

The earlier essay (published in The Times of Israel on October 22, 2026, titled The Meaning Dilemma: When Purpose Becomes Folly) explored how the search for meaning can distort judgment and encourage irrational beliefs. This essay examines why humans are prone to folly, how individual weaknesses become collective failures, and how they can be resisted.

Human beings are capable of remarkable things. They have built science, art, and enormous stores of knowledge. But they continue to repeat collective mistakes: political divisions, pointless conflicts, and beliefs that survive despite mounting evidence against them. Information is more accessible than ever, but judgment has not necessarily improved.

People are predisposed to folly, which is a tendency shaped by how they respond to uncertainty, fear, and social pressure.

Folly, as defined here, is not ordinary error, reasonable disagreement, or a lack of intelligence. It is holding onto beliefs despite strong reasons to question them, often because they provide comfort, belonging, or a reassuring identity. The problem is not necessarily what people believe, but their unwillingness to reconsider it. Everyone makes mistakes; folly begins when correction is no longer welcome.

Why people fall into folly

The earlier essay located folly in the need for meaning. Closely related is the need for certainty. Meaning helps people understand why life matters; certainty makes them feel secure in that understanding. When either need becomes overwhelming, people may cling to reassuring beliefs rather than examine them critically.

Life is short, the universe is vast, and many basic questions have no clear answers. Some people find uncertainty interesting. Others find it frightening and seek firm answers to ease their fears.

People tend to notice information that supports their beliefs while overlooking contradictory evidence. They may also accept familiar ideas, influential opinions, and widely repeated claims without examining them.

Intelligence can make matters worse. Capable thinkers may use reasoning not to test their beliefs but to defend them. Reasoning then protects assumptions rather than challenges them.

Groups compound the problem. Belonging provides social support and security, but the desire to fit in can discourage independent judgment when disagreement risks criticism or exclusion. Cooperation and conformity can be beneficial, but they also have limits.

Religion, political beliefs, and personal philosophies can all offer comfort and guidance. They become problematic when treated as beyond question. As argued in the earlier essay, when beliefs become part of someone’s identity, criticism can feel like a personal attack. But neither comfort nor popularity makes a belief true.

Ordinary people can play a central role in the worst outcomes. Educated individuals can spread false information and rationalize unethical actions, while efficient institutions can implement harmful policies. People may follow rules without questioning their fairness or considering who gets hurt. Efficiency does not establish whether an action is right.

This reveals an important distinction between competence and wisdom. Competence is the ability to perform a task effectively. Wisdom also involves judging whether the task is appropriate, ethical, and beneficial.

How folly spreads

Technology can make all of this worse. Digital platforms reward attention-grabbing content. Fear and controversy often attract more attention than careful explanations, enabling misleading claims to spread unchecked.

Repeated exposure to a claim, especially from different sources, can make it seem more accepted and supported. Online communities reinforce this by surrounding individuals with like-minded people.

Artificial intelligence introduces additional challenges. It can generate convincing but inaccurate or misleading text and images. Realistic does not necessarily mean trustworthy.

Technology itself is neither inherently beneficial nor harmful. Its effects depend on how it is designed and used, and on the judgment of those who interact with it.

Politics shows the same pattern. Economic hardship and inadequate public services are valid reasons for discontent. The danger arises when movements turn legitimate grievances into simplistic stories that blame one group or promise easy solutions to complex problems. This can happen anywhere on the political spectrum. Protest itself is not irrational. It can expose injustices and compel governments to address neglected issues.

The important question is whether people examine their claims as critically as those of their opponents. Can they acknowledge inconvenient facts or recognize merit in opposing views? When opponents are treated as threats, compromise looks like betrayal and winning matters more than solving problems.

Resisting folly

Independent thought involves acknowledging that no one is immune to error and critically evaluating one’s own beliefs as well as those of others, rather than blindly distrusting authority.

A few questions can help: Would an argument seem convincing if it came from someone I disliked? Am I rejecting evidence because it is unreliable or because it is uncomfortable? What would change my mind? Biases cannot be eliminated, but they can be recognized. Seeking reliable sources, considering opposing arguments, and remaining willing to correct mistakes are more important than achieving perfect objectivity.

Independent thinking does not always lead to good judgment. It also requires intellectual humility, careful examination of evidence, and openness to correction.

If the need for certainty feeds folly, the alternative is learning to live with uncertainty. That does not mean giving up hope, religion, or other sources of comfort. It means accepting that no one may ever know whether the universe has a purpose or whether history is heading somewhere better. Justice is not guaranteed, and efforts can fail. Yet uncertainty leaves people free to choose how to live and pursue truth, recognizing that their understanding will always be open to revision.

A fair objection is that this leads to passivity. If nothing is guaranteed, why bother? That would be true if accepting uncertainty meant resigning oneself to an indifferent universe. But needing guarantees is different from acting on values. Someone who needs the universe or a political movement to guarantee that they are right or that a better future is coming is easily swayed by slogans. Someone who accepts that there is no script can still care for others, oppose injustice, and seek truth because they have chosen those values. This requires ongoing effort, such as examining personal biases and resisting easy answers. Even careful thinkers rationalize, so being right is never guaranteed. But independent thought makes mindless compliance harder. Conformity needs a crowd. Independent thought needs intellectual courage.

Education can aid this process, but it should promote critical thinking over mere information gathering. Institutions can safeguard diverse viewpoints, and technology can enhance judgment when people recognize its limitations. Still, the same capacities that produce rationalization also make learning and self-correction possible.

Predisposed, not destined

So, are humans wired for folly? Not quite. They are predisposed to it. Political leaders, social groups, and digital platforms can make people more likely to conform and seek comforting answers. But predisposition is not destiny.

The greatest danger is not making mistakes, which everyone does, but becoming so attached to beliefs that the possibility of being wrong is no longer considered. Humans may not be wired for folly, but they are repeatedly tempted by it. Wisdom starts with recognizing that feeling certain is not the same as knowing the truth.

Human progress depends not only on what people know, but on their willingness to question what they think they know. Intelligence finds answers; wisdom requires the humility and courage to question them.