I've been watching and reading various pandemic videos on youtube and watching discussions, and this brought to mind some of the structural fallacies I notice that are prevalent in reasoning.
1. Starting with subconscious fear-based ego/identity. When confronted with a serious issue like the pandemic or politics, people start with an underlying fear and drive to survive. To accommodate this, whatever framework provides the optimal feeling of control over the situation drives the internal paradigm. For people expert in health, they might focus on natural immune system approaches because they are already in control of that knowledge. Conspiracy theories provides a sense of 'special insider knowledge' that gives a feeling of control. Fixating at the vaccination as the single way to survive can result from placing trust in systems and authority, and also science. Please know I'm not attempting the 50/50 fallacy here or justifying a position. My point is whether the conclusion is correct or false, it can be driven by whatever is the existing sense of security for the person, the inner constructs known to optimize survival in past encounters in the world, or those which are at least are perceived as such.
2. Now that the conclusion is established based on existing internal constructs that minimize fear, now applied to the new situation, every engagement with the information is driven by backwards reasoning. Starting with the conclusion that satisfies the alleviation of fear, and validating it through cherry picking and distortions to validate it.
It brings to my mind how little objectivity there is in the world. Culturally this does have some roots in Ayn Rand who has propagated a fusing of ego with "objectivity" when they are possibly mutually exclusive. The human brain is not designed for objectivity, but for shortcuts that enabled survival in contexts very different from modern society. Some of the Buddhist philosophies and the scientific method provide mental disciplines towards objectivity. Interestingly, both require the ability to dismiss "self". This is the opposite of what Ayn Rand proposes. The most objective position does not favor "self" over "other" or the external environment because the experience of perceiving existence through the vantage point of the "self" does not objectively increase value over an equivalent being. I'm understanding that the path to objectivity involves the ability to think outside 'self', to not create constructs for the purpose of soothing fears, to have no identity attached to a concept, but to process information and reality as an observer without the impressions being beholden to personal consequences. Survival instinct is important, but it requires tunnel vision and dismissal of certain aspects of the outside world. It focuses resources into single actions to maximize a single outcome like fight or flight. It is not about objectivity. Ego investment cannot be objective by its very nature.
These are some thoughts over coffee for the purpose of chatting with folks online.