False Assumption Registry

Many entries in the registry reveal a persistent faith in blank-slate theories of human nature. Experts assumed groups differ only due to environment or discrimination, not innate traits. This led to policies like affirmative action and relaxed standards, expecting equal outcomes without backlash. Immigration entries show optimism that newcomers integrate seamlessly, boosting economies and societies. Psychological myths, such as learning styles or ego depletion, promised tailored fixes for behavior and education. These assumptions often ignored evidence of biological or cultural differences, causing harm when reality intruded.

Institutional failures recur through suppression and selective blindness. Academia and media silenced inquiries into race, IQ, or gender differences, labeling them dangerous. Consensus formed around unproven ideas like implicit bias or microaggressions, enforced by cancellation threats. Public policy entries highlight overconfidence in reforms, from criminal justice changes to diversity trainings, which backfired by increasing crime or division. Experts in psychology and economics clung to models that flattered progressive ideals, dismissing contradictory data as biased or irrelevant.

Systemic forces include ideological capture and fear of social ostracism. Progressive narratives dominated universities, journals, and newsrooms, rewarding conformity over rigor. Funding and careers depended on aligning with these views, allowing myths to persist despite replication failures. Expert consensus goes wrong when insulated elites prioritize moral signaling over facts; bubbles form, evidence gets buried, and policies fail predictably, yet the cycle repeats as new assumptions fill the void.

Current social and political problems stem from false assumptions in immigration, criminal justice, education, and public health. In immigration, beliefs that mass inflows always boost economies and integrate smoothly have fueled overwhelmed borders, rising crime in host communities, and strained public services. These notions produced lax enforcement, leading to persistent illegal entries and cultural clashes visible in urban unrest and electoral shifts against open policies. Criminal justice assumptions, like poverty driving homicides or anti-police activism reducing violence, have caused surges in murders and de-policing in minority areas, evident in elevated urban death rates post-2014 and 2020. Education policies built on equal innate potentials or ineffective teaching methods have widened achievement gaps, devalued diplomas, and wasted resources, contributing to declining workforce skills and social mobility. Public health errors, from dismissing lab leaks to overpromising on therapies, have eroded trust in institutions, seen in vaccine hesitancy and mental health crises among youth.

Institutional failures recur through ideological capture, suppression of evidence, and resistance to correction. Universities and media outlets often silence research on group differences or inconvenient facts, fostering conformity that stifles innovation and perpetuates flawed theories in psychology and social sciences. Government agencies prioritize equity over merit, as in hiring quotas or relaxed standards, resulting in inefficiencies and scandals in sectors like defense and transportation. Bureaucratic inertia clings to outdated models, such as amyloid-focused Alzheimer's research or free trade dogmas, diverting billions from effective solutions and weakening economic competitiveness. These patterns reveal a cycle where elites enforce consensus, ignoring data that challenges progressive narratives, which amplifies divisions and policy misfires.

The entries bolster the thesis that bad assumptions spawn bad policies and real crises. Assumptions of multiculturalism's unqualified benefits led to unchecked immigration, breeding grooming scandals and integration failures that now strain social cohesion. Beliefs in environmental fixes for behavior ignored innate factors, yielding ineffective crime and education reforms that heightened violence and inequality. Psychological myths, like learning styles or implicit bias, consumed resources without results, contributing to mental health epidemics and institutional distrust. Across domains, these errors produced tangible harms: economic stagnation, rising homicides, and cultural erosion, proving the downstream link from flawed ideas to societal breakdowns.

Societies correct course slowly, often through crises or electoral backlash, but failures persist when elites double down. Some entries show reversals, like shifts in reading instruction or immigration restrictions after evident harms, driven by data and public pressure. Yet many assumptions endure, protected by taboos or vested interests, delaying reforms in areas like affirmative action or gender medicine. This tells us correction demands transparency and debate, but institutional capture often blocks it, prolonging crises until breakdowns force change.

Media outlets emerge as the most frequent promoters of false assumptions across the registry. The New York Times appears in dozens of entries, from downplaying racial crime disparities to hyping DEI benefits and framing immigration concerns as far-right tropes. Academia follows closely, with universities like Harvard, Stanford, and UC Berkeley enforcing flawed theories in psychology, education, and social sciences. Government agencies, including the NIH, CDC, and various departments under administrations like Biden's, enforce assumptions through policy and funding, as seen in immigration reversals and health standards. Professional bodies, such as the AAUP and American Psychological Association, reinforce taboos against dissent in fields like race-IQ research. NGOs and activist groups, like Black Lives Matter and the ACLU, push narratives on policing and gender care. These institutions spread ideas via publication, grants, and regulations, often without rigorous checks.

Individual actors play varied roles, with proponents like Anthony Fauci and Amy Cuddy championing ideas in good faith through speeches, books, and studies. Bad actors, such as those in the Toumaï skull case or Pfizer's vaccine delay, manipulate data or timing for gain. Dissenters, including Steve Sailer and Judith Rich Harris, face silencing through cancellation or marginalization; patterns show proponents gaining prestige via viral talks and media, while silencers use social pressure and institutional power to enforce orthodoxy. Critics often emerge as lone voices, like Razib Khan on epigenetics, highlighting flaws but struggling against established narratives. This dynamic reveals a pattern where charisma and alignment with elite views propel false ideas, and resistance comes from outsiders or skeptics who document replication failures.

Responsibility is diffuse, spanning sectors, but concentrated in structures like peer review, which fails in psychology entries on stereotype threat and ego depletion, and funding bodies that favor aligned research, as in amyloid hypothesis grants. Regulatory capture appears in government entries, where agencies like the Transportation Department sustain ineffective quotas. Media bias recurs, with outlets like the New York Times selectively framing stories to omit inconvenient data on crime or immigration.

The same organizations recur across assumptions, linking failures; the New York Times connects entries on crime, education, and culture, while universities tie psychology myths to DEI policies. Government bodies overlap in public health and policy blunders. Most failures seem isolated to domains, but themes of elite consensus and suppressed dissent connect them, suggesting systemic issues in how institutions validate and propagate ideas.