Why do we often turn a blind eye to problems that are actually obvious—whether it’s climate change, social injustice, or the consequences of our own actions? This article explores the phenomenon of “Wilful Blindness” and shows how we can recognize our blind spots and take targeted action to address them.
Wilful Blindness: Ignoring the Obvious
Not long ago, I wrote about how decision-makers in organizations often remain unaware of the problematic implications of their actions—a phenomenon referred to as “ethical blindness” (for a post in German, see here). However, there are also cases where individuals, including ourselves, deliberately ignore pressing issues despite being fully informed about them.
The term “Wilful Blindness” was coined by American entrepreneur and author Margaret Heffernan in her 2011 book. It refers to a conscious decision to “turn a blind eye.” Through compelling examples—ranging from scientists disregarding the carcinogenic effects of X-rays to soldiers ignoring the abuse of detainees by their peers—Heffernan illustrates how this behavior pervades many aspects of life.
The concept feels more relevant than ever. A quick glance at recent headlines shows this in action: despite 2024 being the hottest year on record, with environmental disasters on the rise (such as a devastating wildfire currently raging in California) and clear scientific evidence available, many still deny human-induced climate change. Political leaders spreading simple messages and “solutions” (e.g., “Water doesn’t need saving, it comes from rain,” “Deworming medication helps against COVID,” “Hitler was a communist…”) are gaining increasing support. Influential economic actors without democratic legitimacy are intervening more frequently and openly in politics and media to make societies “more progressive”—by dismantling regulations and restrictions while expanding their entrepreneurial freedoms to maximize profits (e.g., through a department created specifically for Government Efficiency). Critics, myself included, ask: How can “all these people” be so blind to obvious problems?
But this question can easily lead to self-righteousness. The reality is that we all often turn a blind eye to the consequences of our actions—whether in our private lives or at work. Although most of us are “somehow aware” that our food production (especially of meat and other animal products) causes great suffering and environmental damage, we manage to overlook this when enjoying a good steak or a piece of cheese. We’ve heard somewhere that the working conditions for cheap clothing are often inhumane, but we happily forget that when snagging a great deal on trendy sneakers or a stylish garment. At work, we are often so consumed by day-to-day tasks and trapped in reward structures that we fail to question how we contribute to maintaining problems and injustices—or what we could do to change them. Often, it takes severe accidents (e.g., Rana Plaza) or scandals (e.g., the VW diesel scandal) to force us to reflect on our own behavior. As a society, we in Western cultures seem so convinced of the narrative of continuous growth that, although we “kind of know” that Earth has limits—many of which have already been exceeded—we carry on as usual.
Reasons for Turning a Blind Eye
Margaret Heffernan identifies several reasons why people often knowingly make decisions that contradict their values or are harmful:
- Cognitive Dissonance: When it comes to our own behavior and decisions, the need for what social psychologists call “cognitive consonance”—aligning our values, beliefs, and actions—is particularly strong. When they don’t align, we experience “cognitive dissonance,” an uncomfortable contradiction between what we feel, think, and do. We typically find cognitive dissonance unpleasant and try to avoid it. This can involve either changing our values and attitudes (difficult!), bringing our behavior in line with our values (also difficult!), or reinterpreting the situation to align with our behavior (e.g., “My actions aren’t really that harmful to the environment; others do it too, and at least I don’t own a car”). Reinterpreting the situation is usually the easiest way to avoid cognitive dissonance.
- Desire to Affirm One’s Worldview: People prefer to hold on to their established worldview rather than question it. Changing one’s perspective is uncomfortable and exhausting, so we prefer to surround ourselves with people who think and act similarly to us. When it comes to lifestyle choices like eating meat or driving, we often perceive differing behaviors as criticism or provocation. For instance, vegans are frequently attacked even when they don’t directly criticize anyone—reflecting meat-eaters’ need to justify their own behavior. (Conversely, the desire for affirmation applies equally to committed vegans when confronted with health-related arguments for eating meat.)
- Need for Identity and Belonging: In his book How to Talk to a Science Denier (2022), social scientist Lee McIntyre argues, based on his experiences with individuals holding extreme anti-scientific views (e.g., “Flat Earthers”), that certain views are identity-forming and create a sense of belonging to social groups. Shared beliefs, especially those strongly opposed by “the others,” foster group cohesion and an “us versus them” mentality (e.g., “us against the system,” “us against climate hysteria”). Particularly with deeply ingrained ideologies, we are more likely to accept information that aligns with our worldview than to change our worldview based on new information—especially to avoid jeopardizing our social connections (e.g., with friends or colleagues).
- Mental Overload: Especially under conditions of stress, fatigue, and information overload, we often lack the cognitive capacity to recognize complex relationships. Instead, we prefer to ignore contradictory information and continue as before. Responsibility is often delegated to someone else: “If this were all true and really that bad, our politicians would take care of it!” Additionally, there’s the so-called “bystander effect”: even when we know action is needed, we believe that there are plenty of others who could and should take action. When the consequences of our behavior are not immediately visible, it’s easy to ignore them in our busy daily lives, as more urgent tasks demand our attention—like finishing that current research project, completing a client order, or taking care of the children.
Looking with Open Eyes
When we turn a blind eye to potential negative outcomes and the consequences of our behavior, we risk unintentionally acting against our values—as consumers, decision-makers, or voters. How can we counteract this?
- Surround yourself with diverse people. Engaging with individuals from different societal groups, professions, or cultures helps to understand alternative perspectives and question one’s own rigid beliefs.
- Expose yourself to dissenting opinions and findings. In the film Don’t Look Up, the deliberate avoidance of uncomfortable truths is turned into a political slogan to avoid taking difficult actions against an impending disaster. To counteract wilful blindness, we must do the opposite: instead of blocking out unpleasant information, we should actively seek scientific findings and dissenting opinions. It’s important not to cherry-pick data that fits our preferences but to compare various sources.
- Reflect and act according to your own values and beliefs. If you’re in a decision-making position, reflect on what matters to you and how you’d like to behave, then evaluate your decisions and actions accordingly: Where does my behavior align with my values, and where doesn’t it? What would I like to do differently?
Conclusion: The Courage to Look
Wilful Blindness can affect us all. But we can actively work to recognize and question our own blind spots. Whether in everyday life or at work, the first step is to accept uncomfortable truths and consciously acknowledge the consequences of our actions.
The post was published in German language under https://wissensdialoge.de/wilful-blindness/
Dr. Barbara Kump 