<p>My research on your question has so far not showed any disorder that matches this description. Something we all suffer from, however, is confirmation bias. We interpret new information in the light of our current views and disregard information that don't match our existing beliefs. Research has shown that being confronted with convincing arguments for the opposite view might strengthen our belief in the one we already hold. You can read more about this in books like Mistakes Were Made But not By Me: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_Were_Made_(But_Not_by_Me)" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_Were_Made_(But_Not_by_Me)</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-18T08:42:00.947Z
Does the complexity of the underlying "belief" help ensure its endurance?
Jack Maddington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-18T08:45:22.083Z
Also, is it possible that or views change, but some common grounds that has been firmly established does not. Sorry of like ranging the branches of a tree while the roots stay in place?
Jack Maddington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-18T08:46:01.803Z
I myself never mind being wrong. So what's up?
Jack Maddington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-18T09:55:29.183Z
Your research has not shown whether the strengthening of differing common views can itself lead to a common ground. You may want to investigate this one. Focusing on mute than one thing should bring greater stability, more tolerance, hence make it easier to live together.
Jack Maddington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-18T09:56:39.307Z
Also, if one view has one opposite, four views have sixteen "opposites", but something could have more than one opposite. Because the probability of agreeing on everything narrows down explosively with the number of topics considered.
Jack Maddington
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-25T22:43:06.167Z
A lot of the topics you mentioned now are not relevant to answering your question. I'm trying to keep my answers focused and on topic. "whether the strengthening of differing common views can itself lead to a common ground" - this is not at all relevant to the question you posted.
Charlotte SL
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-25T22:45:36.103Z
With regards to your question of the number of opposite views, the research mentioned in the book show how the decision making process is influenced by group dynamics and how polarizing and extreme views can become under certain circumstances.
Charlotte SL
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-25T22:46:40.470Z
"What's up?" You ask. Do you really have no problem with being wrong? If someone starts questioning the foundations you have built your life on, do you not get the least bit defensive? I know we're all different, but...
Charlotte SL
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-17T21:13:01.390Z
2016-08-17T21:13:01.390Z
Charlotte SL
<p>What psychiatric disorder would describe someone who doesn't believe anything presented to them (other than what they already know and are sure is true)?</p>

<p>P.S. Not to be distinguished by those that have a disorder because they are confused.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-15T14:56:08.590Z
Same as for the other question. Could you please provide some context to the question? How did you get to this question, what is the (scientific) relevance and what attempts have you made trying to find an answer? You may edit it into your post.
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-16T18:58:22.220Z
You might be thinking of confirmation bias.
ThomasDoe
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-08-16T21:57:10.847Z
That isn't a disorder. The phenomena you are talking about is partially encapsulated by the following terms: 'Philosophical skepticism', 'Scientific skepticism' (although science is a form of belief), 'Denialism' (Climate denialism, holocaust denialism, Vaccine denialism, and denial of liberal ideology in general). Hope that points you in the right direction.
D J Sims
<psychiatry>
Psychiatric name of disbelief disorder
Jack Maddington
# Psychiatric name of disbelief disorder

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-08-15)

What psychiatric disorder would describe someone who doesn't believe anything presented to them (other than what they already know and are sure is true)?

P.S. Not to be distinguished by those that have a disorder because they are confused.

Thanks.

**Tags:** psychiatry

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Same as for the other question. Could you please provide some context to the question? How did you get to this question, what is the (scientific) relevance and what attempts have you made trying to find an answer? You may edit it into your post.  
> **username_2**: You might be thinking of confirmation bias.  
> **username_3**: That isn't a disorder. The phenomena you are talking about is partially encapsulated by the following terms: 'Philosophical skepticism', 'Scientific skepticism' (although science is a form of belief), 'Denialism' (Climate denialism, holocaust denialism, Vaccine denialism, and denial of liberal ideology in general). Hope that points you in the right direction.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-08-17. Score: 2

My research on your question has so far not showed any disorder that matches this description. Something we all suffer from, however, is confirmation bias. We interpret new information in the light of our current views and disregard information that don't match our existing beliefs. Research has shown that being confronted with convincing arguments for the opposite view might strengthen our belief in the one we already hold. You can read more about this in books like Mistakes Were Made But not By Me: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_Were_Made_(But_Not_by_Me)>

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Does the complexity of the underlying "belief" help ensure its endurance?  
> **username_0**: Also, is it possible that or views change, but some common grounds that has been firmly established does not. Sorry of like ranging the branches of a tree while the roots stay in place?  
> **username_0**: I myself never mind being wrong. So what's up?  
> **username_0**: Your research has not shown whether the strengthening of differing common views can itself lead to a common ground. You may want to investigate this one. Focusing on mute than one thing should bring greater stability, more tolerance, hence make it easier to live together.  
> **username_0**: Also, if one view has one opposite, four views have sixteen "opposites", but something could have more than one opposite. Because the probability of agreeing on everything narrows down explosively with the number of topics considered.  
> **username_4**: A lot of the topics you mentioned now are not relevant to answering your question. I'm trying to keep my answers focused and on topic. "whether the strengthening of differing common views can itself lead to a common ground" - this is not at all relevant to the question you posted.  
> **username_4**: With regards to your question of the number of opposite views, the research mentioned in the book show how the decision making process is influenced by group dynamics and how polarizing and extreme views can become under certain circumstances.  
> **username_4**: "What's up?" You ask. Do you really have no problem with being wrong? If someone starts questioning the foundations you have built your life on, do you not get the least bit defensive? I know we're all different, but...  

---

