beliefs are held because they're
indefensible on the merits
I wonder if this phenomenon has a name. If not, it should! (Maybe an analysis using terms of Shannon-style information theory is apt: the less probable an event, the more information it carries.)
It has been argued that the accused in
Stalin's 1930s show trials were forced to confess to their 'crimes' before execution (e.g. Bukharin) precisely for this reason: this enabled other party members publicly to defend those absurd trials, hence signalling absolute obedience to the party. It has also been argued that verses like "The Party, the party, the party is always right" of the East German communist party [1] had the same function.
There is an obvious similarity with a certain dogma in 2019 Silicon Valley culture, but I am afraid to spell it out.
There also seems to be a similarity with the controversial
handicap principle [2] in biology, and the absurdity of certain forms of conspicuous consumption [3].
I agree this signaling should have aN interesting name, but I’d also really like to know what this dogma is as well... or is the first rule of dogma that you never talk about dogma?
It has been argued that the accused in Stalin's 1930s show trials were forced to confess to their 'crimes' before execution (e.g. Bukharin) precisely for this reason: this enabled other party members publicly to defend those absurd trials, hence signalling absolute obedience to the party. It has also been argued that verses like "The Party, the party, the party is always right" of the East German communist party [1] had the same function.
There is an obvious similarity with a certain dogma in 2019 Silicon Valley culture, but I am afraid to spell it out. There also seems to be a similarity with the controversial handicap principle [2] in biology, and the absurdity of certain forms of conspicuous consumption [3].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lied_der_Partei
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspicuous_consumption