This chapter builds the theory about how civilians form factual beliefs in war, walking through the two major factors that power the theoretical engine behind the book’s argument. First, it explores the role of people’s psychological motivation in how they think about the world and its application to belief formation in war zones. In general, people will be motivated to interpret events in a way that fits their prior worldviews in the dispute, but not everyone will do so: for those who are closer to the action, such biases are outweighed by an “accuracy motive” and the need to get it right. Then, it discusses the role of people’s information sources in shaping their factual beliefs. The media in conflict zones is particularly prone to fueling factual biases, but not everyone is equally vulnerable: those more directly exposed to the relevant events will often reject biased narratives due to their community’s local information about what is actually taking place. Ultimately, the chapter weaves these two factors together, showing how they jointly ensure that fake news spreads widely in war, but those who are close enough to the action tend to be more resilient and know better.

Scientific ideas are difficult to teach, difficult to learn, and difficult to accept as true because they contradict our intuitive theories of the world, constructed in childhood but retained across the lifespan, influencing our thinking even as adults. In this chapter, I discuss what intuitive theories are, where they come from, and why they blind us to more accurate theories of the world. I explore two case studies – projectile motion and evolutionary adaptation – to illustrate how intuitive theories are historically entrenched, culturally widespread, resistant to counterevidence, maladaptive for behavior, and seemingly inerasable. I conclude by considering the impact of intuitive theories on human belief and behavior more generally.