The Courtroom of the Mind: Can You Trust Your Own Verdict?

Written by Eryn Lee

Picture this: a courtroom filled with quiet tension. Three people study the same abstract blue painting.

Jimmy, an artist, sees a galaxy.

Alex, a student, calls it a whirlpool.

Bobette, a meteorologist, identifies the eye of a storm.

The image never changed, yet their interpretations did. Each person was not simply looking at the painting – they were looking through their own experiences, memories, and assumptions.  

This is how misinformation begins. Not from lies, but from perspective. The witnesses are honest, yet their testimonies differ. Just as jurors reconstruct events from partial evidence, we reconstruct science from snapshots and headlines.

The scientific method works the same way. Like that abstract painting, many experiments do not end in a simple “true” or “false.” Results can be ambiguous, conflicting, or incomplete. Science moves forward through repeated testing, correction, and refinement, rather than instant certainty. This complexity creates openings where misinformation can easily grow, especially when simplified for the public.  

Misinformation is distorted information that spreads unintentionally, whereas disinformation is deliberately made to deceive.¹ Both spread not only because of the message, but also due to how our brains process information. This practice is shaped by cognitive, affective, and social factors.^1,2

The Brain’s Courtroom

The brain is like a courtroom, always in session. When new information enters, it steps forward like a witness. We rarely evaluate it from scratch. Instead, the mind compares it to subjective thoughts and arguments we have pre-built over the years. Rather than acting like a neutral judge, the brain behaves more like a lawyer: quick to defend existing beliefs, but quick to challenge anything unfamiliar.¹

This is called top-down processing, a mental shortcut that helps us make sense of complex information quickly.¹ However, this means that learning is never fully neutral.¹

For example, imagine watching an Instagram reel claiming, “candy cures cancer.” Before you even question the source, the brain already has a preliminary verdict, based on old memories, overheard conversations, and emotional associations ^1,2

Emotion Takes the Stand: The Amygdala

When a headline touches important topics like health, beauty, or danger, the amygdala – an almond-shaped structure in the limbic system – lights up. Its job is to detect emotional relevance by asking, “Is this threatening? Rewarding? Personally important?”.^2,7

If the answer is yes, the amygdala signals the hypothalamus. This sharpens attention but narrows perspective. Therefore, at this stage, the brain often uses the affect heuristic. This is the act of judging truth based on how something feels rather than what evidence supports,² which explains why fear-based or hope-based content spreads quickly.⁷

Memory Shapes Testimony: The Hippocampus

Once a person feels emotion, the hippocampus encodes the moment into memory. The amygdala strengthens emotional memories, but that does not guarantee the accuracy of the information.³ This is how confirmation bias quietly enters. Humans tend to remember what fits their beliefs and reshape the rest of the facts.^1,3 Therefore, the story stays, but details warp, which distorts memories over time.^1,3

Reward Reinforces Belief: The Dopamine Circuit

When information is stored, and it aligns with our expectations, the ventral tegmental area releases dopamine – the brain’s reward chemical.⁴ Dopamine is the courtroom applause. It feels good when something “makes sense,” even if that sense is emotionally backed, rather than scientifically accurate.⁴

Repeated exposure – especially through short-form content – creates cognitive ease, the feeling that something must be true simply because it feels familiar. This is the illusory truth effect.⁵

Logic Tries to Intervene: The Prefrontal Cortex

The prefrontal cortex serves as the courtroom judge, weighing logic, evidence, and long-term reasoning.⁶ However, under emotional pressure, the amygdala can overpower it. The “lawyer” gets louder, the “judge” is suppressed, and motivated reasoning takes over.⁶ As time passes, this makes us defend comforting beliefs, rather than question them.

Identity Delivers the Verdict: The Default Mode Network

Finally, the default mode network links information to identity. When people who share our beliefs validate us – through a “like” on a post or through validation in a conversation – dopamine surges again. Agreement feels like the truth, and this truth provides a sense of belonging.⁸ At this point, correcting misinformation can now feel like a personal attack, not factual clarification.⁸

The Feedback Loop

Each time misinformation spreads, the same neural circuit reactivates. The message becomes shorter, more emotional, and less accurate. Eventually, it is like a distorted shadow of the original idea.^1,5

Overruled by Evidence: How to Interrupt the Cycle

Misinformation survives by aligning with how the brain naturally works: meaning, emotion, familiarity, and community.^1,2 However, awareness can break the cycle.

1. Pause before reacting. Notice your emotions. Ask yourself why the information grabbed you.

2. Verify before believing. Ask: “Who created this? What evidence supports it?”

3. Think like a judge, not a lawyer. Curiosity, rather than certainty, is the foundation of science literacy.¹

Understanding how the brain receives and reshapes information helps explain why Jimmy, Alex, and Bobette looked at the same painting and told three different stories. The courtroom of the mind is powerful, but it can be overruled. 

Reference List

1.  Ecker UK, Lewandowsky S, Cook J, et al. The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature reviews psychology. 2022; 1:13-29. doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y

2. Martel C, Pennycook G, Rand DG. Reliance on emotion promotes belief in fake news. SpringerOpen. 2020; 5:47. doi.org/10.1186/s41235-020-00252-3

3.  McGaugh JL. The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2004; 27:1-28. doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144157

4. Sharot T, Korn CW, & Dolan RJ. How unrealistic optimism is maintained in the face of reality. Nature Neuroscience. 2011; 14:1475-1479. doi.org/10.1038/nn.2949

5. Fazio LK, Brashier NM, Payne BK, et al. Knowledge Does Not Protect Against Illusory Truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2015; 155(5):993-1002. doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098

6. Kaplan JT, Gimbel SI, & Harris S. Neural correlates of maintaining one’s political beliefs in the face of counterevidence. Scientific Reports. 2016; 6:39589. doi.org/10.1038/srep39589

7.  Tannenbaum MB, Helper J, Zimmerman RS, et al. Appealing to Fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories. Psychological Bulletin. 2015; 141(6):1178-1204. doi.org/10.1037/a0039729

8. Falk EB, O’Donnell MB, Cascio CN, et al. Self-affirmation alters the brain’s response to health messages and subsequent behavior change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015; 112(7):1977-1982. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1500247112