The Lucas Bean Show

Lucas Bean

Sharing insights on psychology, History, human behavior, politics, new technology and business | Author, Scientist, Podcast Host | I make videos & I try to tell good stories. lucasbean.substack.com

  1. 2h ago

    The Weight of the Person You Never Became

    There is a particular kind of anger that has nothing to do with what is happening in front of you. It is not a reaction to a policy, a headline, or a specific event. It is older than that. It sits underneath everything else, coloring every interaction, turning every perceived slight into proof of a story the person has been telling themselves for decades. It is the anger of someone who did not become who they thought they would be, and who has never found a way to say that out loud. James Gilligan spent his career sitting across from men who had committed acts of violence so extreme that most people would call them incomprehensible. He worked as a prison psychiatrist in the Massachusetts correctional system before directing the Center for the Study of Violence at Harvard Medical School. His patients were murderers, men convicted of assault so severe it bordered on attempted homicide, men who had destroyed other people’s lives and, in many cases, their own. The conventional understanding of these men was that they were evil, or broken, or wired wrong. Gilligan rejected all of it. What he found, documented in his 1996 book Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic, was consistent to a degree that surprised even him. Underneath every act of violence he studied was the same emotion. Not anger. Anger was the surface. Underneath the anger was shame. And not shame in the colloquial sense of embarrassment or mild discomfort. Gilligan described what he observed as something he called the death of the self. A state in which the person’s internal sense of worth had been so thoroughly destroyed that they no longer experienced themselves as fully real. Violence, in this framework, was not an expression of power. It was the last remaining proof that they existed at all. The Mechanism Nobody Talks About Gilligan’s model rests on a distinction that most people outside of clinical psychology never encounter. There are two moral systems that govern human behavior: guilt ethics and shame ethics. Guilt says “I did a bad thing.” Shame says “I am a bad thing.” The difference is not semantic. It is structural, and it determines what a person does with the feeling once it arrives. Guilt is actionable. A person who feels guilty about something they did can, at least in theory, make amends. They can apologize, change their behavior, repair the damage. Guilt points outward, toward the act, and leaves the self intact. Shame offers no such exit. A person who feels shame is not responding to something they did. They are responding to something they believe they are. And you cannot apologize for existing. You cannot make amends for being insufficient. The only options are to sit with the feeling, which most people cannot tolerate for long, or to convert it into something that feels more survivable. For many men, the conversion is into rage. Rage has a direction. It has a target. It provides the momentary sensation of power, which is the precise opposite of what shame produces. And this is where Gilligan’s clinical findings intersect with something much larger than the prison system. The Gap Between the Man and the Myth There is a version of masculinity in American culture that is largely aspirational and almost entirely fictional. It is the man who builds things, provides for his family, earns respect through competence, and needs nothing from anyone. This version of manhood is presented as both natural and achievable, which makes it doubly punishing when reality does not cooperate. The men Gilligan studied in prison had, almost without exception, been measured against this standard and found wanting. They had not built the lives they were supposed to build. They had not earned the respect they were told they deserved. The world had not recognized them as the men they believed they were entitled to become. And because the cultural script offered no framework for processing that failure as a structural problem, or a matter of circumstance, or simply the way life works for most people, they processed it as a personal deficiency. Which produced shame. Which produced rage. Which produced destruction. The political version of this cycle does not end in a prison cell. It ends in a movement. When millions of people share the same unprocessed shame, they do not sit with it individually. They find each other. And when someone comes along who tells them that the shame is not their fault, that someone else is to blame, that the reason they are not living the life they imagined is because it was stolen from them by immigrants or liberals or college graduates or anyone with a vocabulary they do not share, the relief is so immediate and so total that it feels like salvation. Why the Targets Are Always the Same One of the most revealing aspects of the shame-to-rage conversion is the specificity of its targets. If the anger were really about policy, the targets would be policymakers. If it were about economics, the targets would be corporations or trade agreements. But the targets are almost never abstract. They are personal. They are people who represent, in the mind of the shamed individual, the life that was supposed to be theirs. College graduates. Professionals. People who moved away from their hometown and built something. People who speak a second language. People who read books. The hostility is not political. It is autobiographical. Each target is a mirror, and what the mirror reflects is the distance between where they are and where they told themselves they would be by now. This is why the phrase “coastal elite” carries so much venom despite being essentially meaningless as a demographic category. It is not describing a class of people. It is describing a feeling. The feeling of being looked down on. The feeling of being left behind. The feeling of suspecting, in the quiet moments, that maybe the reason things did not work out is not that the system was unfair but that you stopped trying. That is the thought that cannot be tolerated. And so it gets converted into something external. Into a villain. Into a conspiracy. Into a hat. The Shame Economy of MAGA What makes the current political landscape so resistant to factual correction is that the facts are not the point. The movement is not organized around a set of policy goals that can be debated on their merits. It is organized around the management of shame, and shame does not respond to evidence. Presenting a shamed person with proof that their leader is corrupt does not produce reconsideration. It produces a deeper defensive reaction, because the leader is not a politician to them. The leader is the vehicle through which their shame was temporarily converted into pride. Attacking the leader means attacking the conversion. And attacking the conversion means returning to the shame. Gilligan observed this pattern at the individual level in every violent man he treated. The man who committed the act of violence was not the person the world saw. The person the world saw was a mask constructed to keep the shame invisible. When the mask was threatened, the response was not adjustment. It was escalation. Because the mask was not a strategy. It was a survival mechanism. And threatening a survival mechanism produces the most dangerous version of the person wearing it. A political movement built on shame management operates by the same logic, only at scale. Every rally is a shame-suppression event. Every chant is a collective assertion that the shame belongs to someone else. Every attack on an outsider is a momentary transfer of the feeling from the inside to the outside. It works. For a few hours. And then the rally ends, and the man drives home to the same town, the same job, the same gap between who he is and who he was supposed to be. And the shame comes back. And it will keep coming back, because no amount of political theater can close a gap that was never political to begin with. What Gilligan Understood That We Still Refuse To The most uncomfortable conclusion in Gilligan’s work is not that shame produces violence. That is disturbing but intellectually manageable. The most uncomfortable conclusion is that the punitive response to shame-based behavior only deepens the shame, which guarantees more of the behavior it claims to address. Mocking these men does not correct them. Fact-checking their beliefs does not persuade them. Defeating their candidates does not cure the underlying condition. Every form of public humiliation reinforces the original wound, which reinforces the defensive structure, which reinforces the rage. This does not mean the behavior is acceptable. It does not mean the movement should be indulged or its consequences ignored. It means that understanding the mechanism is the first step toward recognizing that the millions of Americans currently converting their personal shame into collective political rage are not going to be argued out of it. They were not argued into it. They were shamed into it, by a culture that promised them a version of manhood they could never deliver, and then punished them for failing. Gilligan spent his career trying to explain that the most violent men in America were not monsters. They were men who had experienced what he called the death of the self and were trying, in the only way they knew how, to feel alive again. The political version of that desperation is quieter but no less destructive. It does not end in a prison cell. It ends in a voting booth. And the damage it produces is not measured in individual victims but in the slow, methodical dismantling of a democracy by people who would rather burn it down than admit they peaked twenty years ago and never found a way to live with it. Sources Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic. Vintage Books. Gilligan, J. (2022). Holding a Mirror Up to Nature: Shame, Guilt, and Violence in Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press. Gilligan, J. (201

  2. 23h ago

    Conservative Culture Produces Weak Men

    In 2012, researcher Brené Brown at the University of Houston published Daring Greatly, the result of over a decade spent studying shame across thousands of interviews. What she found about men was not what she expected. Brown went into her research focused on women. Shame in women, she found, orbits around appearance and motherhood. The pressure to be perfect while making it look effortless. That was the pattern she expected to find everywhere. Then the men started talking. At a book signing, a man approached her after a talk. He told her that his wife and three daughters would rather see him die on top of his white horse than watch him fall off it. That moment reframed her entire understanding of how shame operates across gender lines. Brown found that men carry a different set of shame triggers than women. Three primary ones: failure, being wrong, and appearing weak or afraid. But underneath all three was a single unrelenting message that showed up in every interview, every focus group, every data set. Do not be perceived as weak. Not “be strong.” That would imply there is a version of strength that includes emotional honesty. The message is more specific than that. It says: do not let anyone see anything that could be interpreted as weakness. Ever. Under any circumstances. This is the message conservative culture builds its entire model of masculinity around. Therapy is weakness. Asking for help is failure. Crying is something women do. Talking about your feelings means you can’t handle life. The boys who grow up in these homes don’t learn how to be strong. They learn how to perform the absence of vulnerability. And those are not the same thing. Brown’s research on shame resilience theory lays out what happens when people can’t process shame in healthy ways. Her model identifies four elements of shame resilience: recognizing your shame triggers, examining why those expectations exist, reaching out to other people, and speaking about the shame out loud. Shame, she found, cannot survive being spoken. It thrives in secrecy, silence, and judgment. The moment you say it out loud to someone who responds with empathy, it begins to lose its power. Conservative culture systematically removes every single one of these four elements from a boy’s life. You don’t recognize shame because you were never taught to identify your own emotions. You don’t examine expectations because questioning authority gets you punished. You don’t reach out because asking for help is weakness. And you don’t speak about shame because the people around you will use it against you. What’s left is a person with no tools to process emotional pain. And pain that has nowhere to go doesn’t disappear. Research from Tilburg University on shame and aggression found that unprocessed shame converts directly into aggressive behavior. The brain treats shame as a threat to social survival. When it can’t discharge that threat through connection or language, it redirects the energy into the only emotional channel still open. Rage. Conservative culture permits men exactly one emotional output: anger. Sadness is weakness. Fear is cowardice. Confusion is stupidity. But anger is masculine. Anger is strong. Anger means you are not to be messed with. So every emotion a conservative man feels gets compressed and filtered through the only acceptable outlet until rage is the only thing that comes out. This is why Brown’s work matters beyond therapy offices and self-help books. When you raise an entire generation of men to suppress every emotion except anger, you don’t get strong men. You get men who fall apart when life gets hard. Men who can’t maintain relationships because they were never taught how to be honest in one. Men who can’t process failure because they were taught that failure means they are worthless. Men who can’t ask for help because the people who were supposed to love them made help feel like humiliation. And then someone comes along and gives all that unprocessed rage a target. Not a solution. Not a path forward. Not a way to process the pain. Just someone to blame. Immigrants. Democrats. Women. The media. Anyone who can absorb the anger so these men never have to sit with the shame underneath it. Brown found something else in her research that conservative culture will never admit. The men who scored highest on shame resilience, the men who could process failure and fear and pain without collapsing or exploding, were the ones who had been taught that vulnerability is not weakness. They had relationships where they could say “I’m struggling” without being punished for it. They had the emotional vocabulary to name what they were feeling before it turned into something destructive. Progressive culture teaches boys that asking for help is intelligent. That therapy is maintenance, not repair. That emotional honesty is a skill, not a flaw. That you can be strong and scared at the same time and neither one cancels out the other. Conservative culture teaches boys that suffering in silence is the price of being a man. Brown’s research, across more than two hundred thousand data points, says that price produces the most emotionally fragile men in the room. Not the strongest. The weakest. Men held together by a performance of toughness that collapses the moment life asks them for something real. The loudest men at the rally are not there because they are strong. They are there because they were never given the tools to be anything else. Sources: Brown, B. (2012). Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead. Gotham Books. Brown, B. (2007). I Thought It Was Just Me (But It Isn’t): Making the Journey from “What Will People Think?” to “I Am Enough.” Gotham Books. Brown, B. (2006). Shame Resilience Theory: A Grounded Theory Study on Women and Shame. Families in Society, 87(1), 43-52. Brown, B. (2012). Men, Women, and Worthiness: The Experience of Shame and the Power of Being Enough. Sounds True. Thomaes, S., Bushman, B.J., Stegge, H., & Olthof, T. (2008). Trumping Shame by Blasts of Noise: Narcissism, Self-Esteem, Shame, and Aggression in Young Adolescents. Child Development, 79(6), 1792-1801. Elison, J., Garofalo, C., & Velotti, P. (2014). Shame and Aggression: Theoretical Considerations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 447-453. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit lucasbean.substack.com/subscribe

  3. 1d ago

    Why Conservative Men Can’t Spell

    In 1963, historian Richard Hofstadter sat in his office at Columbia University and wrote a sentence that described MAGA sixty years before MAGA existed. He defined anti-intellectualism as “resentment of the life of the mind, and those who are considered to represent it; and a disposition to constantly minimize the value of that life.” Not ignorance. Resentment. That distinction is the key to understanding everything about the Republican Party’s relationship with education. They don’t attack experts because the experts are wrong. They attack experts because the experts make them feel stupid. And rather than do the work to stop feeling stupid, they declared that being stupid was a virtue and built an entire political identity around it. Hofstadter won the Pulitzer Prize for proving this pattern is older than the country itself. What Hofstadter Traced Anti-Intellectualism in American Life was not a polemic. It was a 464-page historical excavation of the American hostility toward the life of the mind spanning four hundred years. Hofstadter traced the pattern back to the earliest American religious movements. Revivalist preachers in the eighteenth century scorned the university-educated ministers of New England. They argued that genuine faith came from the heart, not from books. That God spoke to the simple and the humble, not to the learned. That education was a barrier to truth, not a path to it. The pattern migrated from religion to politics during the Jacksonian era. Andrew Jackson’s populism celebrated the common man and framed intellectual achievement as fundamentally anti-democratic. The expert was the enemy. The professor was the elitist. The person who had spent years studying a subject was, by definition, out of touch with the real Americans who lived it. Hofstadter showed that this pattern never disappeared. It ebbed and flowed with the political tides. It surged during McCarthyism, when intellectuals were treated as potential traitors. It surged again during the evangelical movements that declared secular education a threat to Christian values. And it is surging now, at an intensity Hofstadter could not have imagined, inside a political movement that has made the rejection of expertise into its core operating principle. The thread that connects all of these surges is the same thread Hofstadter identified in his opening definition. It was never about ignorance. It was always about resentment. The people who attack education are not people who don’t understand its value. They are people who understand its value perfectly and resent that they don’t have it. The Resentment Engine This is where Hofstadter’s framework becomes precise and devastating. Anti-intellectualism is not the absence of interest in ideas. It is the active hostility toward ideas and toward the people who carry them. And that hostility does not come from confidence. It comes from the opposite. A person who feels secure in their own intelligence does not feel threatened by a scientist explaining climate data. A person who feels confident in their own knowledge does not feel attacked when a historian corrects a false claim. A person who is comfortable with what they know and what they don’t know does not need to destroy the credibility of every expert who enters the room. The people who do feel threatened by those things are people who carry an unresolved wound about their own education, their own intellect, their own place in the social hierarchy organized around knowledge. The attack on the expert is not an argument with the expert’s position. It is a defense against the feeling the expert produces in them by existing. “Do your own research” is not a research methodology. It is a declaration of independence from the people who make them feel small. “College is a scam” is not an economic analysis of the return on tuition investment. It is a story a person tells themselves so they never have to sit with the question of what their life would look like if they had gone. This is the engine Hofstadter documented: resentment of what you don’t have, reframed as contempt for the thing itself. If I can’t have it, it must be worthless. If you have it and I don’t, you must be the enemy. The Data That Proves It In the 2024 presidential election, the education gap between the two parties reached its widest point in modern American history. Voters with a four-year college degree or higher favored the Democratic candidate by 16 percentage points. Voters without a college degree favored the Republican candidate by 14 points. The gap had been 9 points in 2016. It was 13 points in 2024 by some exit poll measures. Every election cycle, the divide grows wider. Among white voters, the gap is even more extreme. Sixty-four percent of white men without a college degree identify as Republican or Republican-leaning. Only 29 percent of white men without a degree voted for the Democratic candidate in 2024. The Republican Party is now, by the numbers, the party of people without college degrees. This is not an insult. It is a demographic fact measured in every major post-election analysis conducted by Pew Research Center, the Associated Press, NBC News, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. And the party’s response to this fact has not been to invest in education, to expand access to college, to improve schools, or to create pathways for their own voters to gain the knowledge they lack. The party’s response has been to attack education itself. To cut school funding. To defund universities. To demonize teachers. To call professors indoctrinators. To treat expertise as elitism and knowledge as a liberal conspiracy. Hofstadter would have recognized every word of it. The pattern is four hundred years old. The Hypocrisy That Reveals Everything The most revealing feature of anti-intellectualism in the modern Republican Party is not what they say about education. It is what they do. Every Republican senator who votes to cut public school funding sends their own children to private school. Ted Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard Law. Josh Hawley went to Stanford and Yale Law. Tom Cotton went to Harvard and Harvard Law. Ron DeSantis went to Yale and Harvard Law. Charlie Kirk built an entire media empire telling millions of people that college was a scam. He applied to West Point and was rejected. He enrolled at a community college and dropped out after one semester. Then he spent a decade walking onto real college campuses with a camera crew, screaming at teenagers who were doing the thing he couldn’t do, and selling the performance to millions of viewers who needed to believe that the thing they also couldn’t do was not worth doing. Every Republican who tells their base that education is worthless makes sure their own children are educated at the most expensive and prestigious institutions in the country. The message to the base is: you don’t need it. The message to their own families is: you absolutely need it. They are not opposed to education. They are opposed to their voters having education. Because an educated voter is harder to manipulate. An educated voter asks better questions. An educated voter can tell the difference between a policy proposal and a slogan. And an educated voter is significantly less likely to vote Republican. The anti-intellectualism is not a philosophy. It is a strategy. Keep them ignorant. Tell them ignorance is strength. And make sure your own children never suffer the same fate. Why “Do Your Own Research” Is the Most Revealing Phrase in American Politics There is no phrase in modern political discourse that better captures Hofstadter’s thesis than “do your own research.” It sounds like an appeal to independent thinking. It sounds like a call for critical inquiry. It sounds like exactly the kind of thing an intellectually serious person would say. It is none of those things. “Do your own research” does not mean: consult peer-reviewed studies, evaluate the methodology, examine the data, and reach a conclusion based on the weight of evidence. It means: Google something until you find a result that confirms what you already believe. Watch a YouTube video made by someone with no credentials. Read a Facebook post written by someone who misspelled three words in the first sentence. Screenshot a tweet and call it a source. This is anti-intellectualism in its purest form. It mimics the language of inquiry while rejecting every single standard that makes inquiry meaningful. It borrows the vocabulary of the thing it is trying to destroy. It says “research” and means “confirmation bias.” It says “think for yourself” and means “reject anyone who has actually studied this.” The person who says “do your own research” is not doing research. They are performing a rejection of the people whose research made them feel small. They are declaring that their 20 minutes on the toilet watching a conspiracy video on YouTube is equivalent to someone else’s 20 years of study. That is not confidence. That is the sound of resentment pretending to be intellect. What They Told You Being Stupid Was Hofstadter’s deepest insight was that anti-intellectualism does not just attack knowledge. It inverts the value system. It does not simply say “education doesn’t matter.” It says “education is the problem.” The expert is not just wrong. The expert is dangerous. The professor is not just out of touch. The professor is the enemy. The scientist is not just mistaken. The scientist is part of the conspiracy. This inversion is what makes anti-intellectualism so resistant to correction. You cannot educate someone out of a position that defines education as the threat. You cannot provide evidence to someone who has decided that evidence is the enemy. The more credentials you bring to the argument, the less credible you become in their eyes. Because your credentials are not proof that you kn

  4. 2d ago

    A History of Trump Violence: Trump Incites Violence

    A timeline of Trump Stochastic Violence and laws broken at the bottom ↓↓ There is a reason political violence in America keeps happening and nobody in power ever takes the blame. It is not an accident. It is not random. It is not mental illness. It is a system. And it has a name. In 2021, FBI behavioral analyst Molly Amman and forensic psychologist J. Reid Meloy published a formal analysis in the peer-reviewed journal Perspectives on Terrorism. Their paper studied how public figures use mass communication to produce acts of violence without ever giving a direct order. They analyzed the mechanics of it, the psychology underneath it, and the specific real-world events where it played out, including the January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol. They called it stochastic terrorism. The concept is pretty straightforward. A public figure with a large platform repeatedly demonizes a specific person or group. They use language that frames the target as a threat to everything the audience holds sacred. They call them invaders, traitors, vermin, enemies of the people. They do this over and over, day after day, to an audience of millions. And eventually, someone in that audience acts. The speaker never has to give the order. They just have to keep talking long enough for the math to work. The word stochastic comes from probability theory. It means random in its individual occurrence but statistically predictable across a large enough sample. You cannot predict which person will act. But you can predict with near certainty that someone will. The speaker knows this. That is the point. They get the violence they want while keeping their hands clean enough to deny responsibility. The Rallies Trump normalized calling for Violence. And what had been a pattern became a machine. In 2015, Trump launched his presidential campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals. Within months, two men in Boston beat a homeless Mexican-American man with a metal pipe and urinated on him. When police asked why, one of them said “Trump was right. All of these illegals need to be deported.” Trump’s response was to call his supporters “passionate.” By early 2016, his rallies had become recurring scenes of violence. At an Iowa rally in February, Trump told the crowd that if they saw someone about to throw a tomato, they should “knock the crap out of them.” He promised to pay their legal fees. At a Las Vegas rally he said he wanted to punch a protester in the face. In St. Louis he talked about the old days when protesters would be “carried out on a stretcher.” At a rally in Michigan he told supporters “I’ll beat the crap out of you.” Supporters punched, shoved, and attacked protesters at event after event and it was all caught on camera. In Fayetteville, North Carolina, a supporter sucker-punched a protester being escorted out by police. Trump said he did not condone violence. Then he told his staff to look into paying the man’s legal bills. In August 2016, Trump suggested that “Second Amendment people” could stop Hillary Clinton from appointing judges. Former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who survived being shot in the head at a political event, responded: “Unstable people with powerful guns and an unhinged hatred for Hillary are listening to you.” The Language Escalates The rhetoric never slowed down. It only got worse. In 2017, after a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned deadly, Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides.” That same year he told a crowd of police officers not to be “too nice” when arresting people. In 2019, he laughed when a rally attendee shouted about shooting asylum seekers at the border. That same year, a man drove ten hours from the Dallas area to a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, and murdered 22 people. His manifesto used the phrase “Hispanic invasion of Texas.” That language did not come from nowhere. It came directly from Trump’s rallies and tweets. He never met Trump. He never received an order. He absorbed the rhetoric and did the math himself. In May 2020, Trump retweeted a video of a supporter saying “the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.” That same month, as Minneapolis erupted in protest, he tweeted “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” January 6th On January 6, 2021, Trump told a crowd of thousands that they had to “fight like hell” or they would “not have a country anymore.” He told them to march to the Capitol. Hundreds of them broke through barricades, smashed windows, beat police officers with flagpoles, and stormed the building while Congress was certifying the presidential election. Over 200 defendants later told authorities they went to the Capitol because Trump told them to. One defendant told prosecutors he only decided to march on the Capitol because “President Trump made a statement about marching to the Capitol.” Amman and Meloy’s own paper uses the Capitol siege as one of its primary illustrations of how stochastic terrorism unfolds in real time. The speaker demonizes. The speaker points. The audience acts. The speaker denies. Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives for incitement of insurrection. He was acquitted by the Senate. The system held for the speaker. It did not hold for the people who died that day or the officers who took their own lives in the months that followed. Vermin By 2023, political scientists analyzing Trump’s speeches found that his use of violent vocabulary had nearly tripled since 2016, surpassing almost every other democratic politician and approaching the levels seen in authoritarian regimes. In September 2023, Trump posted on Truth Social suggesting that General Mark Milley, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed for making a phone call after January 6th. In November 2023, he called his political opponents “vermin.” In December he said immigrants were “poisoning the blood of our country.” In March 2024, he warned of a “bloodbath for the country” if he was not reelected. That same month he shared a video on social media depicting President Biden bound in the back of a pickup truck. None of these are accidents. None of these are gaffes. This is the machine working exactly as designed. Seditious Behavior, Punishable by Death In November 2025, six Democratic lawmakers released a video urging military personnel to refuse illegal orders. Trump posted on Truth Social that their actions constituted “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He reposted messages from supporters calling for the lawmakers to be hanged. Senator Elissa Slotkin, one of the lawmakers targeted, reported a massive surge in death threats against her and her colleagues in the days that followed. The White House press secretary clarified that the president “does not want to execute members of Congress.” But the audience already heard what they were supposed to hear. That is how this works. The literal meaning is the shield. The operative meaning is the weapon. Rob Reiner In December 2025, beloved filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife Michele were found dead in their Brentwood home, killed by their own son. While the country mourned, Trump posted on Truth Social that Reiner had died “due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding, and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME.” Even fellow Republicans called the post inappropriate and disrespectful. Trump’s message was clear: if you oppose me and something terrible happens to you, you brought it on yourself. That is not a eulogy. That is a warning. Let Them Take Out Los Angeles Two days ago, at a rally in Nebraska, Trump singled out two American cities by name. Defending the war in Iran, he suggested that if Iran developed a nuclear weapon, they could destroy an American city. Then he named the cities. “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.” The crowd cheered. The President of the United States named two American cities as acceptable targets for a foreign enemy and his supporters applauded. Governor Newsom called the remarks deranged and dangerous. San Diego’s mayor said the city is “not collateral damage.” The White House insisted he was misunderstood. But that is not what he said. What he said was let them. And his audience heard it the way they were supposed to hear it. Those are liberal cities. Those are cities full of people Trump’s base already sees as the enemy. That is not a defense of the war effort. That is a president telling a crowd which American cities he would be willing to sacrifice and his crowd telling him they agree. The Gap What makes stochastic terrorism so effective is that it exploits the gap between what words technically say and what they actually do. No court can convict a speaker for saying that someone is a traitor or a baby killer or an invader or vermin. Those are opinions. They are protected speech. But when you say those things to millions of people every day for years, you are not just expressing an opinion. You are loading a weapon and pointing it in a direction. You do not have to pull the trigger. You just have to keep it aimed long enough. Amman and Meloy describe this process through what they call linguistic pragmatics. The literal meaning of the speaker’s words is not the operative meaning. When a president says a group of lawmakers committed sedition punishable by death, the literal defense is that he was simply stating the legal penalty for sedition. When he says let them take out Los Angeles, the literal defense is that he was making the case for why the war matters. The operative meaning, the one the audience receives, is that these people deserve to die. That those cities do not matter. The speaker hides behind the literal meaning while the audience acts on the operative one. That gap is where the vio

  5. 3d ago

    Christianity Is the Oldest Conspiracy Theory in Human History

    Something happened 100,000 years ago that changed everything. A bolt of lightning split a tree in front of a group of early humans. The tree exploded into fire. The ground shook. The air cracked with a sound louder than anything they had ever heard. Nobody died. But the brain needed to know why. Not what happened. Why. What caused it. Who caused it. What did it want. What does it mean. The brain could not tolerate not knowing. So it invented an answer. Something up there did that. Something powerful. Something invisible. Something with intentions. Something that could be angered and needed to be appeased. There was nothing up there. There was electrical discharge between clouds. But the brain was not built to accept that explanation. The brain was built to survive. And survival requires knowing who is in charge, even when nobody is. That moment, replicated millions of times across thousands of generations, is where religion began. Not in revelation. Not in truth. In a brain that could not handle uncertainty and invented an invisible agent to fill the gap. There is now a precise scientific framework explaining exactly how that happens and why the same mechanism is running inside MAGA right now. The Believing Brain In 2011, Michael Shermer, psychologist, science historian, and founder of the Skeptics Society, published The Believing Brain. Shermer holds a position at Chapman University and has spent decades studying why humans believe things that are not true. His central thesis overturned the assumption most people carry about how belief works. The common assumption is that people gather evidence, evaluate it rationally, and form beliefs based on what the evidence supports. Shermer showed the opposite. Beliefs come first. The evidence comes second. The brain forms the belief through fast, automatic, unconscious processes. Then it goes looking for evidence to support the belief it already holds. It finds confirming evidence easily. It discards contradicting evidence automatically. And the person experiences the entire process as rational, evidence-based thinking. Even when it is nothing of the kind. Shermer identified two cognitive processes that drive this engine. Together they explain everything from the origin of religion to the rise of QAnon. Patternicity The first process Shermer identified is patternicity. The tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless data. The human brain evolved in an environment where detecting patterns was essential to survival. A rustling in the grass could be the wind. It could also be a predator. The brain that assumed predator and ran survived. The brain that assumed wind and stayed did not. Over hundreds of thousands of years, natural selection built a brain that over-detects patterns. A brain that sees connections where none exist. A brain that finds signal in pure noise. Because the cost of a false positive, running from wind, is trivial. The cost of a false negative, ignoring a predator, is death. This is why humans see faces in clouds, hear messages in static, and find meaning in coincidence. The pattern detection system is running constantly, and it is calibrated toward over-detection. Seeing a pattern that isn’t there costs nothing. Missing a pattern that is there costs everything. Patternicity is the first stage of belief formation. The brain connects two dots. A black cat crossed my path and then something bad happened. I prayed and then my child recovered. A Democrat was elected and then the economy changed. The connection is not causal. But the brain registers it as a pattern. And once a pattern is registered, the second process takes over. Agenticity The second process Shermer identified is agenticity. The tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency. Patternicity finds the pattern. Agenticity assigns a mind behind it. Not just “these two things are connected” but “something intended for them to be connected.” Not just “this happened” but “someone made this happen.” Lightning is not an electrical discharge. It is a message from the sky. A drought is not a weather pattern. It is punishment. A child’s death is not the result of disease. It is part of a plan. A plan designed by an invisible agent with intentions, emotions, and demands. Shermer showed that agenticity is not a failure of intelligence. It is an evolutionary adaptation. In the ancestral environment, the most important patterns to detect were those created by agents: predators, rivals, potential mates. The brain that correctly identified agency survived. The brain that attributed the rustling in the grass to “just the wind” when it was actually a lion did not. The result is a brain that defaults to agent detection. When something happens and the cause is unclear, the brain does not default to “random physical process.” It defaults to “someone or something did this on purpose.” Shermer wrote that patternicity and agenticity together form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spirituality. They are also the cognitive basis of conspiracy theories. Because conspiracy theories and religions are built on exactly the same neural architecture. The God Template Every religion in human history follows the same cognitive template. Something happens that the brain cannot explain. The brain detects a pattern through patternicity. Then the brain assigns an invisible agent through agenticity. Then the community builds a story around the invisible agent. Then the story becomes doctrine. Then the doctrine becomes identity. Then the identity becomes untouchable. Lightning strikes a tree. The brain detects a pattern: something powerful and invisible caused this. Agenticity assigns an agent: a being in the sky with intentions. The community builds a story: the sky being is angry because we did something wrong. The story becomes doctrine: we must perform these rituals to appease the sky being. The doctrine becomes identity: we are the people who know about the sky being. And the identity becomes untouchable: questioning the sky being is heresy. That entire chain, from lightning to heresy, runs on two cognitive shortcuts that evolved to help us survive predators on the savanna. The brain was never designed to produce accurate beliefs about the nature of reality. It was designed to produce fast beliefs that kept you alive long enough to reproduce. Religion is what happens when the survival shortcuts are applied to questions they were never designed to answer. And the answers the brain produces, because they were never constrained by evidence, can become anything. Thunder gods. Divine punishment. Virgin births. Resurrection. Rapture. An invisible friend for adults who has a plan for everything and conveniently agrees with whatever you already believe. The Conspiracy Connection This is where Shermer’s framework reveals something that religious people will never accept. The cognitive process that produces religious belief is identical to the cognitive process that produces conspiracy theories. Not similar. Identical. The same patternicity. The same agenticity. The same chain from unexplained event to invisible agent to unfalsifiable narrative to identity to untouchable doctrine. A religious person sees a tragedy and says “God has a plan.” A conspiracy theorist sees a political event and says “the deep state has a plan.” Both are agenticity. Both are the brain assigning an invisible agent with intentions to an event it cannot fully explain. Both are unfalsifiable. Both resist counter-evidence. Both become identity. Both become untouchable. This is why the overlap between devout religious belief and conspiracy theory belief is so large that researchers can predict one from the other. A brain that has practiced agenticity through religion for decades is a brain that is primed to practice agenticity through conspiracy theories. The infrastructure is already built. The pattern detection is already calibrated to over-detect. The agent detection is already calibrated to assume invisible forces with intentions. All that changes is the story. God works in mysterious ways. Trump works in mysterious ways. God chose this nation. Trump was chosen to save this nation. The devil is trying to destroy what God built. The deep state is trying to destroy what Trump built. Question God and you lack faith. Question Trump and you lack patriotism. Same architecture. Same process. Same cognitive shortcuts running on the same neural hardware. Different century. Why Science Cannot Reach Them Shermer’s framework explains why evidence is useless against both religious belief and conspiracy thinking. Both were formed through processes that do not involve evidence. Patternicity does not consult data. Agenticity does not review studies. The belief was formed through a fast, automatic, unconscious process and then rationalized afterward. Presenting evidence to a person whose belief was formed through agenticity is like presenting a peer-reviewed study to a person who believes in ghosts. The belief was not formed through the system that processes peer-reviewed studies. It was formed through the system that detects agents in the dark. The two systems do not communicate. The evidence lands in the wrong part of the brain and gets discarded. This is why a MAGA supporter can look at 60 court rulings and say the election was still stolen. The belief was never formed by evaluating court rulings. It was formed by agenticity. An invisible agent, the deep state, stole the election. That belief lives in the same cognitive architecture as “God has a plan.” It is unfalsifiable by design. Any counter-evidence becomes proof that the invisible agent is even more powerful than originally believed. Science replaced the thunder god with meteorology. It replaced divine punishment with ecology. It replaced “God

  6. 4d ago

    The MAGA Cult Is All Feelings and No Facts

    The MAGA Cult Is All Feelings and No Facts There is a question that haunts every person who has ever tried to have an evidence-based conversation with a MAGA supporter. How can they believe something with zero evidence behind it? The election was stolen. No evidence. Exposed in over 60 courts. They believe it. Immigrants are driving a crime wave. Every available dataset says the opposite. They believe it. Climate change isn’t real. The scientific consensus is near-unanimous. They believe it. Tariffs aren’t raising prices. They can see the higher prices at the register with their own eyes. They still believe it. The assumption most people make is that MAGA supporters have evaluated the evidence and reached a different conclusion. That somewhere in their reasoning process, they weighed the data and came out on the other side. That assumption is wrong. They never weighed anything. The reasoning process never started. And there is a specific, experimentally proven reason why. What Slovic Found In 2000, psychologist Paul Slovic at the University of Oregon, along with his colleagues Melissa Finucane, Ali Alhakami, and Stephen Johnson, published research that fundamentally changed how psychologists understand human decision-making. They had been studying how people evaluate risk. The traditional model assumed that when a person judges whether something is risky or beneficial, they analyze the available information, weigh the probabilities, and reach a rational conclusion. That model is how economists and policy makers assume people think. Slovic found that people do not do this. Instead, the brain consults something far simpler and far faster: a feeling. He called it the affect heuristic. “Affect” in psychology does not mean emotion in the dramatic sense. It means a faint whisper of good or bad that the brain attaches to everything it encounters. Every object, every person, every idea, every political candidate sits in what Slovic called the “affect pool,” tagged with a positive or negative feeling. When a judgment or decision is required, the brain does not pull up the data file. It checks the feeling. If the feeling is positive, the brain judges the thing as low-risk and high-benefit. If the feeling is negative, the brain judges the thing as high-risk and low-benefit. The judgment happens before any deliberation. Before any evidence is consulted. Before the conscious mind has even finished formulating the question. The affect heuristic is not a failure of reasoning. It is a replacement for reasoning. The feeling arrives first, occupies the judgment seat, and the reasoning process, if it happens at all, works backward from the conclusion the feeling already reached. How the Shortcut Becomes the Only Path Slovic’s most important contribution was not simply identifying the affect heuristic. It was documenting the conditions under which it dominates. In calm, low-stakes, time-abundant situations, people can override the affect heuristic. They can slow down, examine the evidence, and reach conclusions that contradict their initial feeling. The affect heuristic is the brain’s default shortcut, but it is not the only path available. Under two specific conditions, the shortcut becomes the only path. The first is cognitive load. When the brain is overwhelmed, when it is processing too much information or too many demands simultaneously, it does not have the resources for deliberative analysis. It falls back on the feeling. The second is emotional intensity. When a person is experiencing strong fear, strong anger, or strong disgust, the affect heuristic is not just the default. It is the only system running. The emotional intensity floods the brain’s processing capacity. The deliberative system is not overridden. It is drowned. Slovic and his colleague Ellen Peters developed a framework to describe these two systems operating simultaneously. They called them “risk as feelings” and “risk as analysis.” Risk as feelings is fast, instinctive, and automatic. Risk as analysis is slow, deliberate, and effortful. Both systems exist in every brain. But when fear and anger are high, risk as feelings wins every time. Now think about what MAGA supporters are exposed to every single day. Fox News does not present information and ask viewers to evaluate it. Fox News presents threats. Constant threats. The border is a crisis. Crime is surging. The left is destroying the country. Your way of life is under attack. The emotional intensity never drops. The fear never subsides. The anger is refreshed every hour. Under those conditions, Slovic’s research predicts exactly what happens. The deliberative system shuts down. The affect heuristic takes over completely. Every political judgment is made on feeling alone. And the feeling was installed by the same media ecosystem that ensures it is never interrupted long enough for analysis to begin. The Inverse Relationship That Explains Everything One of Slovic’s earliest and most replicated findings is something called the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. In the real world, risk and benefit are often positively correlated. Nuclear power produces enormous energy and also carries significant risk. A new pharmaceutical may provide substantial health benefits and also carry side effects. Activities that offer high rewards frequently involve high risks. But Slovic found that in people’s minds, risk and benefit are inversely correlated. If someone feels positively about something, they judge it as high-benefit AND low-risk. If they feel negatively, they judge it as low-benefit AND high-risk. The feeling doesn’t just influence one dimension of the judgment. It controls both dimensions simultaneously. This is why a MAGA supporter can look at the same set of facts as everyone else and reach the opposite conclusion on every dimension. Trump feels good to them. Therefore his policies are beneficial AND safe. Evidence of harm is rejected because the feeling already determined that harm is not present. Immigration feels bad to them. Therefore immigrants are harmful AND offer no benefit. Evidence of economic contribution, lower crime rates, and community building is rejected because the feeling already determined that no benefit exists. The affect heuristic does not distort one part of the judgment. It constructs the entire judgment from the feeling alone. Risk, benefit, probability, consequence are all downstream of the initial affective tag. Change the feeling and every conclusion changes with it. Keep the feeling constant and no evidence in the world will move a single conclusion. Why Fear and Anger Make It Permanent The relationship between emotional intensity and the affect heuristic creates a feedback loop that is almost impossible to break from the outside. Slovic’s research showed that the stronger the emotion, the more completely the affect heuristic dominates. Fear and anger are the two emotions that most powerfully suppress deliberative thinking. And the MAGA media ecosystem is a 24-hour fear and anger delivery system. The loop works like this. The media produces fear and anger. The fear and anger activate the affect heuristic. The affect heuristic produces judgments based entirely on feeling. Those judgments confirm the narrative the media is selling. The confirmed narrative produces more fear and anger. Which activates the affect heuristic more strongly. Which produces judgments more disconnected from evidence. Which confirms the narrative more completely. At no point in this loop does evidence enter the system. There is no stage where the person pauses, consults the data, and evaluates whether their fear is proportional to the actual threat. The feeling IS the evaluation. The feeling IS the evidence. The feeling IS the conclusion. This is why you cannot argue a MAGA supporter out of their position with facts. You are bringing evidence to a fight that is not about evidence. You are presenting data to a brain that is not running the system that processes data. The deliberative system is offline. The affect heuristic is the only thing operating. And the affect heuristic does not accept counterarguments. It accepts feelings. The Weaponization of Feeling Every effective piece of MAGA communication is designed to activate the affect heuristic and keep the deliberative system offline. Trump’s language is exclusively affective. “They’re poisoning the blood of our country.” That is not an argument. That is a feeling delivery system. It produces disgust, fear, and anger in a single sentence. The brain tags immigrants with those feelings. And from that moment forward, every judgment about immigration is downstream of those feelings. “The election was stolen.” That is not a claim that invites evaluation. That is a statement designed to produce rage. The rage activates the affect heuristic. The affect heuristic tags the 2020 election with a negative feeling. And from that moment forward, every piece of evidence showing the election was legitimate is processed not as information but as a threat to the feeling. Rally chants work the same way. “Build the wall.” “Lock her up.” “Send them back.” None of these are policy proposals that can be evaluated on their merits. They are rhythmic emotional activators. They produce a shared feeling in a crowd. And that shared feeling becomes the basis for every political judgment the crowd makes. The sophistication is not in the message. The message is simple by design. The sophistication is in the emotional targeting. Keep the fear high. Keep the anger hot. And the affect heuristic will do the rest. The brain will generate the conclusions you want without you ever having to provide a single fact. What a Platform Built on Feeling Looks Like A political movement built on deliberative reasoning has a platform. It has policy positions that can be evaluated, debated, and tested again

  7. 6d ago

    Why Weak Americans Run Towards Fascism

    In 1941, a man who had just escaped Nazi Germany sat down at Columbia University and tried to answer the most important question of the twentieth century. It was not “how did Hitler take power?” Historians had already begun documenting that. The question Erich Fromm needed to answer was different. It was worse. Why did the people let him? Not the inner circle. Not the military leaders or the party functionaries or the industrialists who funded the operation. The ordinary people. The shopkeepers and teachers and factory workers and farmers who watched a democratic republic dismantle itself and did not just allow it to happen but cheered while it did. Fromm published his answer in a book called Escape from Freedom. The book argued that fascism is not imposed on a population from the outside. It is chosen from the inside. By people who are free. Who have the ability to think for themselves. And who voluntarily surrender that ability because the weight of freedom has become more than they can carry. Eighty-four years later, the book reads like a field manual for understanding the United States of America. The Core of Fromm’s Argument Fromm identified a paradox at the center of modern life that most political theorists had missed entirely. The modern era liberated human beings from the constraints that had organized their lives for centuries. Feudalism collapsed. The authority of the church weakened. Rigid class systems loosened. People gained the freedom to choose their own beliefs, their own careers, their own identities. For the first time in history, the individual was free. But Fromm saw what that freedom actually produced in millions of people. Not confidence. Not creativity. Not self-determination. Anxiety. Isolation. A paralyzing sense of insignificance. He called this the burden of freedom. The distinction he made was between two types of freedom. Freedom from is liberation from external constraints. You are free from the king, from the church, from the rigid hierarchy that told you who you were and what your life meant. Freedom to is the capacity to use that liberation productively. To create meaning. To build relationships. To construct a life that matters on your own terms. The modern world delivered freedom from. It did not deliver freedom to. Millions of people were liberated from the structures that had oppressed them and left standing in an open field with no direction, no community, no framework for meaning, and no one to tell them what to do next. For psychologically strong individuals, this is an opportunity. For everyone else, it is a crisis. Fromm argued that when the anxiety of freedom becomes unbearable, people do not fight to preserve it. They run from it. They seek out any structure, any leader, any movement that promises to take the burden away. They surrender their autonomy in exchange for certainty. They trade self-determination for belonging. They hand their freedom to someone else and feel relief, not loss. He called this the escape from freedom. And he identified three mechanisms through which it happens. The first is authoritarianism. The person submits to a leader and allows the leader to do their thinking for them. The submission feels like strength because the leader projects power and the follower absorbs it by association. The second is destructiveness. The person attempts to destroy the world that makes them feel small. If the institutions, the experts, the systems, the cultural changes are what make freedom feel unbearable, then destroying those things feels like liberation. The third is automaton conformity. The person abandons individual thought entirely and thinks whatever the group thinks. They adopt the opinions, the language, the values, and the emotional reactions of the crowd. They experience this as thinking for themselves because the group’s thoughts have replaced their own so completely that the substitution is invisible. MAGA does all three simultaneously. And six decades of psychological research have confirmed the mechanisms underneath each stage of the escape. Why They Were Primed Before Trump Arrived Fromm argued that the escape from freedom begins when people lose the belief that their actions can change their circumstances. Modern psychology has a precise term for this state and a body of experimental evidence showing exactly how it works. In 1967, psychologist Martin Seligman at the University of Pennsylvania published research showing that repeated exposure to uncontrollable negative events teaches the brain to stop trying. The brain learns, through experience, that effort does not produce results. Once that lesson is internalized, the person stops generating action plans even when the situation changes and escape becomes possible. Seligman called it learned helplessness. The research has been replicated hundreds of times across multiple species and multiple contexts. The finding is consistent: when the brain concludes that nothing you do matters, it shuts down the motivational system that would otherwise drive you to act. The communities where MAGA support runs deepest are communities where learned helplessness is not a laboratory finding. It is a lived experience spanning decades. Wages that did not rise. Jobs that disappeared and were not replaced. Towns that hollowed out. Schools that were defunded. Infrastructure that crumbled. Promises from politicians of both parties that were made and broken and made and broken until the brain learned the obvious lesson: nothing you do will change anything. Seligman’s research showed that learned helplessness produces a specific vulnerability. The person who has given up on their own agency becomes dependent on external sources of control. They stop generating their own plans and look for someone else to generate plans for them. Trump said “I alone can fix it.” That sentence is not a policy statement. It is the precise message that a brain trapped in learned helplessness is waiting to hear. Someone else will handle it. Someone else has the plan. You don’t have to try anymore. Just follow. Fromm predicted this exact dynamic in 1941. The person escaping freedom does not evaluate the leader’s competence. They evaluate the leader’s certainty. In a brain that has concluded effort is pointless, absolute certainty feels like the opposite of everything that has ever failed them. It does not matter whether the certainty is justified. It matters that it exists. Why They Cannot Leave the Group Fromm argued that the escape from freedom is not just about the leader. It is about the group. The movement provides something the modern world stripped away: a tribe. A community. A structure that tells you who you are, what you believe, and where you belong. In 1995, psychologists Roy Baumeister and Mark Leary published what became one of the most cited papers in social psychology. They reviewed decades of research on human connection and concluded that the need to belong is among the most powerful drives in the human brain. It is not a preference. It is a biological imperative. People will tolerate extraordinary costs, including abuse, deception, and the destruction of their own material interests, to maintain the feeling of belonging to a group. The research showed that the brain processes social exclusion using the same neural pathways it uses to process physical pain. Being cut off from a group does not just produce sadness. It produces a neurological response indistinguishable from a physical injury. Now consider what MAGA has replaced in the lives of its members. As they went deeper into the movement, they lost people. Friends who could not tolerate the politics stopped calling. Family members pulled away. Coworkers avoided them. Holiday dinners became arguments that ended relationships. And every one of those people was replaced by another MAGA supporter. Their entire social architecture was rebuilt inside the movement. Their friends, their news, their entertainment, their social media feeds, their daily vocabulary, their sense of humor, their rituals, their heroes, their enemies are all organized around one identity. Baumeister and Leary’s research predicts exactly what this means for the possibility of leaving. A person whose entire social world exists inside one group cannot leave that group without triggering a neurological event the brain processes as equivalent to a physical attack. The cost of leaving is not just loneliness. It is pain. Fromm described this in 1941 without the neuroscience. He wrote that the person who escapes into a group does not experience the group as a cage. They experience it as a home. The walls are invisible because the alternative, standing alone in the open field of freedom, is more terrifying than anything the group can do to them. How the System Disables Morality Fromm’s most disturbing observation was that people who escape into authoritarianism become capable of cruelty they would never have committed as free individuals. The group does not just provide belonging. It provides permission. In 1999, psychologist Albert Bandura at Stanford University published research that provided the mechanism Fromm had described but could not yet explain neurologically. Bandura showed that the human brain has a set of internal mechanisms that allow a person to selectively deactivate their own moral standards. The deactivation is temporary. It is targeted. And it is invisible to the person doing it. Bandura called it moral disengagement. He identified eight mechanisms and they map onto MAGA’s behavior with clinical precision. Moral justification reframes cruelty as service to a higher cause. Deporting families is not cruelty. It is protecting America. Euphemistic labeling changes the language so the cruelty does not sound like cruelty. Families are not destroyed. They are processed. Workers are not fired. They are part of efficiency gains. Dehumanization strips the victim of

  8. Oct 3

    The Space Between Ignorance and Fear: Why MAGA Conspiracy Theories Flourish

    There is a direct relationship between how well a person understands a system and how susceptible they are to conspiracy theories about that system. The relationship is not a subtle one. It is nearly mechanical. The less someone understands about how something works, the more likely they are to believe that something sinister is happening inside it. The more blackbox the system is, the larger the conspiracy it can support. This pattern holds across every major conspiracy theory in American political life. It explains, with uncomfortable precision, why the MAGA movement has become the most prolific generator of conspiratorial thinking in modern American history. The Blackbox Problem (opacity) Consider the difference between an abacus and a smartphone. An abacus is transparent. You can see every bead. You can watch the math happen. You can verify the output with your own eyes. There is no room for a conspiracy theory about an abacus because there is nowhere for a conspiracy to hide. The mechanism is fully visible. A smartphone is the opposite. It is a sealed box running processes that the vast majority of its users cannot see, cannot audit, and cannot understand. The average person knows their phone does things they did not ask it to do. It serves ads that seem to respond to conversations. It tracks location. It collects data in ways that are documented but not intuitive. All of this is real and verifiable. But the leap from “my phone collects data for advertising purposes” to “the government is monitoring my every thought through my phone” is not a leap supported by evidence. It is a leap enabled by opacity. The person making that leap cannot distinguish between what their phone actually does and what it theoretically could do because they cannot see inside the box. So they fill the gap with the worst possibility their imagination can produce. Not because they are paranoid by nature, but because the human brain is architecturally incapable of tolerating unexplained complexity without generating an explanation. This is the dynamic at the center of every MAGA conspiracy theory. The system is too complicated for the person to understand. The opacity creates a void. And the void gets filled with a villain. The Believing Brain In 2011, researcher Michael Shermer at Chapman University published “The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies.” Shermer had spent decades studying why people believe things that are not true, first as the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine, then as a researcher and author examining the cognitive machinery behind belief formation. “The Believing Brain” represents his most comprehensive analysis of why the human mind generates beliefs first and seeks evidence for them second, rather than the other way around. Shermer identified two cognitive processes that operate in tandem to produce conspiratorial thinking. The first he called patternicity: the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless data. Humans evolved to detect patterns because pattern detection is a survival advantage. The ancestor who heard rustling in the grass and assumed a predator was more likely to survive than the ancestor who assumed it was the wind. The cost of a false positive (running from nothing) was low. The cost of a false negative (ignoring a real threat) was death. The result is a brain that is biased toward seeing patterns even when none exist. We see faces in clouds. We find meaning in coincidences. We connect events that have no causal relationship and construct narratives to explain the connection. This is not a defect. It is an evolutionary feature that produces a significant number of errors precisely because producing errors is less costly than missing real patterns. The second process Shermer identified is the one that turns false patterns into conspiracy theories. He called it agenticity: the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning, intention, and agency. Once the brain detects a pattern, real or imagined, it does not stop at recognition. It assigns a cause. And the cause it prefers is an intentional agent, a mind with a plan, a person or group with a motive. Agenticity is the reason that random misfortune feels personal. It is the reason people attribute natural disasters to divine punishment, market fluctuations to shadowy cabals, and bureaucratic incompetence to coordinated malice. The brain is not satisfied with randomness or complexity as explanations. It wants a who. And it will invent one if it has to. Where Conspiracy Meets Incomprehension Patternicity and agenticity are universal. Every human brain runs these processes. But conspiracy theories do not distribute evenly across the population. They cluster around specific topics, specific communities, and specific political movements. The variable that predicts where conspiracy theories will flourish is not ideology in the abstract. It is the gap between the complexity of a system and the ability of the person to understand that system. Consider the major conspiracy theories that define the MAGA movement and how each one maps directly onto a system the believer does not understand. Election fraud. The American election system is genuinely complicated. It involves different voting technologies across thousands of jurisdictions, a patchwork of state laws governing ballot counting, chain-of-custody procedures for physical ballots, certification processes that involve multiple independent actors, and statistical patterns in vote reporting that are counterintuitive to anyone without a background in quantitative analysis. The “red mirage” phenomenon, in which early returns favor Republicans and later-counted mail-in ballots shift results toward Democrats, has a simple explanation that election analysts understand and can demonstrate mathematically. But to someone who does not understand how differential vote-counting methods produce predictable temporal patterns in reporting, the visual experience of watching a lead evaporate on live television looks like fraud. The system is too opaque. The pattern (the lead disappeared) is real. The agent the brain invents to explain it (someone changed the votes) is not. Vaccine conspiracies. Immunology is one of the most complex fields in biology. The mechanism by which an mRNA vaccine produces an immune response involves molecular processes that require years of graduate-level education to understand at a technical level. The average person cannot see inside a vaccine. They cannot observe the immune response. They cannot verify the clinical trial data. The system is entirely opaque to them. So when the brain detects a pattern (I got vaccinated and then I felt sick, or I heard about someone who had a bad reaction), agenticity activates. The invisible agent the brain invents is not “my immune system mounted the expected inflammatory response.” The invisible agent is Bill Gates, or a microchip, or a depopulation scheme. The size of the conspiracy tracks directly with the size of the knowledge gap. The “deep state.” Federal bureaucracy is enormous, slow, and procedurally complex in ways that are genuinely difficult for outsiders to comprehend. Career civil servants operate under layers of regulation, interagency coordination, and institutional memory that are invisible to anyone who has not worked inside the system. When a policy initiative is slowed or blocked by bureaucratic process, the person who understands federal administration recognizes institutional friction. The person who does not understand it sees coordinated sabotage by invisible actors. The deep state conspiracy theory is not a description of how government actually works. It is what government looks like from the outside to someone who cannot see the machinery. Why MAGA Specifically The clustering of conspiracy theories within the MAGA movement is not coincidental, and attributing it entirely to individual gullibility misses the structural dynamic at work. Three factors converge to make this population uniquely susceptible. First, educational attainment. Polling data consistently shows that support for conspiracy theories correlates inversely with educational attainment, particularly in the sciences. This is not because education makes people smarter in some general sense. It is because education in specific domains reduces the opacity of specific systems. A person who has taken a statistics course is less likely to find election-night vote shifts suspicious because they understand how sampling and counting methodology produce those patterns. A person who has studied immunology is less likely to believe vaccine conspiracies because the system is not a black box to them. The knowledge gap is smaller, so there is less void for agenticity to fill. Second, the media ecosystem. Right-wing media does not merely fail to close knowledge gaps. It actively widens them. It replaces technical explanations with narrative ones. It substitutes invisible agents (George Soros, the deep state, globalist elites) for complex systemic causes. Fox News and its ecosystem function as agenticity amplifiers, providing pre-fabricated invisible villains that the brain can slot into any unexplained pattern without doing the cognitive work of actually understanding the system in question. Third, the leader himself. Trump does not explain systems. He does not describe mechanisms. He does not offer technical accounts of how anything works. He offers villains. Every problem has a who. Immigration is not a complex policy challenge involving labor economics, international law, and demographic trends. Immigration is an invasion orchestrated by Democrats. Inflation is not the result of supply chain disruption, monetary policy, and global commodity markets. Inflation is caused by Biden. The cognitive style Trump models for his followers is pure agenticity. Every pattern gets an agent. Every prob

See All (202)

4.9
out of 5
47 Ratings

About

Sharing insights on psychology, History, human behavior, politics, new technology and business | Author, Scientist, Podcast Host | I make videos & I try to tell good stories. lucasbean.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Lucas Bean
  • Years Active
    2018 - 2026
  • Episodes
    202
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © Lucas Bean
  • Show Website
    The Lucas Bean Show

You Might Also Like