The problem of ignorance and how we can fight it: A neuroscientist explains

The great paradox of modern times is that we have access to more information than ever — but ignorance seems to be growing.

People in the United States and around the world believe more bogus theories now than they did 10 years ago. Comment sections on social media reveal that most people are just as gullible as ever, and in some ways, even more likely to believe outlandish things. This ignorance has consequences of global importance, because an increase in ignorance will lead to ignorant people getting elected to positions of power. I don’t think I need to give an example here because you’re probably already thinking it.

Ignorance spreads like a virus if we don’t actively combat it. But we can’t attack the problem if we don’t fully understand it. Therefore, let’s learn about what ignorance is from a scientific and philosophical perspective, then plot a course for inoculating against it.

First, we should understand that we’re all ignorant — to some degree. You could say that ignorance is a fact of life. To understand why, we have to understand the nature of life. For an organism to exist in the world, it has to accomplish certain survival goals. For example, it must be able to find food and avoid threats in a chaotic and often unpredictable world. These tasks require that the organism have a map or model of its environment.

Because humans live in a complex physical and social world, we have very sophisticated mental models of the world. But as incredible as those maps of the world are, they are still abstract, simplified representations of a much more complicated reality. And they really have to be — a map that is as complicated as the thing it is mapping wouldn’t be very useful because it would contain more information than we could process. Scientists and artificial intelligence researchers are very aware of this point. They often remark that “the map is not the territory,” and there is a common saying that “all models are wrong, but some are useful.”

This idea has been summarized as the “Principle of Incomplete Knowledge,” and it says that because our mental model of the world always contains some uncertainty or error, we all have a certain amount of ignorance.

In this context, ignorance is the difference between our model of reality and how reality really is. To live in an optimal way — that is, to make the best decisions and increase your chances of success — we should always be trying to reduce the error in our model of the world. We do this by “updating our model” when evidence tells us that reality is different than we thought it was. According to an influential new neuroscience theory called “the Bayesian Brain Hypothesis,” our ability to update the model and reduce our ignorance is central to intelligence.

Your model of the world consists of all your beliefs about reality. Minimizing your model’s ignorance means changing your beliefs when evidence and logic suggests they are inaccurate.

Let’s consider an idealized example. Imagine someone who believes the Earth is flat blasts off into space in a rocket. The person will see with their own eyes that the Earth is round. If they come back down to Earth, continuing to believe that it is flat, they have not updated their model in light of new evidence. This is an extreme example, but most if not all of us hold some beliefs that are similarly, if less dramatically, inaccurate. In some cases, we still hold these beliefs even when they are contradicted by the evidence.

It is far from easy to determine which of your beliefs are in line with the evidence offered by reality. If you believe in something, it is usually because you’ve found something about that argument to be convincing (though that is not always the case, because we may also believe in unconvincing things that we find comforting).

This is why it is important that we test our beliefs. For example, let’s say you’re into New Age medicine. You’ve been told that a certain crystal has healing powers. Now, there is no good scientific reason to believe that this is true. But because even our best scientific theories will contain some amount of error, the best way to determine if there’s any validity to a belief is to test it. One could use the crystals only half of the time when they get sick, and they can keep a record of the recovery time (while trying to keep other variables, such as the kind of illness itself, constant). To increase the sample size of the study, that person could give the crystals to their friends and family who would also like to try the experiment. If 10 people try the healing method for one year and there’s no clear indication that there’s any difference between healing times associated with the crystal versus without, then one can suspect that the crystal is ineffective and won’t cure illness.

Society would almost certainly improve if everyone questioned and tested their own beliefs. In practice, this is not so easy. In the above example, there is the problem of the famous placebo effect, so the crystal might actually be effective in healing not because of any intrinsic property, but because of the user’s positive thoughts. For this reason, the best strategy for people defending against ignorance is becoming scientifically literate. Consult the peer-reviewed literature that exists on a given topic when something is in question, because empirical studies test theories in a properly controlled way and with a sufficient sample size (ideally). However, I should repeat that this does not mean we shouldn’t be skeptical of our current scientific theories and existing empirical evidence. Scientific theories, by design, aren’t immutable. They are pathways to knowledge, not final destinations. Our theories are always getting updates because they contain some degree of error, and it is important to be aware of that. But we should have the appropriate amount of skepticism, given all the evidence we have so far.

There’s a practical approach to reducing our ignorance and optimizing our world model’s accuracy. That takes us back to Bayesian reasoning, named for the 18th century statistician and philosopher Thomas Bayes. Bayesian reasoning is a procedure for updating your theory, model, or belief-system in the face of new evidence. In scientific practice, it involves a relatively complex mathematical formula. But you don’t need to know any math to use informal Bayesian reasoning in everyday life — as philosopher Julia Galef explains in this short and accessible video.

Here’s what you do:

1.) Consider all possible explanations for something, rather than relying purely on “gut instinct.”

2.) Rank and rate each theory according to how likely it is to be true based on all the known facts.

3.) Test each theory by using it to make future predictions.

4,) Update how you ranked and rated the likelihood of each being true to reflect what you learned from the testing phase.

Some of our most respected scientists, including cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker and theoretical physicist Sean Carroll, have identified Bayesian reasoning as a powerful tool in the war against irrationality. In particular, it can combat the kind of misinformation and bogus conspiracy theories that so frequently permeate our politics. At the same time, Bayesian reasoning can reveal real conspiracies, should they exist, by demonstrating that a particular theory about a conspiracy explains the facts better than the alternatives. What Bayesian reasoning provides is a universal approach to determining truth. Beliefs should not be believed blindly; they should be tested continually.

If we can make some simplified form of Bayesian reasoning common practice for everyone, it would reduce the collective ignorance of society practically overnight. People who believe irrational things would begin to shed their beliefs that are contradicted by reality and testing. Scientists and medical professionals would likewise not overstate their certainty, which they tend to do (studies show that physicians fail to use Bayesian reasoning as much as average people do).

So, the question is, if this form of logic is our weapon against irrationality and ignorance, how do we make it go mainstream? For one, logical reasoning and evidence-based thinking should be a part of standard education curriculums. New methods of education, such as gaming and virtual reality, could also provide ways to make Bayesian reasoning stick.

Being ignorant about a particular topic isn’t shameful. None of us know everything — that’s an impossible task. Ignorance does not come from a lack of education, but an unwillingness to seek education. Ignorance is a consequence of refusing to change your beliefs when reality is constantly contradicting them. If we want to increase our chances of success in life, and minimize our ignorance, then we must be willing to challenge our own viewpoints and update our models of reality in light of new evidence.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the new book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him @BobbyAzarian.

How a stupidity epidemic is threatening America's actual existence

It may sound like an insensitive statement, but the cold hard truth is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and their stupidity presents a constant danger to others. Some of these people are in positions of power, and some of them have been elected to run our country. A far greater number of them do not have positions of power, but they still have the power to vote, and the power to spread their ideas. We may have heard of “collective intelligence,” but there is also “collective stupidity,” and it is a force with equal influence on the world. It would not be a stretch to say that at this point in time, stupidity presents an existential threat to America because, in some circles, it is being celebrated.

Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be “smart” while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that “you can’t fix stupid,” but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.

To demonstrate that stupidity does not mean having a low IQ, consider the case of Richard Branson, the billionaire CEO of Virgin Airlines, who is one of the world’s most successful businessmen. Branson has said that he was seen as the dumbest person in school, and has admitted to having dyslexia, a learning disability that affects one’s ability to read and correctly interpret written language. But it wasn’t just reading comprehension that was the problem — “Math just didn’t make sense to me,” Branson has said. “I would certainly have failed an IQ test.”

READ: We're watching the largest and most dangerous 'cult' in American history

So, what is responsible for his enormous success, both financially and in terms of being a prolific innovator? Branson attributes his success to surrounding himself with highly knowledgeable and extremely competent people. Branson’s smarts come from his ability to recognize his own limitations, and to know when to defer to others on topics or tasks where he lacks sufficient knowledge or skill.

This means you don’t have to be traditionally intelligent or particularly knowledgeable to be successful in life, make good decisions, have good judgment, and be a positive influence on the world. Stupidity is a consequence of a failure to be aware of one’s own limitations, and this type of cognitive failure has a scientific name: the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a well-known psychological phenomenon that describes the tendency for individuals to overestimate their level of intelligence, knowledge, or competence in a particular area. They may also simultaneously misjudge the intelligence, expertise, or competence of others. In other words, they are ignorant of their own ignorance. The effect has been widely written about, and investigated empirically, with hundreds of studies published in peer-reviewed journals confirming and analyzing the phenomenon, particularly in relation to the dangers it poses in certain contexts.

It is easy to think of examples in which failing to recognize one’s own ignorance can become dangerous. Take for example when people with no medical training try to provide medical advice. It doesn’t take much Internet searching to find some nutritionist from the “alternative medicine” world who is claiming that some herbal ingredient has the power to cure cancer. Some of these people are scam artists, but many of them truly believe that they have a superior understanding of health and physiology. There are many people who trust these self-proclaimed experts, and there is no doubt that some have paid with their lives for it.

What’s particularly disturbing about the Dunning-Kruger effect is that people are attracted to confident leaders, so politicians are incentivized to be overconfident in their beliefs and opinions, and to overstate their expertise. For example, Donald Trump — despite not having any real understanding of what causes cancer — suggested that the noise from wind turbines is causing cancer (a claim that is not supported by any empirical studies). It is well documented that on topics ranging from pandemics to climate change, Trump routinely dismissed the opinions of the professionals who have dedicated their lives to understanding those phenomena, because he thought that he knew better. It’s bad enough that politicians like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene don’t recognize their own ignorance and fail to exercise the appropriate amount of caution when making claims that can affect public health and safety — but what is really disturbing is that they are being celebrated for their overconfidence (i.e., stupidity).

It is less surprising that politicians who regularly exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect are being elected to office when one realizes that they are being voted in by people who also display the Dunning-Kruger effect. A 2008 study by the political scientist Ian Anson surveyed over 2000 Americans in an attempt to see whether or not the effect was playing a role in one’s ability to overestimate their political knowledge. The results clearly showed that the people who scored lowest on political knowledge were the very same people who were the most likely to overestimate their performance. While this is shocking, it also makes perfect sense: the less we know about something, the less of an ability we have to assess how much we don’t know. It is only when we try to become an expert on some complex topic that we truly realize how complicated it is, and how much more there is to learn about it.

This new theory of stupidity I have proposed here — that stupidity is not a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but a lack of awareness of the limits of one’s intelligence or knowledge — is more important right now than ever before, and I’ll tell you why. The same study by Anson mentioned above showed that, when cues were given to make the participants “engage in partisan thought,” the Dunning-Kruger effect became more pronounced. In other words, if someone is reminded of the Republican-Democrat divide, they become even more overconfident in their uninformed positions. This finding suggests, that in today’s unprecedently divided political climate, we are all more likely to have an inflated sense of confidence in our unsupported beliefs. What’s more, those who actually have the greatest ignorance will assume they have the least!

What we are dealing with here is an epidemic of stupidity that will only get worse as divisions continue to increase. This should motivate all of us to do what we can to ease the political division. When we can clearly see the social factors that are causing people to become increasingly stupid, our anger and hatred toward them should dissipate. We do not have much control over our level of intelligence or ignorance, or our ignorance of our ignorance.

But this does not mean that we should accept stupidity as the result of deterministic forces that are beyond our control. After gaining a deeper awareness of our own cognitive limitations and limited knowledge base, we should do what we can to instill this higher awareness in others. We must not just educate the public and our youth; we must teach them to become aware of their own ignorance, and give them the skills they need to search for more knowledge and to detect when they or others are overestimating their knowledge or competency.

We have good reason to be optimistic that this is possible. A 2009 study showed that incompetent students increased their ability to estimate their class rank after being tutored in the skills they lacked. This suggests that we can learn a type of “meta-awareness” that gives us the power to more accurately assess ourselves and our own limitations. Once we can do that, then we can know when we need to do more research on a given topic, or to defer to experts. We can also get better at distinguishing between true experts and those who only claim to be experts (but are really just demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect).

We are all victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect to some degree. An inability to accurately assess our own competency and wisdom is something we see in both liberals and conservatives. While being more educated typically decreases our Dunning-Kruger tendencies, it does not eliminate them entirely. That takes constant cognitive effort in the form of self-awareness, continual curiosity, and a healthy amount of skepticism. By cultivating this type of awareness in ourselves, and making an effort to spread it to others, we can fight back against the stupidity crisis that threatens our nation.

NOW READ: It’s obscene: Inside the Medicare Advantage sham

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the new book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him @BobbyAzarian.

Neuroscientist explains how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different

As the 2024 presidential election nears, two senior citizens are gearing up for mental marathons that will push them to their cognitive limits.

While both candidates have already earned nicknames for showing signs of mental decline, we must confront the uncomfortable question of whether either “dementia Donny” or “sleepy Joe” are fit for the job of commander-in-chief.

After all, with former President Donald Trump having just turned 78, and President Joe Biden at 81, they are the two oldest candidates to ever run for president, by far.

Were Trump to win and serve a full term, he’d be 82 years old on his final day in office — Jan. 20, 2029. In the same scenario, Biden would be 86 years old.

ALSO READ: Inside the neo-Nazi hate network grooming children for a race war

This question of whether either Biden or Trump are mentally up to the task of leading the free world deserves renewed interest after recent events, such as Biden’s fiery State of the Union speech, and a series of gaffes at Donald Trump rallies. The two men are scheduled to face off against each other on June 27 in a debate hosted by CNN.

And while more than a few articles have been written about the seeming cognitive decline of both candidates by well-known publications citing respectable sources, it is time to dig a little deeper, and inquire about what exact type of mental decline we are seeing in each, and to what degree.

President Joe Biden. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Without medically valid, robust and transparent cognitive testing — neither Biden nor Trump have agreed to such a thing — it’s impossible to really know whether the signs of cognitive impairment we are witnessing in their public appearances are no cause for concern, or could actually have dangerous consequences due to their effects on decision making for a world leader of a superpower.

To answer these questions, we must rely on the next best thing: what experts are saying. This doesn’t mean talking heads on TV. Rather, where do professional psychologists and neuroscientists stand on the subject?

Let’s start with what we can safely say about both candidates, and that is that they are certainly experiencing cognitive decline. This is because it is natural and expected for any human who is in their 80s or nearing octogenarian status. In his article, “I’m a neuroscientist — our presidential candidates have shrinking prefrontal cortexes,” author Erik Hoel cites studies and data that shows it is clear that age-related cognitive decline typically starts in one’s 30s and essentially never stops.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist explains how the ‘Streisand Effect’ will help Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

At the beginning of this process of decline, it is basically impossible to see the signs without a series of specific memory tests and other mental examinations. But when you get up to the age range of our two presidential candidates, noticeable deficits such as verbal gaffes and obvious memory lapses become more frequent. While Hoel’s article does mention that there are what have been referred to as “super-agers” — individuals over 70 who show no signs of cognitive decline — it is safe to say through general observation over time that Biden and Trump don’t fall into that category.

The question of public interest: Are Biden and Trump experiencing standard cognitive decline, or are we seeing signs of dementia or some other troubling neurological disorder that would hinder a president’s ability to execute his duties? While cognitive decline is a natural part of aging, it is also a feature of dementia — a broad category of brain diseases that cause a long-term decrease in the ability to think and remember. Dementia can significantly impair a person's daily functioning.

According to Dr. John Gartner, a prominent psychologist and author — and critic of Donald Trump — the ex-president’s recent gaffes show something beyond your typical age-related cognitive decline. In contrast, Gartner argued that Biden is experiencing typical age-related cognitive decline but nothing more.

ALSO READ: Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Squad’ dying?

Gartner doesn’t mince words when it comes to the difference between the two candidates: “Biden’s brain is aging. Trump’s brain is dementing.”

Specifically, he cites Trump’s verbal behavior in his recent CPAC speech as being consistent with frontotemporal dementia with progressive aphasia. That means the physical integrity of the part of his brain associated with language is deteriorating in a way that leads to speech pathologies. What’s worse — this is not just an impairment with his ability to speak fluently and without slurs, but a sign of a deeper neurological impairment that is associated with general confusion.

Let’s review specific examples.

Gartner cites Trump’s frequent display of what is called a “phonemic paraphasia” — the substitution of a word with a nonword that preserves half of the intended word. Instead of “missiles” Trump might say “mishes,” and instead of “Christmas” Trump would similarly say “chrishis.” Essentially, Trump starts out with the correct stem of the word but is unable to complete it so he just garbles an ending. The Biden campaign has even attempted to score political points off Trump’s speech patterns, posting a video on X with the caption, “Trump slurs his words while ranting: In Mexico until [unintelligible].”

In his appearance on The David Pakman Show, Gartner tells Pakman that all of the experts he has talked to have said that nobody without brain damage commits these kinds of phonemic paraphasias.

ALSO READ: 8 ways convicted felon Donald Trump doesn't become president

As a neuroscientist myself, the question I’m mulling is whether Trump’s suspected brain damage is only in the area associated with speech production, known as Broca’s area, or also in the region associated with language comprehension, known as Wernicke’s area. The kind of paraphasia Trump is demonstrating, which does not involve a nonsensical pattern of words, is more likely to be a problem related to speech production, which is a less serious cognitive impairment.

The Trump-related gaffes that are much more concerning to me involve Trump confusing one person for another, in a way that is not just the result of a name slip, but an actual confusion of one person for another.

Trump’s former Republican rival Nikki Haley suggested Trump may be mentally unfit for holding office because — during a campaign speech in January — the former president seemed to repeatedly confuse her with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Trump accused Haley of turning down security for the U.S. Capitol offered by his administration on Jan. 6, 2021, and then destroying “all of the information, all of the evidence.”

This example is perplexing because Haley and Pelosi are on opposite sides of the political spectrum and have little in common other than being female politicians. Most notably, Haley had no official role whatsoever during the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

This isn’t the first time Trump has mixed up two women with whom he’s quite familiar.

In Trump’s deposition during his civil rape case last year, he identified the supposed victim E. Jean Carroll as his ex-wife, Marla Maples. While this made headlines, the video posted by the Wall Street Journal does not show the photo Trump was looking at, so it’s impossible to judge whether the photo was simply blurry and ambiguous, as Trump claims.

ALSO READ: How Donald Trump could run for president — and lead the nation — from prison

What appears more worrisome is Trump confusing Biden for former President Barack Obama over and over again in different speeches. According to New York Magazine, it has occurred on at least seven different occasions. On March 2 during a rally in Richmond, Va., Trump said “Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word.”

This slip would be minor if it weren’t for the fact that Obama hasn’t been president for almost eight years. Back in September, during a speech at the Pray Vote Stand summit in Washington, D.C., Trump appeared to boast that he beat Obama in 2016 and will do it again.

What makes things worse is that Trump has tried to explain these confusions as sarcasm or comedy, rather than blaming it on mental fatigue or something a little more understandable. This gives the impression that he’s trying to cover up cognitive impairment that is starting to become severe enough that it can’t be hidden from the public.

The last recent gaffe worth mentioning is one where Trump’s brain appeared to flat out stop functioning. As can be seen in this video, starting around the 2:10 mark, The Late Show host Stephen Colbert capitalized on this moment, saying:

“Donald Trump had two rallies this weekend — one in Virginia and one in North Carolina — but the two speeches had one unifying theme: His brain is broke. Here he is in Greensboro talking about how the U.S. doesn’t need to import oil from petro states.”

The clip of Trump then rolls, and he says something like, “We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will re-pi-tu, ahhh.”

He appears to have a cognitive glitch mid-sentence. Colbert then remarks, “Not entirely sure what’s going on there, but apparently he can’t say the word Russia without climaxing.”

So, what can we conclude from all these examples of verbal slippages and downright confusion?

ALSO READ: Biden in hot water with AOC: ‘It’s wrong. It’s not okay.’

It is obvious to me that Trump is cognitively impaired in a way that is not typical for even people as old as he. Then again, most 78-year-old men aren’t speaking regularly on a national campaign trail. To fairly compare Trump’s mental decline to Biden’s, we would need to see footage of Biden speaking for similar periods of time under similar pressure. Of course, we will never get to see that — Biden does not speak publicly nearly as much as Trump — but the State of the Union address did give us reason to think that Biden isn’t quite as cognitively impaired as much of the nation expected.

Additionally, a House committee hearing earlier this year corrected some misinformation put forth by special counsel Robert Hur that suggested Biden had forgotten the year his son died, which was used by right-wing news to further the claim that the president is mentally compromised.

My conclusion is that both presidential candidates are showing signs of cognitive impairment that could potentially develop into dementia down the line. A recent study at Columbia University found that 35 percent of individuals over 90 have clinical dementia, so it is quite common for those who are lucky enough to live that long.

Then-President Donald Trump and then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden participate in the final presidential debate at Belmont University on Oct. 22, 2020 in Nashville, Tenn. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

What is of interest is the differences in the type of cognitive impairment we are seeing with the two candidates. While Biden’s mental and behavioral changes are more typical of aging — a gradual slowing of mental acuity and physical dexterity — Trump’s abnormalities are more like cognitive malfunctions. That being said, Trump’s mental state and the consequences for his decision making are more unpredictable, while Biden’s just put a big question mark over whether he can continue to do his job.

Perhaps the best thing for Democrats is for Biden to gracefully step aside and let a younger politician — Vice President Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, for example — who is mentally healthy and prepared to battle a cognitively impaired Trump. That way, there are no charges of hypocrisy, and voters could be presented with a candidate whose mental fortitude is as solid and reliable as their policy proposals. Unfortunately for Democrats, I don’t believe any of these people have a chance of winning.

But barring an acute health crisis, Biden — who, along with Trump just clinched enough delegates to become their respective parties’ nominees — shows no signs whatsoever of backing down or stepping away, no matter his limitations.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A version of this article first appeared in Raw Story on March 14, 2024, and has been updated to reflect new events.

A neuroscientist explains how the ‘Streisand Effect’ will help Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The first debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump is less than three weeks away, and despite independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr. consistently polling in the double digits, he is currently not scheduled to participate in the CNN-hosted event.

The network, RFK Jr. says, has “rigged” the debate by creating qualifications that appear aimed at keeping him off the stage. He has even filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, arguing that CNN colluded with the Biden and Trump campaigns to exclude Kennedy — in violation of campaign finance law.

It is no secret that two of the big mainstream media outlets, CNN and MSNBC, favor Joe Biden in the election. RFK Jr. — the son of assassinated Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy — poses a direct threat to Biden.

With Biden slightly trailing Trump in most national polls, while also lagging in some key swing states, he needs every liberal and independent vote he can get. The networks have already painted RFK Jr. as a conspiracy theory candidate with an anti-vax stance who voters should not trust.

While keeping Kennedy off the debate stage will certainly limit the reach of his message in the short term, there are potent psychological effects that could cause the move to backfire, potentially bolstering RFK Jr.’s popularity in the long run, and motivating a greater public call for him to participate in future debates.

A phenomenon known as the "Streisand Effect" occurs when attempts to suppress or censor information have the unintended consequence of drawing more attention to it.

Named after a 2003 incident in which entertainer Barbra Streisand's attempt to remove an online image of her Malibu home inadvertently drew more attention to it, the effect has since been observed in various contexts, including politics. The more that the media tries to suppress individuals such as RFK Jr., who are perceived as "going against the system," the more they inadvertently build support for them among the anti-establishment crowd.

The Streisand Effect in politics is partly explained by the phenomenon known as psychological reactance, wherein once people are aware that some information is being kept from them, they are significantly more motivated to acquire and spread it.

This stems from a feeling that one’s freedoms are being threatened, and as a consequence, the individual acts in ways to restore those freedoms. In the case of a political candidate such as RFK Jr., a lack of media coverage can trigger reactance among his supporters, who may perceive the insufficient coverage as an attempt to limit their choice of candidate.

Keeping RFK Jr. off the debate stage when he is polling so well for an independent candidate would certainly be perceived by many — including Americans merely curious about his candidacy — as such an attempt.

Moreover, the perception of unfairness and exclusion could tap into a psychological mechanism known as the underdog effect.

When people feel that powerful forces are treating an underdog unjustly, they often experience a strong emotional response that motivates them to support and defend the perceived victim.

This is partly due to the activation of the brain's limbic system, which is involved in processing emotions and generating empathy. The amygdala, in particular, has been shown to be highly responsive to perceived threats and injustices, triggering a cascade of neural and physiological responses that can promote empathetic and supportive behavior towards the underdog.

In addition, the exclusion of a candidate like RFK Jr. from the debate stage can fuel conspiracy theories and reinforce the perception that the media and the political establishment are colluding to suppress certain voices and perspectives.

This can lead to a backlash effect, where people become even more determined to support the excluded candidate as a way of resisting what they perceive as a corrupt and manipulative system. The brain's tendency to seek patterns and explanations, even in the face of incomplete or ambiguous information, can make people more susceptible to such theories, especially when they align with their existing beliefs and biases.

Ultimately, the decision to potentially exclude RFK Jr. from the upcoming presidential debate may not only fail to limit his reach and influence but could actually have the opposite effect, amplifying his anti-establishment message.

By tapping into powerful psychological mechanisms that drive human behavior and decision-making, such as the Streisand Effect, psychological reactance and the underdog effect, CNN's actions may inadvertently boost RFK Jr.'s popularity and convert some Biden supporters.

For these reasons, Biden allies should consider the relevant psychological factors when considering the potential consequences of political strategies and media coverage. For that matter, Trump should as well, given that his RFK Jr.’s anti-establishment messages sound awfully a lot like his, with Kennedy hurting Trump more than Biden in a recent poll.

As Election Day on Nov. 5 grows closer, attempts to sideline a candidate like RFK Jr. may only serve to spread his message and strengthen his appeal with voters who are disillusioned with the current political establishment.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

How stupidity is an existential threat to America

It may sound like an insensitive statement, but the cold hard truth is that there are a lot of stupid people in the world, and their stupidity presents a constant danger to others. Some of these people are in positions of power, and some of them have been elected to run our country. A far greater number of them do not have positions of power, but they still have the power to vote, and the power to spread their ideas. We may have heard of “collective intelligence,” but there is also “collective stupidity,” and it is a force with equal influence on the world. It would not be a stretch to say that at this point in time, stupidity presents an existential threat to America because, in some circles, it is being celebrated.

Although the term "stupidity" may seem derogatory or insulting, it is actually a scientific concept that refers to a specific type of cognitive failure. It is important to realize that stupidity is not simply a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but rather a failure to use one's cognitive abilities effectively. This means that you can be “smart” while having a low IQ, or no expertise in anything. It is often said that “you can’t fix stupid,” but that is not exactly true. By becoming aware of the limitations of our natural intelligence or our ignorance, we can adjust our reasoning, behavior, and decision-making to account for our intellectual shortcomings.

To demonstrate that stupidity does not mean having a low IQ, consider the case of Richard Branson, the billionaire CEO of Virgin Airlines, who is one of the world’s most successful businessmen. Branson has said that he was seen as the dumbest person in school, and has admitted to having dyslexia, a learning disability that affects one’s ability to read and correctly interpret written language. But it wasn’t just reading comprehension that was the problem — “Math just didn’t make sense to me,” Branson has said. “I would certainly have failed an IQ test.”

READ: We're watching the largest and most dangerous 'cult' in American history

So, what is responsible for his enormous success, both financially and in terms of being a prolific innovator? Branson attributes his success to surrounding himself with highly knowledgeable and extremely competent people. Branson’s smarts come from his ability to recognize his own limitations, and to know when to defer to others on topics or tasks where he lacks sufficient knowledge or skill.

This means you don’t have to be traditionally intelligent or particularly knowledgeable to be successful in life, make good decisions, have good judgment, and be a positive influence on the world. Stupidity is a consequence of a failure to be aware of one’s own limitations, and this type of cognitive failure has a scientific name: the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a well-known psychological phenomenon that describes the tendency for individuals to overestimate their level of intelligence, knowledge, or competence in a particular area. They may also simultaneously misjudge the intelligence, expertise, or competence of others. In other words, they are ignorant of their own ignorance. The effect has been widely written about, and investigated empirically, with hundreds of studies published in peer-reviewed journals confirming and analyzing the phenomenon, particularly in relation to the dangers it poses in certain contexts.

It is easy to think of examples in which failing to recognize one’s own ignorance can become dangerous. Take for example when people with no medical training try to provide medical advice. It doesn’t take much Internet searching to find some nutritionist from the “alternative medicine” world who is claiming that some herbal ingredient has the power to cure cancer. Some of these people are scam artists, but many of them truly believe that they have a superior understanding of health and physiology. There are many people who trust these self-proclaimed experts, and there is no doubt that some have paid with their lives for it.

What’s particularly disturbing about the Dunning-Kruger effect is that people are attracted to confident leaders, so politicians are incentivized to be overconfident in their beliefs and opinions, and to overstate their expertise. For example, Donald Trump — despite not having any real understanding of what causes cancer — suggested that the noise from wind turbines is causing cancer (a claim that is not supported by any empirical studies). It is well documented that on topics ranging from pandemics to climate change, Trump routinely dismissed the opinions of the professionals who have dedicated their lives to understanding those phenomena, because he thought that he knew better. It’s bad enough that politicians like Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene don’t recognize their own ignorance and fail to exercise the appropriate amount of caution when making claims that can affect public health and safety — but what is really disturbing is that they are being celebrated for their overconfidence (i.e., stupidity).

It is less surprising that politicians who regularly exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect are being elected to office when one realizes that they are being voted in by people who also display the Dunning-Kruger effect. A 2008 study by the political scientist Ian Anson surveyed over 2000 Americans in an attempt to see whether or not the effect was playing a role in one’s ability to overestimate their political knowledge. The results clearly showed that the people who scored lowest on political knowledge were the very same people who were the most likely to overestimate their performance. While this is shocking, it also makes perfect sense: the less we know about something, the less of an ability we have to assess how much we don’t know. It is only when we try to become an expert on some complex topic that we truly realize how complicated it is, and how much more there is to learn about it.

This new theory of stupidity I have proposed here — that stupidity is not a lack of intelligence or knowledge, but a lack of awareness of the limits of one’s intelligence or knowledge — is more important right now than ever before, and I’ll tell you why. The same study by Anson mentioned above showed that, when cues were given to make the participants “engage in partisan thought,” the Dunning-Kruger effect became more pronounced. In other words, if someone is reminded of the Republican-Democrat divide, they become even more overconfident in their uninformed positions. This finding suggests, that in today’s unprecedently divided political climate, we are all more likely to have an inflated sense of confidence in our unsupported beliefs. What’s more, those who actually have the greatest ignorance will assume they have the least!

What we are dealing with here is an epidemic of stupidity that will only get worse as divisions continue to increase. This should motivate all of us to do what we can to ease the political division. When we can clearly see the social factors that are causing people to become increasingly stupid, our anger and hatred toward them should dissipate. We do not have much control over our level of intelligence or ignorance, or our ignorance of our ignorance.

But this does not mean that we should accept stupidity as the result of deterministic forces that are beyond our control. After gaining a deeper awareness of our own cognitive limitations and limited knowledge base, we should do what we can to instill this higher awareness in others. We must not just educate the public and our youth; we must teach them to become aware of their own ignorance, and give them the skills they need to search for more knowledge and to detect when they or others are overestimating their knowledge or competency.

We have good reason to be optimistic that this is possible. A 2009 study showed that incompetent students increased their ability to estimate their class rank after being tutored in the skills they lacked. This suggests that we can learn a type of “meta-awareness” that gives us the power to more accurately assess ourselves and our own limitations. Once we can do that, then we can know when we need to do more research on a given topic, or to defer to experts. We can also get better at distinguishing between true experts and those who only claim to be experts (but are really just demonstrating the Dunning-Kruger effect).

We are all victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect to some degree. An inability to accurately assess our own competency and wisdom is something we see in both liberals and conservatives. While being more educated typically decreases our Dunning-Kruger tendencies, it does not eliminate them entirely. That takes constant cognitive effort in the form of self-awareness, continual curiosity, and a healthy amount of skepticism. By cultivating this type of awareness in ourselves, and making an effort to spread it to others, we can fight back against the stupidity crisis that threatens our nation.

NOW READ: It’s obscene: Inside the Medicare Advantage sham

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the new book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist explains why Trump’s criminal trials will strengthen his support

As the United States witnesses the unprecedented criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump, it’s time to ponder how these events will affect the upcoming presidential election.

While some Americans might expect the negative publicity of the court cases to diminish Trump’s popularity, an analysis of the relevant psychological phenomena suggests that the proceedings could ultimately have the opposite effect. In fact, CNN recently reported that a new poll shows Trump ahead of President Joe Biden by 5 percent nationwide. The criminal trials against Trump — four separate ones that together feature 88 felony charges — might not only fail to deter his supporters but could potentially galvanize them by tapping into powerful and counterintuitive mental effects.

ALSO READ: Trump vs. history: Former presidents typically implode on their comeback tours

First, let’s just start with some common-sense reasoning. It is no secret that Donald Trump is not an ethical person. From being buddies with the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, to the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape in which he bragged about groping women — “Grab ‘em by the pussy” being his precise words — Trump's behavior has long since been a subject of public scrutiny, and for good reason. The current Stormy Daniels hush money case and other matters are not likely to reveal anything particularly new or shocking to the public. The only way the cases are likely to hurt Trump with voters is by keeping him off the campaign trail. And of course, they’ll hurt his pockets.

But given how close the race between Trump and Biden is, we must consider the possibility that the sum total of these public trials will be to confirm Trump’s ongoing narrative: that he is an agent of change going up against a corrupt system that will do all they can to stop an outsider from gaining power.

Conspiracy theories about a “deep state” — a government made up of a secret network of power operating in pursuit of their own agenda — will be seemingly validated in the eyes of Trump supporters as the trials play out in the months before Election Day 2024.

As a result, this could trigger what is known as the "backfire effect," a psychological phenomenon that would undoubtedly bolster Trump’s support. This effect occurs when people are presented with information that directly contradicts their deeply held beliefs. Instead of updating their views to align with new evidence — in this case, that Trump may actually be a criminal who indeed committed illegal acts — people become even more entrenched in their original position. It's like a mental defense mechanism that kicks in to protect their worldview from the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance caused by conflicting information.

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene is buying stocks again. Some picks pose a conflict of interest

Regarding Trump's legal troubles, his supporters may view the criminal charges as a direct attack on their belief in his innocence and integrity. They will perceive the prosecution as a politically motivated witch hunt orchestrated by Trump's enemies to bring him down, causing them to double down on their support for Trump.

Additionally, the shared experience of feeling under attack can create a powerful sense of unity and solidarity among Trump's supporters.

A fundamental aspect of human psychology is the tendency to form in-groups and out-groups. When Trump is prosecuted — or persecuted, as Trump argues — his supporters will perceive it as an attack on their group identity. These followers see themselves as part of a righteous movement fighting against a common enemy. This "us vs. them" mentality means that the criminal prosecution will increase hostility toward the perceived out-group, which in this case is the legal system, the Democrats, and Joe Biden.

Another psychological phenomenon that may come into play is the "underdog effect." People often root for the underdog in a competition. The same can apply to legal battles and elections. The criminal prosecution of an individual can create a perception of them as the underdog, leading to increased public support and sympathy.

In Trump's case, his supporters view him as a brave outsider fighting against a rigged system, no matter that he is a billionaire former president who lives in rarified luxury and owns his own private Boeing 757 jet. The “underdog effect” can further boost their loyalty and admiration for Trump. This will cause them to rally around their leader and intensify their commitment to his cause.

Furthermore, the criminal trials against Trump may tap into the powerful narrative of victimhood and persecution. The psychological concept known as “persecution complex” suggests that individuals who perceive themselves as victims may experience heightened feelings of loyalty and camaraderie toward their in-group. By portraying himself as a victim of politically motivated persecution, Trump can reinforce his supporters' sense of shared victimhood and strengthen their resolve to stand by him.

ALSO READ: Trump-nominated FEC leader: let political donors hide their identities

It's important to note that these psychological effects are not limited to Trump's most loyal supporters. Even those who were previously on the fence or not planning to actively campaign for him may be swayed by the perception that he is being unfairly targeted. The criminal trials may serve as a rallying cry, mobilizing these individuals to become more vocal and engaged in their support for Trump.

For these reasons, as the legal proceedings unfold and the 2024 presidential election approaches, it is crucial for Democrats to carefully consider the unintended consequences of Trump’s criminal prosecutions, which follow civil court judgements that have already held Trump liable for business fraud, defamation and sexual abuse. (Trump maintains he’s innocent.) While holding Trump accountable for any alleged wrongdoing is undoubtedly important, the timing and nature of these prosecutions could inadvertently energize the campaign they seek to cripple.

Democrats must be prepared to counter the psychological effects that will very likely bolster Trump's support. This could involve developing compelling counter-narratives that resonate with voters, highlighting the importance of the rule of law and emphasizing the need for accountability regardless of political position. It will be essential to strike a delicate balance between pursuing justice and minimizing the risk of these unintended psychological consequences.

Ultimately, the Democrats may find themselves in a catch-22: either they allow Trump to evade accountability for his alleged crimes, or they risk unleashing a cascade of psychological effects that could propel him back into the White House. In this high-stakes game of political chess, the unintended consequences of their next move could determine the fate of the nation for years to come.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist explains how Trump is using existential fear to win the election

The 2024 election is heating up, and Donald Trump is back to using his number one political strategy to grab Americans’ attention and galvanize his base: fear.

And why wouldn’t he? It worked for him in the past, and a social psychology concept called terror management theory suggests it will work for him again.

Trump is in the news this week for making two inflammatory statements designed to stoke existential fear, and the rhetoric is of the type that peer-reviewed research indicates has a psychological effect on the minds of voters.

ALSO READ: A criminologist explains why keeping Trump from the White House is all that matters

On Tuesday, in a campaign speech in Grand Rapids, Mich., Trump said, “If we don’t win on November 5th, I think our country is going to cease to exist.” In no way holding back on the heavy fearmongering, Trump continued, “This could be the last election we ever have. I actually mean that. That’s where our country is going.”

In the same speech, he addressed immigration in a way that could conceivably cause dangerous paranoia among the public, claiming that countries were sending “prisoners, murderers, drug dealers, mental patients and terrorists — the worst they have.”

To dial up the doomsday rhetoric even further, he is repeatedly using the word “bloodbath” to describe the state of affairs that will ensue due to the border crisis should President Joe Biden win a second term. A website, BidenBloodBath.com was even launched by the Republican National Committee, which The New York Times says the Trump campaign now effectively controls.

“A vote for Biden is a vote for an invasion,” the site says in large red letters.

Source: Republican National Committee

We must become cognizant of the psychological tactic that Trump is using here, because science suggests it is potentially powerful and plays to our subconscious fear. Terror management theory studies the effects of mortality salience — which refers to thoughts of death or existential threat becoming more pronounced or salient in one’s mind.

The theory maintains that when we are made to feel fearful for our lives, we cling more strongly to things that make us feel safe, such as our ideologies and leaders vowing to protect us from the danger.

This suggests that Trump’s fear mongering tactics push Republican voters toward the extreme end of the right wing, while bolstering their support for Trump — no matter that Trump himself faces 88 felony counts across four criminal cases involving all manner of alleged misdeeds.

ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president

I believe the ex-president, who also last year warned of “death and destruction” if charged with a crime, is knowingly using this tactic. He does so despite the obvious downside for our nation as a whole — increased political polarization, social division and potential violence or terrorism. It is one thing to speak passionately about the broken immigration system, which the right and the left at some level agree is a problem that must be addressed, but it is another thing altogether to try and send people into a state of panic and rage for one’s self-serving political ambitions.

A study conducted in 2004, titled “American Roulette: The Effect of Reminders of Death on Support for George W. Bush in the Presidential Election,” demonstrated that the effects of mortality salience could have a measurable effect on presidential election outcomes.

It is worth mentioning that this experiment took place not long after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, so this event was in the minds of voters, at least at a subconscious level. Additionally, George W. Bush had made fighting terrorism the central theme of his campaign, and he raised the nation’s terror alert level while warning that the country would be in danger should Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry be elected.

To test the hypothesis that making mortality salient would shift voters toward Bush over Kerry, 184 students were broken into two groups: a control condition which received a neutral writing exercise, and an experimental condition that entailed exercises designed to make participants think about death.

The results found that the control group supported Kerry on average, while those in the mortality salience condition favored Bush.

A 2017 study by the same group titled, “You’re Hired! Mortality Salience Increases Americans’ Support for Donald Trump,” set out to directly test whether existential fear increased support for the then-president. The study design was similar to the previous study, and the results found that those participants who were primed to think about death showed a subtle yet statistically significant shift toward Trump and away from 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The study also found that asking people to think about immigrants moving into their neighborhood increased the accessibility of death-related thoughts. This suggests that Trump's immigrant-focused fear mongering specifically triggers existential anxiety.

ALSO READ: A neuroscientist reveals how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different

From these results, it is clear that fear mongering during an election year can have real effects on a nation’s voter base. With the kind of fiery and panic-inducing rhetoric Trump is strategically using at his rally speeches, we can imagine that the psychological consequences are greater than simple writing exercises designed to conjure up threats about death.

So, what can we do about it?

The authors of these studies, Sheldon Solomon and Tom Pyszcynski, have this advice:

“The best antidote to this problem may be to monitor and take pains to resist any efforts by candidates to capitalize on fear-mongering … As a culture, we should also work to teach our children and encourage our citizens to vote with their ‘heads’ rather than their ‘hearts,’ as research has demonstrated that mortality salience effects are attenuated when people are asked to think rationally.”

The proverbial clock is ticking.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

How Trump supporters' brains prevent them from changing their minds

As the 2024 election inches closer, the choice we Americans are about to make could have dire national and global consequences. Both sides of the aisle are gearing up for what promises to be one of the most divisive electoral battles in history. With stakes higher than ever, the mission for progressives is clear: stop Trump at all costs.

As it stands now, polls have Trump and Biden effectively tied, meaning that there’s an opportunity, some might call it a moral imperative, to sway the country away from the dystopian future in which Trump triumphs.

But how exactly do we change voters’ minds?

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

One might believe it’s just a matter of making a persuasive argument, loaded with empirical facts and sound logic, articulated with perfect clarity. This is what the left-wing media often believes, and we have seen how successful that strategy has been — Donald Trump is as influential as ever.

But what if I told you that our neural wiring determines whether we have the ability to change our minds? What if I told you that science suggests conservatives, who are extremely likely to be voting for Trump this election, generally have more rigid cognitive systems, which means they are less adaptable, and therefore, less likely to adopt a new framework or perspective when their approach fails?

A seminal study by social psychologist David Amodio and colleagues at New York University suggests that the typical conservative is not likely to be convinced by something as simple as a logically persuasive argument. For some conservatives, it's like asking them to change the color of their eyes. A progressive worldview cannot pierce their psyche because being dogmatic is programmed into the fabric of that worldview. It is not just that they are “stubborn”; their brains are actually wired to resist things that are new and different. So, you could say they lack “free will” when it comes to their voting decision. When we speak of free will in a modern sense, we are talking about the personal agency that enables one to override ingrained biases and consider alternative perspectives.

To understand the implications of this study, we must voyage into the realm of neuroscience, where secrets of the mind await discovery. The ERN, which stands for “error related negativity,” is a spike in brain activity that is triggered when we commit an error. It serves as a kind of internal alert system within our brain, signaling when a mistake has been made. It emerges in the brain region known as the anterior cingulate cortex, which helps us navigate situations where established patterns or behaviors are ineffective and require adjustment. For example, if a person is learning to play a musical instrument and hits a wrong note, the ERN might spike, prompting them to correct their finger positioning and playing style. Over time, as they practice and adapt, the frequency of these ERN spikes will decrease, indicating improved proficiency and fewer mistakes.

RELATED: This complete psychological analysis reveals 14 key traits that explain Trump supporters

Armed with a knowledge of the nature of the ERN, Dr. Amodio and colleagues ventured into the terrain of politics. Their highly-cited 2007 study revealed an illuminating connection between one's political orientation and the intensity of the ERN response. What they found was that participants with liberal views exhibited a more pronounced ERN. This suggests they have a heightened sensitivity to error signals, indicating a cognitive system that acknowledges the need for adjustments in perspective and strategy. Essentially, when their established behavioral patterns were shown to be incorrect or suboptimal, their brains signaled more intensely for an adaptive response. From these findings, we can conclude that progressive-minded individuals possess a neural predisposition for recognizing the need for change and growth.

Conservatives, on the other hand, exhibited a smaller ERN. This suggests that their cognitive system is more resistant to signals advocating for change or reconsideration. We can think of this as a neural reflection of their preference for stability, tradition and consistency. The typical conservative voter’s mental landscape, sculpted by a combination of genetics and indoctrinating experiences, values the familiar and reliable. Established norms and long-held beliefs provide a safe harbor in the face of a changing society and an uncertain future. It's a mindset where radical shifts or sudden upheavals are perceived not as opportunities but threats to a delicate equilibrium. Conservatism is essentially a neurocognitive inclination aimed at preserving the status quo.

So, what are we supposed to take away from these results? Does it mean there’s no hope for shifting anyone’s stances this election?

One might reasonably conclude that we should simply focus on getting all those already on our ideological side to turn out to the polls on voting day.

But using that strategy alone is risky. We should not give up hope in spreading a progressive worldview, because resistance to change and evolution eventually leads to societal collapse. History has unequivocally demonstrated that. Adaptivity is the key to individual and collective survival. This means we have an ethical obligation to be evangelists for progress and sensible change. This will require a bit of social engineering and some creativity.

Persuading the conservatives intending to vote for Trump is not about convincing them with logic; it is about understanding and navigating their innate preference for stability and tradition. By recognizing the inherent gravitation toward consistency, we see that the presentation of facts or data might not be the most persuasive tool. Effective persuasion demands an approach that's strategically empathetic. Rather than challenging the core of their beliefs head-on, it’s far more effective to frame arguments in a way that resonates with their intrinsic values — stability, tradition and consistency. Narratives and stories that weave in those facts that resonate with their core values will be more compelling. Presenting change not as a rupture, but as a natural evolution of the existing order, can be a more palatable and effective narrative.

To truly sway Republican voters, we must employ more than just arguments. It demands a properly balanced mix of genuine empathy, clever communication strategy and a basic grasp of the neurocognitive biases shaping their perspectives.

In the end, the outcome of the election may well hinge on our ability to navigate the cognitive labyrinth of the conservative mind.

RELATED: 'The Da Vinci Code' shows why it's so hard to deprogram Trump's followers: linguist

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist reveals how Trump and Biden's cognitive impairments are different

As the 2024 presidential election nears, two senior citizens are gearing up for mental marathons that will push them to their cognitive limits.

While both candidates have already earned nicknames for showing signs of mental decline, we must confront the uncomfortable question of whether either “dementia Donny” or “sleepy Joe” are fit for the job of commander-in-chief.

After all, with former President Donald Trump at 77 and President Joe Biden at 81, they are the two oldest candidates to ever run for president, by far.

Were Trump to win and serve a full term, he’d be 82 years old on his final day in office — Jan. 20, 2029. In the same scenario, Biden would be 86 years old.

This question of whether either Biden or Trump are mentally up to the task of leading the free world deserves renewed interest after recent events, such as Biden’s fiery State of the Union speech, and a series of gaffes at Donald Trump rallies.

And while more than a few articles have been written about the seeming cognitive decline of both candidates by well-known publications citing respectable sources, it is time to dig a little deeper, and inquire about what exact type of mental decline we are seeing in each, and to what degree.

Without medically valid, robust and transparent cognitive testing — neither Biden nor Trump have agreed to such a thing — it’s impossible to really know whether the signs of cognitive impairment we are witnessing in their public appearances are no cause for concern, or could actually have dangerous consequences due to their effects on decision making for a world leader of a superpower.

To answer these questions, we must rely on the next best thing: what experts are saying. This doesn’t mean talking heads on TV. Rather, where do professional psychologists and neuroscientists stand on the subject?

Let’s start with what we can safely say about both candidates, and that is that they are certainly experiencing cognitive decline. This is because it is natural and expected for any human who is in their 80s or nearing octogenarian status. In his article, “I’m a neuroscientist — our presidential candidates have shrinking prefrontal cortexes,” author Erik Hoel cites studies and data that shows it is clear that age-related cognitive decline typically starts in one’s 30s and essentially never stops.

ALSO READ: Inside the neo-Nazi hate network grooming children for a race war

At the beginning of this process of decline, it is basically impossible to see the signs without a series of specific memory tests and other mental examinations. But when you get up to the age range of our two presidential candidates, noticeable deficits such as verbal gaffes and obvious memory lapses become more frequent. While Hoel’s article does mention that there are what have been referred to as “super-agers” — individuals over 70 who show no signs of cognitive decline — it is safe to say through general observation over time that Biden and Trump don’t fall into that category.

The question of public interest: Are Biden and Trump experiencing standard cognitive decline, or are we seeing signs of dementia or some other troubling neurological disorder that would hinder a president’s ability to execute his duties? While cognitive decline is a natural part of aging, it is also a feature of dementia — a broad category of brain diseases that cause a long-term decrease in the ability to think and remember. Dementia can significantly impair a person's daily functioning.

According to Dr. John Gartner, a prominent psychologist and author — and critic of Donald Trump — the ex-president’s recent gaffes show something beyond your typical age-related cognitive decline. In contrast, Gartner argued that Biden is experiencing typical age-related cognitive decline but nothing more.

ALSO READ: Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Squad’ dying?

Gartner doesn’t mince words when it comes to the difference between the two candidates: “Biden’s brain is aging. Trump’s brain is dementing.”

Specifically, he cites Trump’s verbal behavior in his recent CPAC speech as being consistent with frontotemporal dementia with progressive aphasia. That means the physical integrity of the part of his brain associated with language is deteriorating in a way that leads to speech pathologies. What’s worse — this is not just an impairment with his ability to speak fluently and without slurs, but a sign of a deeper neurological impairment that is associated with general confusion.

Let’s review specific examples.

Gartner cites Trump’s frequent display of what is called a “phonemic paraphasia” — the substitution of a word with a nonword that preserves half of the intended word. Instead of “missiles” Trump might say “mishes,” and instead of “Christmas” Trump would similarly say “chrishis.” Essentially, Trump starts out with the correct stem of the word but is unable to complete it so he just garbles an ending. The Biden campaign has even attempted to score political points off Trump’s speech patterns, posting a video on X with the caption, “Trump slurs his words while ranting: In Mexico until [unintelligible].”

In his appearance on The David Pakman Show, Gartner tells Pakman that all of the experts he has talked to have said that nobody without brain damage commits these kinds of phonemic paraphasias.

ALSO READ: Racism, arrests, extreme MAGA love: Meet Lauren Boebert’s primary opponents

As a neuroscientist myself, the question I’m mulling is whether Trump’s suspected brain damage is only in the area associated with speech production, known as Broca’s area, or also in the region associated with language comprehension, known as Wernicke’s area. The kind of paraphasia Trump is demonstrating, which does not involve a nonsensical pattern of words, is more likely to be a problem related to speech production, which is a less serious cognitive impairment.

The Trump-related gaffes that are much more concerning to me involve Trump confusing one person for another, in a way that is not just the result of a name slip, but an actual confusion of one person for another.

Trump’s Republican rival Nikki Haley suggested Trump may be mentally unfit for holding office because — during a campaign speech in January — the former president seemed to repeatedly confuse her with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Trump accused Haley of turning down security for the U.S. Capitol offered by his administration on Jan. 6, 2021, and then destroying “all of the information, all of the evidence.”

This example is perplexing because Haley and Pelosi are on opposite sides of the political spectrum and have little in common other than being female politicians. Most notably, Haley had no official role whatsoever during the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

This isn’t the first time Trump has mixed up two women with whom he’s quite familiar. In Trump’s deposition during his civil rape case last year, he identified the supposed victim E. Jean Carroll as his ex-wife, Marla Maples. While this made headlines, the video posted by the Wall Street Journal does not show the photo Trump was looking at, so it’s impossible to judge whether the photo was simply blurry and ambiguous, as Trump claims.

ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president

What appears more worrisome is Trump confusing Biden for former President Barack Obama over and over again in different speeches. According to New York Magazine, it has occurred on at least seven different occasions. This month, on March 2 during a rally in Richmond, Va., Trump said “Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word.”

This slip would be minor if it weren’t for the fact that Obama hasn’t been president for almost eight years. Back in September, during a speech at the Pray Vote Stand summit in Washington, D.C., Trump appeared to boast that he beat Obama in 2016 and will do it again. What makes things worse is that Trump has tried to explain these confusions as sarcasm or comedy, rather than blaming it on mental fatigue or something a little more understandable. This gives the impression that he’s trying to cover up cognitive impairment that is starting to become severe enough that it can’t be hidden from the public.

The last recent gaffe worth mentioning is one where Trump’s brain appeared to flat out stop functioning. As can be seen in this video, starting around the 2:10 mark, The Late Show host Stephen Colbert capitalized on this moment, saying:

“Donald Trump had two rallies this weekend — one in Virginia and one in North Carolina — but the two speeches had one unifying theme: His brain is broke. Here he is in Greensboro talking about how the U.S. doesn’t need to import oil from petro states.”

The clip of Trump then rolls, and he says something like, “We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will re-pi-tu, ahhh.”

He appears to have a cognitive glitch mid-sentence. Colbert then remarks, “Not entirely sure what’s going on there, but apparently he can’t say the word Russia without climaxing.”

So, what can we conclude from all these examples of verbal slippages and downright confusion?

ALSO READ: Two Trump legal lifelines are tilting Election 2024 in Donald's favor

It is obvious to me that Trump is cognitively impaired in a way that is not typical for even people as old as he. Then again, most 77-year-olds — Trump turns 78 this spring — aren’t speaking regularly on a national campaign trail. To fairly compare Trump’s mental decline to Biden’s, we would need to see footage of Biden speaking for similar periods of time under similar pressure. Of course, we will never get to see that — Biden does not speak publicly nearly as much as Trump — but the State of the Union address did give us reason to think that Biden isn’t quite as cognitively impaired as much of the nation expected.

Additionally, a House committee hearing on Tuesday corrected some misinformation put forth by special counsel Robert Hur that suggested Biden had forgotten the year his son died, which was used by right-wing news to further the claim that the president is mentally compromised.

My conclusion is that both presidential candidates are showing signs of cognitive impairment that could potentially develop into dementia down the line. A recent study at Columbia University found that 35 percent of individuals over 90 have clinical dementia, so it is quite common for those who are lucky enough to live that long.

What is of interest is the differences in the type of cognitive impairment we are seeing with the two candidates. While Biden’s mental and behavioral changes are more typical of aging — a gradual slowing of mental acuity and physical dexterity — Trump’s abnormalities are more like cognitive malfunctions. That being said, Trump’s mental state and the consequences for his decision making are more unpredictable, while Biden’s just put a big question mark over whether he can continue to do his job.

Perhaps the best thing for Democrats is for Biden to gracefully step aside and let a younger politician — Vice President Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, for example — who is mentally healthy and prepared to battle a cognitively impaired Trump. That way, there are no charges of hypocrisy, and voters could be presented with a candidate whose mental fortitude is as solid and reliable as their policy proposals. Unfortunately for Democrats, I don’t believe any of these people have a chance of winning.

But barring an acute health crisis, Biden — who, along with Trump just clinched enough delegates to become their respective parties’ nominees — shows no signs whatsoever of backing down or stepping away, no matter his limitations.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist explains how Taylor Swift hijacks your brain and what it means for Trump

If you’re reading this, it is likely that Taylor Swift has hijacked your brain.

Don’t worry — you are not alone. Tens of millions of Americans have also recently had their cognitive system invaded by the same mental contagion. If you enjoy her music, this might be a pleasurable infection. If her tunes grate on your nerves, the constant activation of your Taylor Swift neurons could be a curse.

But your personal pleasure or suffering is not the only reason we should be interested in Taylor Swift’s global influence. Why? Because whether we realize it, her influence will likely play a significant role in the 2024 presidential election. America’s sweetheart, who is dating one of the biggest stars of football — a sport that commands the unwavering devotion of red America — will likely be supporting Democratic President Joe Biden rather than Republican Donald Trump.

ALSO READ: ‘Leave the drama to them:’ Mother of Lauren Boebert’s grandson speaks out

This undoubtedly has Trump sweating. Hours before the kickoff of Super Bowl LVIII, the former posted a message on his social media platform Truth Social, taking credit for a bill that he claims made Swift so much money and should cause her to be indebted to him. Trump also predicted there’s “no way” Swift “could endorse Crooked Joe Biden.”

Trump’s desperate plea makes it clear that Swift’s decision of who to endorse is a big deal. If Election 2024 is close, as expected, the Swifties of the United States could theoretically tip the scales.

The key to understanding Swift’s growing influence, from a scientific view, is understanding how she has become a meme, and one of unparalleled viral power.

In a world saturated with social media content and trends, the term "meme" has slipped into common vernacular, often evoking silly or clever images that have gone viral. But the original concept of a meme, as proposed by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, is a well-known scientific framework for understanding cultural phenomena, including the meteoric rise of Taylor Swift. Dawkins introduced the term in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, not to explain digital trends per se, but to describe a unit of cultural transmission.

ALSO READ: ‘Grab any cheerleaders?’ Fans decry Trump’s S.C. football appearance as a ‘terrible look’

A meme, in its original conception, is an idea, behavior, trend or philosophy that spreads from person to person within a culture. It is the cultural counterpart to the biological gene, often defined as a replicator of cultural information. Memetics, the mental counterpart to genetics, is the academic field that studies how memes propagate, evolve and affect societies.

Cultural transmission refers to the way in which information is passed along within a community, not through genetic inheritance but through communication and imitation. Every time a Taylor Swift song gets played on the radio, an Instagram reel, or sung by someone on the subway, the Swift meme is being propagated through our society.

Virality is a meme's ability to spread rapidly and widely from one individual to another, often through the internet. Adaptation, in memetics, involves a meme's change over time to fit its cultural environment better, enhancing its survival and propagation. Every time Swift’s cultural relevance begins to wane, she reinvents herself to adapt to a changing culture — and you can be sure her relationship with NFL star Travis Kelce was another way to do just that. This doesn’t mean the relationship isn’t genuine. It simply means that Swift’s decisions about her love life and her career cannot be disentangled from her role as a vehicle for cultural trends.

Lastly, social contagion is the phenomenon by which ideas and behaviors are transmitted through social networks, echoing the way diseases spread. Swift's ascent to stardom can be likened to the spread of a mental virus, an idea that found fertile ground in the hearts and minds of millions, then spreads and replicates easily.

The Swift meme thrives because it taps into universal themes — love, heartache, growth, resilience — while also embodying the specific zeitgeist of our times. For Swifties, it offers a mirror in which they see their own struggles and triumphs reflected. In this reflection, they find connection, and a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. This is the essence of social contagion and why certain memes, like Swift's songs and persona, become embedded in the collective psyche.

Taylor Swift performs onstage during the iHeartRadio's Z100 Jingle Ball 2019 at Madison Square Garden on Dec. 13, 2019, in New York City. (Photo by Kevin Kane/WireImage)

Recently, though, the Swift meme has transcended Swifties and pierced the collective consciousness of America more generally, as can be seen by this data from Google trends that plots the popularity of her name since 2004. Notice the exponential growth that has occurred in just the last few months as she criss-crossed the world on her Eras Tour and cheered boyfriend Kelce during his months-long run to victory earlier this month in Super Bowl LVIII.

In the two weeks since the Super Bowl, a flurry of over-the-top articles have been published that demonstrate the shocking virulence of the Swift meme. In an article that appeared in The Sunday Times Magazine, an esteemed professor of literature argued that Taylor Swift should be taught alongside Shakespeare. The professor went as far as to say that attending a Swift concert had been “one of the best nights of [his] life.”

A New Yorker article called “Listening to Taylor Swift in Prison” was also recently published, with teaser text that says, “Her music makes me feel that I’m still part of the world I left behind.” What is interesting is not just the stories of grown men who have caught the Swift bug, but the media outlets that are all publishing Swift stories, which have been virtually all of them.

Of course, the article you are reading is also part of this phenomenon. I, too, have become a Swiftie, after falling in love with her most recent studio album in 2022, Midnights, which is far more mature than any of her previous releases both musically and lyrically. Though despite the fact that I’ve listened to it maybe 100 times, I still think teaching it alongside the Bard is pretty insane. That means the social contagion has only hijacked a limited region of my neural machinery. You can protect yourself against the Swift meme by simply avoiding her albums and any content about her.

But this is easier said than done.

And that brings us back to the 2024 election.

A legitimately big question for the future of the nation is, will Swift, the 2023 TIME Person of the Year, publicly endorse Biden, and if so, how much of her memetic influence will she use to see that her candidate wins? It is this question that our scientific analysis can help answer.

Since we’ve determined that her career and personal decisions are intimately intertwined, it is almost certain that she won’t endorse Trump, despite her popularity with red America and a viral video — it was a complete fabrication — of Swift supposedly holding a flag reading “Trump Won.” During the 2020 campaign, Swift was publicly critical of Trump and advocated that Americans vote him out of office.

At this point, she literally can’t without losing all her media support and becoming enemy number one of the left.

The articles from websites such as The New Yorker are memetic influences that effectively trap Taylor Swift in a blue bubble and ensure that she doesn’t flip on the powers that catalyzed her stardom.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean that Swift will publicly back Biden this year, even if she did in 2020. Biden's team, of course, is actively dreaming of the day Swift does.

It’ll be interesting to see just how political she dares to get as the election approaches. The safest route for the continued spread of the Swift meme is for her to lay low and not rock the political boat much. That’s the prediction that memetics makes, and this Swiftie is pretty confident that we can trust the science.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist explains how the ‘game theory of love’ works amid political warfare

With the political landscape as heated as ever in the run-up to Election 2024, it's easy to forget that February still brings a day dedicated not to partisan squabbles, but to the celebration of love.

With Valentine's Day now here, hearts flutter and chocolates sell out, but behind the scenes, the game of courtship aligns more closely with the chessboard than with Cupid's arrows.

The nation's general political malaise may have dampened the usual enthusiasm for romantic gestures, but the question remains: How strongly do you confess your love on Valentine's Day? Do you play it cool and whisper your affection with a small but thoughtful token of your love, or do you confess your unadulterated love to your sweetheart with a grand gesture and a monologue that explain that you can't live without her — that her absence would leave you adrift in a sea of heartbreak from which you fear you’d never return?

ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn't become president

Always go big, but only if you’re in a position to take the risk. If your girl’s a romantic, which she likely is — duh — then they want to be whisked into the climactic scene of their favorite romantic movie.

But how do you know if you are in a position to do that?

Enter the new framework that I call Game Theory of Love. This way of thinking is loosely based on game theory, a branch of mathematics often associated with economics and conflict resolution, but also applicable to the intricate dance of dating and relationships — even among people at different places along the political spectrum.

To lay the groundwork, let's start with a classic game theory scenario: the prisoner's dilemma.

Imagine two suspects in separate interrogation rooms. Each face the choice to betray the other or remain silent. The optimal outcome hinges on predicting the other's move, much like in a romantic liaison. If both partners choose to trust and stay true, they achieve the best collective outcome. However, if one succumbs to temptation, thinking the other might do the same, the bond of trust is broken, leading to the worst outcome for the relationship.

ALSO READ: How Donald Trump is spreading a dangerous mental illness to his supporters

Nash equilibrium — another classic game theory thought experiment — is a concept that describes a situation where no player can benefit by changing their strategy while the other player's strategies remain unchanged. In the context of a relationship, think of it as a state where both partners have found a balance in their give-and-take, a mutual understanding that any deviation from their current behavior would not yield a better outcome for them.

What’s the overall lesson to be learned for love birds? Striking a balance is essential to maintaining a relationship that is neither smothering nor unstable — each partner's contentment hinges on this equilibrium, even amid disagreements over money, priorities or politics.

Now, transpose this style of reasoning onto the stage of love.

In the grand theater of relationships, each partner's desirability isn't just a matter of attraction or the number of gifts one can afford to shower their lover with. According to a framework we may playfully call “game theory of love,” a significant part of what makes someone attractive is the attention they receive from others. Yes, you heard it right – it's not just about the twinkle in your eye, but also who else is noticing that twinkle. If your partner is constantly being hit on by others who’d like to get you out of the picture, you need to make sure you are equally desirable by society. If you don’t, your Valentine’s Day grandstanding may freak your partner out, and make her reassess whether you are out of your league — rather than falling madly in love.

ALSO READ: Prison president: How Donald Trump could serve from behind bars

Picture this: Alice and Bob are in a relationship. Bob notices that Charlie, who is successful and attractive, seems quite taken with Alice. Suddenly, Alice’s stock rises in Bob's eyes. This is not because of anything Alice has done per se, but because if Charlie sees something special in Alice, Bob reasons he must be quite lucky to have Alice as his partner.

Conversely, if Bob is drawing admiring glances from Diana — who is attractive and extremely intelligent — Alice might find Bob even more irresistible, fearing she might lose a partner who's clearly in demand.

It sounds almost like a plot for a zany rom-com, doesn't it? The game theory of love suggests that to maintain a secure and vibrant relationship, each partner must be perceived as desirable by others. It's a delicate balance of ensuring your partner knows you're a hot commodity while also being deeply committed to them. It's as if each person needs to wear an invisible sign that says, "I'm with someone, but oh, look how many others wish they were in their shoes!"

Shutterstock / Prostock-studio

But here's the twist – while this might sound like a strategy ripe for sitcom shenanigans, there's science to back it up. Human psychology does indeed respond to social proof and perceived value. We cherish what others desire, a principle that applies to everything from the latest gadget to our romantic partners.

ALSO READ: Biden has a new Gen Z super weapon — and occasional critic

Social proof, a psychological and social phenomenon, leads individuals to mirror the actions of others, assuming these actions to be the correct response to a given situation. It's a close relative of conformity — matching attitudes, beliefs and behaviors to group norms. Within the context of love and attraction, this social proof becomes a powerful undercurrent, shaping perceptions and influencing desires.

Consider the way a busy restaurant, teeming with customers, signals a culinary experience worth trying, or how a product selling out online prompts a rush of demand fueled by its apparent popularity. In matters of the heart, the same principle applies: when an individual is courted by admirers, their allure often skyrockets not because of any intrinsic change in their qualities but due to the social validation of their desirability.

This phenomenon, akin to the magnetic pull of a garden in full bloom that attracts more onlookers simply because it already draws a crowd, underscores a profound truth about human nature: we are swayed by the collective affirmation of others. A person's appeal is magnified in the glow of attention they receive, a reflection of the garden's beauty made more potent by the presence of its admirers.

But why does social proof hold such sway over our perception of attractiveness? The answer is to be found in evolutionary psychology. For our ancestors, the instinct to follow the group often meant the difference between survival and demise. In the metamodern age, this instinct manifests in the social arena, where popularity becomes a subconscious cue of quality, signaling to potential partners that there is something inherently worthwhile to be discovered in a person so highly regarded by others.

Yet, the tapestry of human attraction is not woven from a single strand. While social proof can significantly enhance the perceived value of a partner, it intertwines with other essential threads — personal connection, shared values and goals, emotional resonance — to create the intricate pattern of what draws us to another.

Through the analytical lens of game theory, social proof can be seen as a strategic move in the delicate play of love — a way to boost one's standing on the desirability scale. But this is a game fraught with pitfalls, for overreliance on the perceived approval of others can lead to a fragile foundation for relationships, vulnerable to the whims of public opinion.

The implications are as profound as they are paradoxical. While the presence of social proof can contribute to a secure and vibrant love life, it can also erect a house of cards, precariously balanced on the shifting sands of attention and attraction. It begs the question: does the value of social proof in one's relationship contribute to a genuine bond, or is it a mirage that distorts the reality of a deeper connection?

In pursuit of a love that is both secure and dynamic, it becomes imperative to understand and acknowledge the role of social proof while maintaining a holistic view of what makes a relationship thrive. The bedrock of lasting love is built on respect, trust, and genuine connection — not merely the fleeting glances of onlookers, however flattering they may be.

So, this Valentine's Day, let us engage with the game of love thoughtfully, blending the cerebral with the sentimental, in a way that honors both the influence of social proof and the enduring power of genuine, heartfelt connection. Make that grand romantic gesture and confess your unbridled love in a way that puts your valentine in the middle of that romantic movie they’ve always wanted to star in. But at the same time, throw in a little harmless flirtation with the universe to keep your partner on their toes. After all, love — even in these seemingly perilous times — is not just about finding the right person, but also about being just in-demand enough to be a fun challenge.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist’s guide to surviving Christmas with Trump-loving relatives

As the holiday season approaches, family gatherings are set to transform homes into microcosms of the national political landscape. In these reunions, conversations can quickly turn from benign banter about sports to the divisive topic of politics. With an election cycle upon us the name “Trump” can be as contentious as it is inescapable, turning a festive gathering of lights and eggnog into an ideological battleground.

This is the challenge many of us face this Christmas: How do we, armed with our morals and convictions, navigate the treacherous terrain of political discourse with those we love — without the feast turning into a fracas?

If you are a lone liberal leaf in a staunchly conservative family tree, you may be dreading the holiday. If you are not alone, and the family is more-or-less divided on political topics, it can be even worse — all holy hell can break loose. It is not an exaggeration to say that families can be — and sometimes are — torn apart in the highly polarized political climate we find ourselves in.

ALSO READ: These healthcare nonprofits are accepting millions from Big Tobacco

The solution to this problem lies in developing strategies based on an understanding of neuroscience and psychology that can calm the storm within, ensuring that our physiological responses do not commandeer our interactions.

But what if I told you that an understanding of the relevant concepts holds the key to not just surviving these encounters, but potentially bridging family divides? The goal isn't to convert but to converse, and to plant seeds of thought that might, in time, bear fruit.

Let this article serve as a guide to navigating political discussions with grace and the subtle powers of persuasion.

The first thing we need to know is that two distinct yet interdependent cognitive systems govern our decision-making processes.

System 1, the intuitive and automatic pilot, reacts without conscious deliberation, guided by emotions and entrenched biases. It’s the system that flares up at the mention of Trump, fueling heated debates with reactionary zeal.

Contrast this with System 2, the reflective and analytical mind, which involves active engagement with conscious reasoning and rational thought, akin to a chess player contemplating the board. It’s this system that allows for nuanced discussion, helping you dissect the layers of Trump's policies and rhetoric without devolving into tribalistic fervor.

By learning how to stay in a System 2 state of mind, and how to induce the same state in our conversation partners, we equip ourselves with a powerful tool for fostering more constructive dialogues.

Now, let’s imagine a generic Christmas family gathering. This will help you prepare to turn a contentious situation into a constructive conversation.

The turkey is carved, the casserole is cooked and the spiked eggnog is being poured around the table as the annual ritual of family gathering unfolds.

ALSO READ: Trump’s voice is hawking ‘gold bars’ on YouTube. But is it really Trump?

Yet, beneath the festive veneer, a familiar tension simmers, threatening to boil over as Uncle Bob, with a glint in his eye, extols the virtues of Donald Trump. As your patience wears thin, the conversation turns darker and angrier, until everyone at the table who is not a Trump supporter feels uneasy. You love Uncle Bob, and he loves you, but the burly conservative has been liberal with the whiskey and you can predict where the conversation is headed, if someone doesn’t do something to shift gears.

Before you can figure out how to do that, something is said that triggers you. Your body reacts instinctively, preparing itself for what it perceives as a threat. This is politics engaging our stress response. Our autonomic nervous system, the conductor of our body's stress orchestra, readies its instruments. The heart rate accelerates. Muscles tense. Breaths become fast and shallow. It's the famous “fight or flight” response, a survival mechanism that served our ancestors well when faced with physical danger.

But at a family dinner, it doesn't have any adaptive function.

These are the physiological consequences of the activation of the amygdala, an almond-shaped cluster of neurons in the brain's temporal lobe that functions as a "threat detector." When exposed to stimuli perceived as threats — be it an angry expression or a disparaging remark — the amygdala rapidly processes this information and ushers us into a defensive mode, marked by heightened tribalism and strict adherence to familiar worldviews.

The activation of the amygdala can instantly shift someone’s cognitive operating mode from System 2 to System 1. When this happens, it can be very hard for System 2 to get back in the driver’s seat. This reaction has been called "amygdala hijack,” capturing the essence of how our brain’s response to threat can momentarily commandeer our behavioral control.

If you get pulled into this confrontational mode and it is detected by your conversation partner, it will likely trigger the same mode in them. When this happens, both sides will start perceiving any attempts to be persuaded as an attack on their worldview. Once this happens, a polarization cycle emerges — a process in which individuals or groups with conflicting ideologies move progressively further apart in their beliefs and attitudes as a result of interacting.

ALSO READ: How Trump’s mouth is killing American exceptionalism

This cycle is self-reinforcing, with each instance of disagreement widening the divide: one party adopts a more extreme stance, then the opposing party responds by also adopting a more extreme stance, until both sides have doubled-down to the point that they are in complete opposition.

We must avoid polarization cycles whenever possible. This means we must escape amygdala hijack, and get back into a reflective rather than a reactive mindset.

So how do we activate System 2 in ourselves and others?

The first strategy is self-awareness. Practicing mindfulness can serve as a calming prelude to political discussions, grounding us and engaging the cognitive processes of System 2. This entails becoming conscious of the need to be mentally resilient to potential triggers. Like a captain who knows the sea, understand your emotional currents, and take steps to stay in control. For example, be aware of your emotional state, and as anger or frustration emerges, allow the feelings to pass rather than letting them control you.

In addition, simply becoming aware of your breathing to ensure it is deep and sufficiently slow can help regulate your body's stress response, bringing you back to a state of calm. Imagine each breath as a gust of wind, filling the sails of your composure and propelling you forward with intention and mental clarity. It's a technique that can be quietly employed, even mid-conversation, to maintain your equilibrium.

If the conversation does escalate, don't be afraid to take a break — just excuse yourself and step away. Use this time to regroup and calm your nervous system. When you return, you'll be better equipped to navigate the dialogue with poise.

Now that you know how to preemptively self-regulate, let’s focus on your interaction with your ideologically-dissimilar family member.

When you do reengage in the discussion, practice “active listening.” This involves focused attention and conscious processing of what the other person is saying, rather than mentally preparing your counterargument.) Repeat back what they've said, in a subtly different form, if possible, to show them you are paying full attention. This doesn't signify agreement; it simply shows that you’re open to learning new things and that you’re deeply considering their points. Use this opportunity to really understand why that person has that perspective as a result of their worldview, knowledge base and lived experience.

Remember that beneath every opinion lies a complex interplay of beliefs, biases and emotions. Understanding how these factors determine each individual’s unique point of view will give you a more accurate mental model of that person, which will help you see opportunities for alignment.

ALSO READ: Nazis bullied a conservative Tennessee town. Locals punched back. Trump should be worried.

This is practicing what is known as “cognitive empathy.” This type of empathy invites us to step into the shoes of another, to understand their web of beliefs and emotional landscape. Practicing cognitive empathy can turn a fiery debate into a constructive dialogue, enabling us to appreciate the reasons behind a family member's support for Trump, even if we don’t agree.

The practice of cognitive empathy is important, but equally important is the act of sharing your perspectives when they can help steer our collective future toward greater good. However, doing so can very easily trigger amygdala hijack and a polarization cycle. If each impassioned plea for reason seems to ricochet off an invisible ideological shield, then you can assume your conversation partner is locked in a System 1 state of mind, and you must engineer a System 2 state if you want to get through to them or, at least, emerge from the conversation relatively unscathed.

Our words have great influence when used strategically, with the power to either bridge divides or widen them. Careful selection of language can pivot a disagreement from adversarial to collaborative. Effective persuasion leverages the subtleties of language, the psychology of the audience, and narrative.

Consider a scenario where two people are engaged in a discussion that turns into a debate and one of them feels compelled to point out a flaw in another's understanding.

A direct approach might be to say, “What you don’t understand is… (e.g., the issue is more complex than you realize).” Such framing, especially with the use of "you," can inadvertently feel confrontational, suggesting a challenge to the listener's intelligence or worldview.

A more psychologically sensitive approach could be to shift from the individual-specific "you" to the more inclusive "people" or "we."

For instance, “What many people might not see is…” or “What we often overlook is...” Instead of insinuating a personal deficiency or oversight, it proposes a broader human tendency. Framing things this way positions the perspective not as a critique but as a shared revelation. It hints at a collective journey of discovery, inviting collaboration and co-creation.

By transforming the narrative in this way, you are no longer the ideological enemy, but a friend wanting to show them something interesting that enlightened your perspective, which used to be something like theirs in the past. Such linguistic choices, subtle yet affecting, can pave the way for resolution.

ALSO READ: A Christmas wish: Republican immigration policy worthy of Baby Jesus

Highlight areas of agreement, no matter how small. This creates a foundation from which you can both build. When Uncle Bob goes on about Hunter Biden and how he’s a criminal, acknowledge the truth of those statements. This will make them far more likely to concede to truths about Trump’s corruption.

Using open-ended questions that don't have a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer can help move someone into a more contemplative state. For instance, "What led you to that conclusion?" invites reflection and dialogue and fosters a System 2 state.

Lastly, know when to let go. Not every conversation needs to reach the shore of agreement. Sometimes, it's enough to sail alongside each other, even if your destinations differ. Accept that some political discussions, like oceans, are vast and deep, and it's okay to navigate them without seeking conquest.

Incorporating these strategies into your holiday interactions can help transform political discourse from a source of stress to an opportunity for growth. As you sit around the table this holiday season, remember that beneath the cacophony of clashing opinions lies the quiet hum of your shared humanity. With the right approach, discussing politics with your family, even about figures as divisive as Trump, can be a journey of connection rather than a voyage into the eye of the storm.

After all, isn't the holiday spirit about coming together? What could be better than the warmth of shared laughter, the rich tapestry of family history and the nuanced dance of a conversation that's both kind, candid and constructive.

After all, this is the season of miracles.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist explains how Donald Trump exploits the minds of conspiracy theorists

According to recent 2024 presidential polls, Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden, meaning the former president could indeed become the president of the United States once again.

If that thought terrifies you, you are not alone. So, the question is, what can we do to stop the nation from racing toward an authoritarian regime ruled by a pathological narcissist? If we can understand the psychological factors underlying Trump’s enduring appeal, then we may be able to see a way to exploit that scientific knowledge.

Doing so is more than an academic exercise — the future of our nation may depend on it.

While the left often focuses on Trump’s right wing stances and xenophobic rhetoric, one of the main reasons he remains popular is that he is perceived to be the anti-establishment candidate. This phenomenon is a facet of a broader populist wave that has been gaining momentum worldwide — one that is not exclusive to any single nation or political ideology. In the United States, both Trump and left-wing figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders have tapped into a deep-seated frustration with what is perceived as a self-serving system composed of powerful corporations and politicians.

It is within this backdrop of disillusionment that fertile ground for conspiracy theories and authoritarian fantasies has emerged. The knowledge of corruption breeds speculation, giving rise to movements such as QAnon as manifestations of this anti-establishment sentiment.

Trump supporters march around the South Carolina State House in protest of Joe Biden (D) wining the 2020 presidential election. Crush Rush / Shutterstock

The question then arises: What draws individuals toward this nexus of anti-establishment fervor and conspiratorial thinking? This article seeks to unravel this enigma through the lens of cognitive neuroscience. We will explore how our brains process the complexities of corruption and conspiracy, and why, in a time of uncertainty, the allure of political fiction and imagined enemies becomes increasingly potent.

The Bayesian Brain Hypothesis, the current leading neuroscientific theory of how the brain works, provides a compelling framework for this exploration, especially in the context of political discourse and the proliferation of conspiracy theories.

This hypothesis proposes that the human brain operates much like a scientist in a laboratory: it is a prediction machine that continuously generates, tests and updates theories about the world. These theories are part of a “world model” constructed by the mind – a rich, internal representation of reality, formed by a lifetime of learning. This model informs our understanding of how things are and predicts how they will be. It is a dynamic construct, continuously refined by the influx of new data coming in from the senses, much like a scientist revising a theory in light of new experimental data.

ALSO READ: George Santos’ potential replacement also has financial ethics issues

The process is “Bayesian” — named for English mathematician Thomas Bayes — meaning it is statistical at its heart. Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference that uses a mathematical formula, known as Bayes' theorem, to update the probability that a theory is true as more evidence or information becomes available. Neuroscientists now believe that the brain uses a very basic form of this general statistical method to calculate the likelihood of different possible outcomes. This allows the brain to make educated guesses about the future based on past experiences. The brain assesses the probability of an event by taking into account the prior evidence (what we know) and the new evidence (the incoming information).

When new information aligns with the brain's predictions, it reinforces the current “world model,” increasing a person’s confidence in their beliefs.

However, when incoming data contradicts the model's predictions, the brain experiences a mismatch, known as prediction error. It is at this juncture that cognitive dissonance arises – the mental discomfort experienced when holding two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas or values.

ALSO READ: Nazis bullied a conservative Tennessee town. Locals punched back. Trump should be worried.

When this happens, the brain has a choice: either revise one’s world model to accommodate the new information (thereby reducing the prediction error), or increase the model's resistance to change by discounting or ignoring the contradictory data.

This Bayesian Brain framework is particularly illuminating when considering the allure and persistence of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories often arise in the context of events or information that starkly contradict a person's established narrative or world model.

When individuals encounter such anomalies, their brains are compelled to reduce the resulting prediction error either by assimilating the new facts (which may involve elaborate rationalizations) or by adopting a new model that accounts for these facts (which may involve turning to conspiracy theories).

If the existing, accepted narrative – be it from media, authorities or common wisdom – is perceived as unreliable or deceptive, the brain may lean towards alternative explanations to restore coherence to its worldview, even if those explanations previously seemed implausible. These alternative theories may take the form of conspiracy theories — veritable fuel for Trump’s political ambitions — especially if it offers an easy explanation of a perceived deception and aligns with one's underlying suspicions or mistrust of the establishment.

Take, for example, the case of the opioid crisis, caused in part by irresponsible practices of pharmaceutical companies. This crisis was not a mere corporate scandal; it represented a fundamental breach of public trust. The pharmaceutical industry, once regarded by most as a bastion of scientific advancement and health, was exposed for prioritizing profit over public well-being, leading to widespread addiction and loss of life.

The stark contrast between the pharmaceutical industry's professed commitment to health and the grim reality of the opioid crisis created a significant discrepancy in the public’s mental model of the healthcare sector, leaving a palpable dissonance in the public's perception of healthcare.

Amid this climate of distrust, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a fresh wave of prediction errors for the global population's collective “world model.” The rapid spread of the deadly virus globally — something difficult to comprehend since we’ve never experienced it before in our lives — coupled with changing guidelines and advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, created a fertile environment for misinformation.

ALSO READ: Revealed: How South Carolina’s capital city accommodated Trump ‘patriots’

As the pharmaceutical industry raced to develop vaccines, many individuals, already disillusioned by the opioid crisis and similar revelations, viewed these efforts through a lens of suspicion. The lack of a cohesive and transparent response from health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry, especially in light of their historical silence on past misdeeds, did little to satisfy public concerns.

In the Bayesian brain's attempt to minimize prediction errors and make sense of the unfolding crisis, some segments of the population turned to alternative narratives that seemingly offered clarity and certainty. The brain's natural quest for coherence, combined with a deep-seated distrust in health institutions, led some Americans to find more sinister theories about the pandemic's origin and the vaccines' purpose — like the notion of an Illuminati-led population control plan — surprisingly believable.

All the while, Trump, as president, exploited the situation for his perceived political gain, personally and publicly contradicting his medical advisers and public health officials, and often just plain common sense.

ALSO READ: How Trump’s mouth is killing American exceptionalism

In this environment of skepticism, Bayesian reasoning leads some people to question mainstream sources and seek alternative explanations. However, the brain's tendency to "connect the dots" can lead to incorrect inferences. The brain's predictive model can become so skewed by distrust that even the most bizarre theories can seem plausible.

This phenomenon is not just about misinformation or lack of knowledge; it's about a crisis of meaning and trust. We live in what some have termed a “post-truth era,” where the traditional bastions of factual information — schools, mainstream media organizations and government experts — are doubted, and subjective belief often overrides objective evidence. While a certain amount of skepticism is absolutely necessary given the corruption and media bias that actually exists, doubting everything leads to a mindset that is more irrational than blindly believing everything.

In this landscape, outlandish theories — like those peddled by deceptive sources such as Q and Alex Jones — can gain traction. This is not necessarily because they are believed in their entirety, but because they offer a simpler narrative in a world where the “official story” is viewed with suspicion.

Alex Jones addresses demonstrators protesting COVID-19 stay-at-home orders at a rally at the Texas state Capitol. Vic Hinterlang / Shutterstock

The rise of conspiracy theories in the context of Trump's presidency can be seen through this lens. Trump’s often confrontational and contradictory statements further muddled the waters of public discourse. He challenged established narratives and institutions with strongman confidence. For many, Trump’s bombastic rhetoric resonated not because it offered factual clarity or even approached something resembling truth. It resonated because it echoed their disillusionment with a system they perceived as fundamentally deceptive.

Of course, the existence of corruption in Washington is not a myth; instances of political scandals, lobbying influence and ethical breaches are well-documented and systemic. These realities, albeit often less dramatic than portrayed in conspiracy theories, provide the seeds from which such theories sprout. When these issues are not addressed transparently and proactively by political leaders and institutions, they leave room for speculation and exaggeration.

Taking the nation beyond the post-truth era — a post-post-truth era, if you will — requires more than debunking individual theories; it calls for a systematic approach to rebuild trust.

All political and corporate entities must recognize the role they play in either exacerbating or alleviating this crisis of trust. This involves not only future transparency from institutions but also acknowledgement of past deceptions. This has not happened so far — we have not seen a high-profile public apology from the pharmaceutical companies for their role in the opioid crisis, and government agencies such as the CDC have not acknowledged how poorly executed the response to COVID really was (even if Trump and his administration was to blame for much of it).

ALSO READ: Here's why taxpayers just paid another $1.3 million into an unused government fund

Admission of past wrongdoings or incompetency combined with promises of future transparency and open dialogue are necessary for rebuilding trust.

This, however, is only part of the solution. There must also be a concerted effort to educate the public on critical thinking and how our cognitive processes can lead us astray. Education in critical thinking and media literacy becomes paramount in empowering individuals to navigate this complex information landscape. By understanding the workings of our own minds, we can be better equipped to discern truth from fiction and make informed choices in our lives and in our politics.

The brain's attempt to make sense of a world full of contradictory information can lead to the acceptance of implausible theories, particularly in an environment where official narratives are viewed with skepticism. Addressing this challenge requires a multifaceted approach, including institutional transparency, educational initiatives in critical thinking, and a deeper public understanding of our cognitive processes.

Failure to address these issues risks a further descent into a world where unfounded speculation reigns and figures such as Trump, who will continue to exploit these divisions for as long as he’s in the public arena, can thrive.

If we don't confront these challenges, we risk spiraling further into a realm dominated by baseless conjecture and disinformation. In this environment, figures such as Trump, who hide authoritarian tendencies under an anti-establishment facade, are poised to succeed by exploiting these divisions as long as they remain in the public eye.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist explains how evolution offers a solution for Palestine and Israel

It is rational to be deeply concerned at this moment in history. The divisive conflict between Israelis and Palestinians ultimately represents a battle between two of the world’s major religions.

At its worst, this war could pit the Judeo-Christian world against the Islamic world, bringing about a kind of global spiritual war. In fact, we are already seeing signs of that — the militant Islamic group Hezbollah in Lebanon is now launching airstrikes over Israel’s border, while U.S. and Iranian proxy forces are attacking each other inside Syria and Iraq. These events are quickly dividing the public, with most feeling like they have to choose one side or the other.

The highly interconnected nature of human civilization means that regional disputes are amplified through the global network of communications and alliances. This interconnectivity can transform localized strife into a series of international incidents, creating a domino effect that risks drawing multiple superpowers into a broader conflict.

ALSO READ: Nazis bullied a conservative Tennessee town. Locals punched back. Trump should be worried.

Beyond Israel and Gaza, Russia and Ukraine remain at war, while tensions between the United States and China over Taiwan’s autonomy remain high. It is unnerving to acknowledge, but War III is not just some fantasy in a movie script or post-apocalyptic novel. It’s a very real possibility.

Our fate, however, is hardly set in stone, thanks to our intelligence and ability to engage in reflective thinking. To prevent this nightmarish outcome, we must understand the biological, psychological and sociological forces at play, and we must use this knowledge to discover a solution. If we can see where we are headed as a world system of nations and cultures, then in theory we should be able to use our collective agency to steer civilization toward a more peaceful outcome.

Let’s begin our ambitious task by getting an understanding of why such conflicts emerge in the first place, from an evolutionary perspective.

The principle of competitive exclusion

The Principle of Competitive Exclusion is a well-established concept in ecology which says that two distinct species occupying the same niche and competing for the same resources cannot stably coexist. The ongoing conflict will eventually lead to one group’s extinction or removal from the niche.

This principle is an expression of the harsh reality of natural selection, and if the agents involved in such a conflict don’t have the ability to understand this dynamic, they will not be able to avoid falling into it.

The Principle of Competitive Exclusion can also be applied to hominids, the family of primates that includes modern humans, our ancestors and other human species, such as Neanderthals. Evidence from paleoanthropology suggests that this dynamic played a significant role in our own evolutionary history; the competition for niches is believed to have been a contributing factor to the extinction of other hominid species as Homo sapiens became more dominant.

Flash forward to the present day. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as a contemporary reflection of the Competitive Exclusion Principle, with two groups competing for resources and self-determination in a shared geographical space. The main difference between this example and the ones given in ecology is that the two groups are members of the same species. So why are these agents at war when they could be integrating into a diverse yet harmonious whole?

ALSO READ: Why Gaza cannot become a binary choice

In his 2002 book The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex, complexity theorist Harold Morowitz explained the reason for the conflict:

“In spite of the close biological affinity of all humans — according to mitochondrial DNA studies we all have a common ancestor within the last 200,000 years — humans constantly erect cultural barriers to interbreeding, where no biological barriers exist … In a number of contemporary societies two or more groups live in the same country and exist in almost complete reproductive isolation because of religion, race, language, ideology, or other nonbiological barriers. As a result an analog to sympatric species is artificially produced. We designate these noninterbreeding groups as pseudospecies.”

The concept of pseudospecies — socially and culturally defined groups that act as though separated by biological differences — allows us to understand the Principle of Competitive Exclusion within the human domain. When two groups of humans possess different worldviews, and those worldviews create a clear distinction between in-group and out-group members, those groups become akin to two distinct organisms locked in a competitive struggle.

Worldviews simultaneously unite and divide

Examples of worldviews include religions, political ideologies and national identities. These belief systems give us a sense of purpose and meaning, and attempt to make sense of a confusing and often chaotic reality.

In evolutionary terms, a worldview is a strategy for collective survival. That is, it provides a blueprint for a stable society, in much the same way that a genome encodes a blueprint for a stable organism, and a strategy for individual survival.

Worldviews are an important part of the evolutionary process because they facilitate the emergence of a society by aligning the interests of interacting agents and harmonizing their activities.

Religions, for example, gave humans a collective purpose and ethical system that produced social order from behavioral chaos. In this way, worldviews entrain groups of humans into a unified whole, bringing about the creation of a social organism — an intelligent organism made of many intelligent organisms. When a social organism forms, the members of that larger adaptive network gain an enhanced layer of defense against the unforgiving elements of the natural world, such as environmental dangers and threats from competitors.

Cultural worldviews serve as powerful social adhesives that bond the members of each group internally, fostering a strong collective identity. However, these same worldviews also act as dividers, erecting psychological and emotional barriers that separate us from those who do not share our perspective. Because the religions of the world are all different, to one degree or another, they have the effect of dividing us into tribes with conflicting visions about how the world is, and how it should be.

ALSO READ: Why Black Americans’ lives depend on backing Israel

Organisms with sufficiently different genomes will typically be in conflict unless they develop symbiotic or mutually beneficial relationships. Social organisms with different worldviews will often be at odds with one another — or even war — until they find a way to align interests. The "us versus them" mentality perpetuates a cycle of bias and conflict, mirroring the competition for survival seen in the animal world.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we see two groups in conflict, each vying for the same niche, with no desire to co-exist peacefully.

The Hamas chant “from the river to the sea” makes that crystal clear, and Israel’s government has been trying to systematically push Palestinians out of the territory for most of a century, in accordance with a Zionist philosophy. The Principle of Competitive Exclusion is clearly at work in the human world thanks to rigid worldviews that create pseudospecies. Though maybe it’s more accurate to place the blame on the bureaucrats than the religions themselves, because it is the leaders and military bodies who choose to not come to a peaceful and fair solution, not the Israeli and Palestinian civilians, who are trapped in a cruel game they never agreed to play.

Fortunately, humanity's unique cognitive abilities offer a pathway beyond the seemingly inevitable conclusion of competitive exclusion. Humans possess a profound capacity for reflection, for conscious deliberation and for transcendence beyond instinctual reactions. This higher level of consciousness, a product of a more developed prefrontal cortex, allows us to recognize the artificial nature of these pseudospecies barriers and the shared lineage that unites us. It is this cognitive trait that offers a path beyond the zero-sum game of competitive exclusion, because it gives us the ability to alter our worldview when it becomes clear that it needs updating.

A unifying worldview: human civilization as a ‘superorganism’

To move forward as a single species, the relevant science suggests that we must consciously embrace a new universal worldview.

This worldview, inspired by evolutionary theory and an approach to problem solving called “systems thinking,” would recognize the interconnectedness of all human beings, not merely as a moral ideal, but as a practical reality. It would be rooted in the understanding that we are all part of an emerging global superorganism, an integrated network of lives and destinies that are inextricably linked.

We know that our civilization is now an interdependent system because if there is a crisis in one crucial region then the whole global network suffers. We saw how a local problem can quickly wreak global havoc with the 2008 financial collapse.

We endured an even more extreme version in 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This tells us that coming together to create a new level of global coordination despite our ideological differences is not a luxury, but a necessity. Our common existential challenges will require the full computational power of the “global brain” that is human civilization. That means we must cooperate and collaborate in a directed way to prevent calamities that could consume us all — WWIII, weaponized A.I., the spread of authoritarianism, income inequality, pandemics and climate change. These are things that threaten the entire human race, and in that way, they bind us together.

When we adopt this universal perspective, which is at once scientific and spiritual (in the sense that it unifies us under a larger purpose), we begin to see how the wellbeing of one is tied to the wellbeing of all. Envisioning humanity as a global superorganism allows for a reimagining of individual and collective identity. The suffering of any one part is a wound to the collective whole. The deaths of civilians in conflict zones becomes not just a local tragedy but a global one, necessitating a response from the collective human superorganism.

In this light, the Principle of Competitive Exclusion is transformed from a rule of conflict to a challenge of integration. It urges us to find ways to coexist not by eliminating the other but by expanding our sense of self to include the other. This is the essence of the superorganism worldview — one that sees not a battleground of competing tribes but a tapestry of human endeavor, rich with the potential for synthesis and harmony while preserving its unique variety of cultures and customs. It calls for a new kind of global cooperation, one that transcends tribalistic divisions and unites us in the common pursuit of a world that is sustainable, just and flourishing.

While the articulation of a unifying worldview is the first step, it is only through actionable solutions that such a vision can materialize.

A new global ethos

An ethos is the characteristic spirit of a culture, era or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations. The establishment of a new global ethos based on the human superorganism perspective requires a fundamental shift in how we envision international cooperation. Systems thinking is an analytical approach that views complex problems through the lens of the whole system rather than isolated parts. It focuses on designing resilient and adaptive systems capable of withstanding and evolving through challenges, with an understanding that changes in one part of a system can significantly impact the entire system.

Systems thinking naturally leads to thinking on a global scale. To build a global ethos of unity and peace, we need a more inclusive and participatory approach that values the contribution of all the individuals working to maintain a stable whole. Current global governance structures, like the United Nations, often rely on top-down mechanisms that may not fully represent or address grassroots concerns. The new approach should leverage local initiatives and voices, integrating them into the fabric of international policymaking and conflict resolution. The transformation of international organizations to reflect a more bottom-up approach would empower individuals and communities to participate in the global decision-making process.

In his 2022 book The Network State, Balaji Srinivasan offers a vision for connecting people around the globe by proposing a decentralized, internet-based state that leverages digital platforms to unite individuals with shared goals across borders. This model of a network state reimagines governance and community, where decentralized systems enable direct, global participation in decision-making, challenging the conventional boundaries of geopolitical entities. This is just one blueprint for global coordination without centralized powers calling all the shots.

The systems-thinking approach would encourage educational reform to instill a mindset of global citizenship, economic policies that promote equitable resource distribution and diplomatic efforts that prioritize peace and mutual reciprocity.

Of course, these are long-term solutions for a global restructuring of human civilization to be more robust and democratic. What solutions does this new paradigm propose for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

A solution for peace in the Middle East

In light of the insights gleaned from systems thinking and the unifying concept of humanity as a global superorganism, it's time to reexamine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with fresh eyes. Of course, for decades world leaders have tried to bring a durable peace to the Middle East and failed. Hope for lasting harmony is not something in abundance. Although the road to peace is fraught with challenges and a history of deep-rooted resistance to compromise, applying a systems-oriented perspective illuminates potential paths to resolution that, while complex, are indeed attainable. First, it instantly eliminates solutions that would involve a competitive exclusion-style outcome, where one ethnic group pushes the other out of the region entirely. After these options are eliminated, we reconsider the remaining solutions that have been proposed, which would be updated with adaptive design principles and more evolved ethical considerations.

A “two-state solution” is the most widely supported international framework, and it envisions an independent State of Israel and an independent State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Some propose a confederation between Israel and Palestine, where two sovereign states are linked together with shared economic and security structures but retain their separate governments. The more economic interdependence the better, because then war becomes even more costly to both parties, incentivizing peace. Areas of significant contention, particularly Jerusalem, could be placed under international administration to guarantee equal access to holy sites and shared resources.

Even more integrative would be a “one-state solution” that doesn’t entail the dark consequences of the Competitive Exclusion Principle. This resolution would create a single state that includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, where all inhabitants have equal rights. It could be a “bi-national state,” a single democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians have equal representation and protections under the law, maintaining their distinct national identities. Or, it could be a one-state solution where the state is secular, with no official religion or national identity, ensuring equal rights for all citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Either option would be a giant step up from the current situation. While the two-state solution is more realistic, it could serve as a potential transition state to the more integrated single state in the not-too-distant future. Of course, the success of any plan would depend on the willingness of the populations to reconcile and live together in peace. For this, the unifying worldview of human civilization as a coherent superorganism is needed. Ideally, this unifying worldview — in the form of a precise scientific framework that offers systems-based solutions — would be presented alongside peace negotiations, and communicated to the global public by scientists, journalists, and educators.

In conclusion, while the Principle of Competitive Exclusion explains much of the biological world and our ancestral history, it need not dictate our future. By recognizing our shared identity and common goals, we can override the primitive instincts that drive us apart. We can choose to foster a world where cultural and ideological diversity enriches rather than divides, where cooperation and mutual understanding prevail. It is through this enlightened approach that humanity can move past the archaic boundaries of pseudospecies and toward a unified, peaceful coexistence.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

A neuroscientist explains how — and why — to get inside your political enemies’ minds

With the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaching, and our nation deeply divided, understanding the psychological differences between conservatives and liberals is more important than ever.

But why?

One reason is strategic. In Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, the ancient strategist advises, “Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.” If we want to gain an advantage over our ideological opponents, we must understand how they think. We must also understand how we think. Given all that we know now about the brain and the mind, such an understanding could lead to strategic advantages in political campaigns or ideological debates.

Another reason: Once the president is elected, we must try to unify America, as difficult as that might sound. Understanding the psychology of those you disagree with will allow you to see why they believe what they do. Once you understand how they think, it becomes easier to let go of anger or resentment toward them, since they are products of their genetics and environment, as are we all.

The reason we may find it so hard to get along, especially in times of uncertainty and polarization, is because conservatives and liberals seem to be perceiving and reacting to the world according to two very different states of cognition and consciousness.

ALSO READ: Selling hate, vulgarity and violence: How Trump and MAGA overran a quaint Midwest festival

“Dual process” theories, which have been influential in psychology, cognitive neuroscience and behavioral economics, propose that human thinking can be characterized by two distinct systems or modes of processing. One mode is the default state that corresponds to our automatic responses, while the other mode is a conscious controller that can override our automatic mode when it detects the need to do so.

These two modes have been popularized by the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman, most notably in his book Thinking Fast and Slow, where the two modes are called System 1 and 2, which correspond to “fast” and “slow” thinking.

These systems have also been called Mind 1 and Mind 2, and each of us use both minds — just not in equal distribution. Appreciating the distinction between these two minds is the key to understanding the psychological differences between liberals and conservatives.

Mind 1 is the default mind. It operates effortlessly and mostly automatically, requiring little to no conscious effort. This system has been shaped by countless generations of survival needs, so evolution has sculpted it for rapid threat detection and response. Since the automatic system doesn’t require much mental effort, it doesn’t drain cognitive resources. So, if one prefers not to think too hard, Mind 1 is the way to go. That’s not to say Mind 1 isn’t intelligent — it just relies on intuition and heuristics (mental shortcuts) to arrive at conclusions.

ALSO READ: Why aren't corrupt lawmakers denied their pensions? Here's who to blame.

This system is strongly influenced by our emotions, and is triggered when the amygdala is activated after a threat is perceived. Since Mind 1 processing doesn’t involve conscious deliberation or reflection, the automatic behavior generated by a particular sensory input is determined by one’s survival instincts, but also one’s cultural worldview, or belief system.

So, essentially when Mind 1 is in the driver’s chair, you’re responding according to your emotions and biases. It’s reacting “on the fly,” rather than deliberating and reflecting on the situation. Mind 1 would correspond to the instinctive strategies employed when there's no time to deliberate and immediate reaction is paramount.

In contrast to the reflexive nature of Mind 1, Mind 2 operates with conscious, intentional and reflective thought. Through logical examination and inductive reasoning, it evaluates situations, ponders implications, plans and generates insights. A quintessential feature of Mind 2 is its forward-looking capability. It’s not just about the now, but also about the “what could be.”

Using the “slow” system is costly in terms of mental resources. But the potential payoff of engaging in deeper cognitive processing is great. Mind 2 does not just react; it analyzes the options and weighs the outcomes associated with different choices before executing a decision and behavior.

ALSO READ: Accused felon Rudy Giuliani praises The Citadel for letting him keep honorary degree

Unlike the instinctive and heuristic-driven decisions of Mind 1, Mind 2 is characterized by its commitment to rigorous analysis. It urges us to consider the long-term consequences of our actions. It is this process of consideration that gives us agency and choice, so you can think of Mind 1 as the determined mind and Mind 2 as the mind associated with what we refer to as “free will.”

Understanding Mind 1 and Mind 2 does more than just satisfy academic curiosity; it provides a framework for deciphering the psychological underpinnings that differentiate liberal from conservative thinking styles. While it is overly simplistic to pigeonhole all conservatives or liberals into one mode of thought or another, clear trends do emerge in controlled studies.

Conservatives, with their preference for tradition and an aversion to risk, find a natural ally in Mind 1. This mode of thought is favored for its efficiency in making swift judgments, which is advantageous in situations where quick decisions are necessary and the stakes are tied to preserving established structures. The inclinations of Mind 1 can often align with conservative ideologies, which tend to emphasize tradition, stability and a preference for the status quo.

Multiple studies have indicated that conservatives exhibit a sensitivity to threat, as demonstrated by an attentional bias for threatening images, and a heightened amygdala response. The amygdala, an almond-shaped structure in the brain’s temporal lobe, is associated with processing emotions, especially fear. This means that conservatives are biologically more attuned to threats. This often results in a predominant Mind 1 state, characterized by rapid, automatic and intuitive reactions.

ALSO READ: Caught: Republican congressional recruit violates financial law

The activation of the amygdala, the brain's "threat detector," can instantly shift someone’s cognitive operating mode from Mind 2 to Mind 1. When exposed to stimuli perceived as threats — be it an angry expression or a cutting remark — the amygdala rapidly processes this information and prepares the body for a potential “fight or flight” response.

This automatic reaction has been called "amygdala hijack,” capturing the essence of how our fear center can momentarily commandeer our behavioral control. Whether the perceived threat is physical or ideological, the activation of the amygdala ushers us into a defensive mode, marked by heightened tribalism and strict adherence to familiar worldviews.

When there is existential threat looming, such as a pandemic or terror attack, conservatives are more likely to shift into a “locked in” Mind 1 state that is resistant to override attempts by the regulatory Mind 2.

When this happens over time on a large scale, we see nationalist movements emerge that are intolerant of dissimilar others and notions of change. We can observe this general mindset right now, and it is particularly salient, since we as a nation of people are so divided while parts of the world are in chaos.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

Liberals, on the other hand, are typically more open to new experiences and ideas, according to a 2008 study. This necessitates a more flexible and scrutinizing thought process. This also dovetails with the characteristics of Mind 2, which involves a conscious effort to process information in a critical and systematic manner, considering long-term implications and the broader picture rather than relying on instinct. This mode of thinking supports a progressive's approach to problem-solving and policy-making, which often involves weighing a diverse array of perspectives and projecting the potential ripple effects of decisions into the future. Of course, not all politicians who label themselves a “progressive” actually practice these principles, so we should keep that in mind.

It might sound like Mind 2 is the superior mode of cognitive processing, but that would be an oversimplification. Mind 1 can sometimes detect things to which the conscious mind is blind. For example, when “something seems off," it is because Mind 1 has detected a disruption in a normal behavioral pattern that indicates a suspicious character or situation. “Trusting your gut” means trusting the preprogrammed mind that is sculpted by evolution.

But, generally speaking, it is better if an agent exercises Mind 2 whenever there is a difficult decision with a lot at stake — especially if it involves long-term consequences and a potential ethical component. While Mind 1 generates automatic responses according to emotions and stereotypes, Mind 2 can critically evaluate and potentially override these biases.

Unfortunately, because it demands more cognitive resources, Mind 2 is not engaged as often by those who don’t value being reflective and analytical, and this is the source of many of the world’s problems. Encouraging “slow thinking” should be a mission for psychologists and educators in divided times such as these.

It is also worth emphasizing that at the current chaotic moment, liberals are also feeling extremely fearful. This means that “amygdala hijack” similarly affects progressives, shifting them into a Mind 1 state that leads to tribal tendencies and strict adherence to one’s worldview. In divided times, even a progressive ideology can become dogmatic if we aren’t careful.

As election fervor grips the nation, understanding these innate brain differences becomes paramount. With the threat of another Donald Trump presidency, we must think strategically, with psychology in mind. We must also consider how to leverage this information to disrupt the intensifying cycle of political polarization, which threatens to deepen legislative gridlock in Washington and risks sparking conflict and violence in the streets following the election results.

Understanding the psychological differences that are being uncovered by new research coming out of the brain and mind sciences is not just about winning an election — it's about securing the future stability of our nation, and fostering a more empathetic state of mind that is conducive to unity and alignment.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com , for support contact support@rawstory.com .