These days the GOP is just 3 cults in a trenchcoat — nevertheless, it’s helpful to understand some of the ideologies and extremist beliefs that folks on the right engage with. Understanding the psychology can help us make predictions about actions, reactions, and other developments in the political landscape.
What is an ideology?
An ideology is a comprehensive set of beliefs, ideas, and values that shape the way individuals or groups perceive the world and interact within it. It serves as a lens through which people interpret social, political, and economic phenomena, guiding their actions and decisions. Ideologies can be as broad as political doctrines like liberalism, conservatism, or socialism, or as specific as belief systems within a particular culture or organization.
Ideologies often manifest in various forms, such as political platforms, religious doctrines, or social movements. They can be explicit, where the principles are clearly outlined, or implicit, subtly influencing behavior without overt expression. Ideologies are not static; they evolve over time, adapting to new information, social changes, or shifts in power dynamics.
In the realm of politics and governance, ideologies play a crucial role. They inform policy decisions, shape public opinion, and influence the behavior of political actors. They can also be divisive, leading to conflict and exclusion of those who do not conform. In the media, ideologies can affect the framing of news and the dissemination of information, subtly shaping public perception.
Racists tend to see democracy itself as a conspiracy against white people, thanks in large part to the Lost Cause Religion that sprouted up after the South lost the Civil War and had to live with themselves after destroying their economy and stature for immoral ends. Authoritarians tend to get very agitated by diversity and difference. White nationalism is the Venn diagram between these two groups.
White nationalist ideology gained renewed attention in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, often manifesting through hate groups, online forums, and political movements. White nationalists argue for policies that would establish or maintain a white majority in the country, often opposing immigration from non-European countries and advocating for policies that they believe would preserve white culture. These views are widely considered to be based on racial prejudices and are often associated with hate crimes and domestic terrorism.
Prominent white nationalists
With the emergence of the alt-right and neoreaction groups espousing flavors of accelerationism during the Trump era, a host of white nationalists have come out of the closet and said the quiet parts out loud. Here are a few figures to watch out for:
White supremacy: ideology that whites have “inherently” superior genetics and culture, fomented over the past few centuries and lingering still among the dramatically insecure and small-minded
Theory: White supremacy as a kind of background radiation receding — with some geographical areas of high historical concentration showing less redshift effect.
Strict Father Morality is a term coined by cognitive linguist George Lakoff to describe a type of moral worldview that centers on the values of authority, discipline, and individual responsibility. This worldview is often associated with conservative political and social positions, and is often contrasted with a more nurturing and empathetic worldview that Lakoff refers to as the “Nurturant Parent” model — more closely aligned to a liberal and progressive worldview.
At the core of the Strict Father Morality worldview is the belief that the world is a fundamentally dangerous and competitive place, and that individuals must be prepared to compete and succeed in order to survive and thrive. In this worldview, the father is seen as the ultimate authority figure, responsible for providing for and protecting his family, and for instilling the discipline and self-control necessary for success in life.
This patriarchal worldview is rooted in a traditional understanding of gender roles, where men are seen as the primary breadwinners and protectors, while women are seen as nurturing caregivers. This gendered division of labor is seen as necessary for the survival and flourishing of the family unit, and deviations from traditional gender roles are often viewed with suspicion or even hostility.
Christianity and Strict Father Morality
Central to the Strict Father Morality worldview is the idea that success is the result of hard work, self-discipline, and personal responsibility. Those who succeed in life are seen as having earned their success through their own efforts, while those who struggle or fail are seen as having brought it upon themselves through a lack of discipline or effort. This ideology is a derivative of the Protestant work ethic identified by sociologist Max Weber as one of the core animating worldviews behind fervent belief in capitalism.
Emerging out of Calvinism, the Protestant work ethic extends the idea that constant economic activity can show evidence of one’s eternal salvation. The emphasis on self-blame for one’s low economic condition is often used to justify policies that limit government intervention in areas such as healthcare, education, and social welfare.
Black and white thinking and Strict Father Morality
Another important aspect of Strict Father Morality is the belief in moral absolutes and the importance of maintaining a strong moral code. This includes a belief in the importance of law and order, and the need to punish those who break the law. In this worldview, moral relativism is seen as a dangerous threat to the stability and order of society, and the preservation of traditional values is seen as essential to maintaining social cohesion and stability.
Critics of Strict Father Morality argue that it is overly simplistic and ignores the complexity of human experience. They argue that the overemphasis on blaming individuals for their circumstances is a form of victim blaming, and can encourage a lack of empathy for those who face systemic barriers to success. They note the similarity of the entire ideology to a type of black and white thinking, and also argue that the traditional gender roles and emphasis on hierarchy and authority can lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.
Strict Father Morality is also seen as being aligned with sexism, racism, and bigotry in general. It’s associated with ideas long ago debunked, dispelled, or defeated as poor ways of viewing and interacting with the world — due to basic inaccuracy.
In summary, Strict Father Morality is a moral worldview that emphasizes the values of authority, hierarchy, discipline, and limited government involvement, and is rooted in a traditional understanding of gender roles and moral absolutes. While this worldview can provide a sense of security and stability, it has been criticized for its oversimplification of human experience and its potential to usher in authoritarianism and glorify intolerance.
Christian nationalism is the belief in, and attempt to bring about, Christianity as the state religion in America — including the imposition of Biblical Law.
Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. They can convince us that untrue things are true, or vice versa.
Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive.
These unhelpful ways of thinking can limit one’s ability to function and excel in the world. Cognitive distortions are linked to anxiety, depression, addiction, and eating disorders. They reinforce negative thinking loops, which tend to compound and worsen over time.
Irrational thinking
Cognitive distortions are systematic patterns of thought that can lead to inaccurate or irrational conclusions. These distortions often serve as mental traps, skewing our perception of reality and affecting our emotional well-being. Let’s delve into three common types: emotional reasoning, counterfactual thinking, and catastrophizing.
Emotional Reasoning: This distortion involves using one’s emotions as a barometer for truth. For example, if you feel anxious, you might conclude that something bad is going to happen, even if there’s no objective evidence to support that belief. Emotional reasoning can create a self-perpetuating cycle: your emotions validate your distorted thoughts, which in turn intensify your emotions.
Counterfactual Thinking: This involves imagining alternative scenarios that could have occurred but didn’t. While this can be useful for problem-solving and learning, it becomes a cognitive distortion when it leads to excessive rumination and regret. For instance, thinking “If only I had done X, then Y wouldn’t have happened” can make you stuck in a loop of what-ifs, preventing you from moving forward.
Catastrophizing: This is the tendency to imagine the worst possible outcome in any given situation. It’s like always expecting a minor stumble to turn into a catastrophic fall. This distortion can lead to heightened stress and anxiety, as you’re constantly bracing for disaster.
More cognitive distortions
Cognitive distortion
Explanation
Example
all-or-nothing thinking
viewing everything in absolute and extremely polarized terms
"nothing good ever happens" or "I'm always behind"
blaming
focusing on other people as source of your negative feelings, & refusing to take responsibility for changing yourself; or conversely, blaming yourself harshly for things that were out of your control
catastrophizing
belief that disaster will strike no matter what, and that what will happen will be too awful to bear
"What if tragedy strikes?" "What if it happens to me?"
counterfactual thinking
A kind of mental bargaining or longing to live in the alternate timeline where one had made a different decision
"If only I could have done it differently..."
dichotomous thinking
viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms
discounting positives
claiming that positive things you or others do are trivial, or ignoring good things that have happened to you
emotional reasoning
letting feelings guide interpretation of reality; a way of judging yourself or your circumstances based on your emotions
"If I feel that way, it must be true"
filtering
mentally "filters out" the positive aspects of a situation while magnifying the negative aspects
fortune-telling
predicting the future negatively
framing effects
tendency for decisions to be shaped by inconsequential features of choice problems
halo effect
belief that one's success in a domain automagically qualifies them to have skills and expertise in other areas
illusory correlation
tendency to perceive a relationship between two variables when no relation exists
reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict negative thoughts
intuitive heuristics
tendency when faced with a difficult question of answering an easier question instead, typically without noticing the substitution
just-world hypothesis
belief that good things tend to happen to good people, while bad things tend to happen to bad people
labeling
assigning global negative traits to self & others; making a judgment about yourself or someone else as a person, versus seeing the behavior as something they did that doesn't define them as an individual
ludic fallacy
in assessing the potential amount of risk in a system or decision, mistaking the real randomness of life for the well-defined risk of casinos
magical thinking
a way of imagining you can wish reality into existence through the sheer force of your mind. Part of a child developmental phase that not everyone grows out of.
http://doctorparadox.net/essays/magical-thinking/
magnification
exaggerating the importance of flaws and problems while minimizing the impact of desirable qualities and achievements
mind reading
assuming what someone is thinking w/o sufficient evidence; jumping to conclusions
negative filtering
focusing exclusively on negatives & ignoring positives
nominal realism
child development phase where names of objects aren't just symbols but intrinsic parts of the objects. Sometimes called word realism, and related to magical thinking
overgeneralizing
making a rule or predicting globally negative patterns on the basis of single incident
projection
attributing qualities to external actors or forces that one feels within and either a) wishes to promote and have echoed back to onself, or b) eradicate or squelch from oneself by believing that the quality exists elsewhere, in others, but not in oneself
provincialism
the tendency to see things only from the point of view of those in charge of our immediate in-groups
shoulds
a list of ironclad rules one lives and punishes oneself by
"I should exercise more" "I should eat better"
teleological fallacy
illusion that you know exactly where you're going, knew exactly where you were going in the past, & that others have succeeded in the past by knowing where they were going
academia especially is rife with this one
what if?
keep asking series of ?s on prospective events & being unsatisfied with any answers
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.
These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.
By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.
Types of logical fallacies
There are several types of logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:
Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.
Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:
Logical fallacy
Explanation
Example / Notes
ad hominem attack
attacking something about the character of the opposing side, instead of engaging with the argument or offering a critique
ambiguity
using double meanings and language ambiguity to mislead
anecdotal
appeal to a personal, individual observation as relates to the topic in question
often used to dismiss statistical analysis
appeal to authority
using opinion of authority figure or institution in place of an actual argument
appeal to emotion
manipulating emotional response in lieu of valid argument
a huge part of Donald Trump's playbook
appeal to nature
arguing that b/c something is βnaturalβ it is valid / justified / inevitable / good / ideal
bandwagon
appealing to popularity as evidence of validation
Retort: "When everyone once believed the earth was flat β did that make it true?"
begging the question
when conclusion is included in the premise
one form of circular argument (tautology is another)
black or white
presenting two alternative states as the only options, when more possibilities exist
very commonly used by political and media resources as a way to polarize issues
burden of proof
claiming the responsibility lies with someone else to disprove one's claim (& not with the claimant to prove it)
composition/division
assuming what is true of one part of something must be applied to all parts
fallacy fallacy
presuming that a poorly argued claim, or one in which a fallacy has been made, is wrong
false cause
presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things implies causation
gambler's fallacy
putting a tremendous amount of weight on previous events, believing they will influence future outcomes (even when outcome is random)
also a psychological bias
genetic
value judging based on where something comes from
loaded question
asking a question with an assumption built in, so it can't be answered without appearing guilty
middle ground
claiming a compromise between two extremes must be the truth
the media establishment is often guilty of this for a number of reasons: lack of time for thorough inquiry; need for ratings; available field of pundits and wonks; established programming formats, and so on
no true scotsman
making an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws
personal incredulity
saying that because a concept or argument is difficult to understand, it can't be true
slippery slope
arguing that a small change or decision will inevitably lead to larger-than-intended (perhaps even disastrous) consequences rapidly
special pleading
moving goalpost to create exceptions when a claim is shown to be false
strawman
misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack
texas sharpshooter
cherry-picking data to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption
the impending era of big data will increase the prevalence of this type of sheister
tu quoque
avoiding having to engage with criticism by criticizing the accuser
When the most common psychological defense mechanism — denial — hardens into an outer shell so impenetrable as to be worn like armor, you have yourself a clinical narcissist. They may not — and probably will never — be diagnosed as members of a group of personality disorders known in psychology as Cluster B; but unmistakably, you cannot seem to find empathy in them no matter how high or low you look.
They think of themselves as special; chosen; beyond the fray — rules do not generally apply to them, but oh do they ever to you. They tend to see the world in black and white terms, a Manichaean struggle of hierarchy vs. fairness, with strict social status to abide by and perpetuate — a world of dominance and submission, with themselves at the top.
The higher on the Cluster B scale you go (with psychopathy at the top), the less empathy these individuals possess. Without empathy, there is no basis for forming a conscience. One could say the classic defining hallmark of this group of personality disorders is that the people exhibiting them have little to no conscience. The general consensus from research to date indicates that somewhere between 4-8% of the general population has very weak or no conscience at all — a scary figure when you think of it in terms of being about 1 in 15 of the people you will meet in your lifetime.
Cluster B includes:
Narcissism — This is the root trait of all the Cluster B personality disorders. We all exhibit narcissism to some degree, and it’s a large part of childhood and teen development to learn how to balance it with sociality. As with all life skills, some develop it more or less well — and if the narcissistic phase is never fully outgrown, adults can be emotionally immature in surprising and at times dangerous ways thanks to a kind of profound psychological arrested development. When the self-absorption is so severe as to profoundly disturb aspects of their lives, that is when clinicians might say a person has a narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD. There are several types of narcissism, including covert narcissism and malignant narcissism. Park of the dark triad in psychology, narcissism is often found in conjunction with two other malevolent personality traits: psychopathy, and Machiavellianism.
Borderline — Perhaps best known culturally from the movie Girl, Interrupted (1999), borderline personality disorder of BPD is characterized by intense mood swings, impulse behavior, fear of abandonment, unstable self-image, dissociation, and self-harm. One way to think of BPD is as a sort of failure to form an integrated personality.
Histrionic — The least well-known of Cluster B, histrionic personality is extremely dramatic and over the top, well out of proportion to the magnitude of events or circumstances. They have an overwhelming desire to be noticed, and will behave extremely or inappropriately to get attention.
Sociopath — Sociopathy takes narcissism and adds more sadism into the mix. A narcissist could hurt you and not really care either way, while a sociopath will derive from pleasure from it and often go out of his or her way to cause harm for the purpose of reaping that enjoyment. Though not as unfettered as psychopaths, sociopaths can be prone to violence and criminality at the worst, and are commonly cruel and mean-spirited at best.
Psychopath — The psychopath is the scariest of the Cluster B bunch. Unbelievably horrific folks like Ted Bundy and Hannibal Lecter were almost certainly psychopathic — committing horrific and murderous crimes that have shocked generations in their brutality and stomach-churling details.
Common traits and behaviors:
Projection— blaming others for your own misdeeds. Projection involves attributing one’s own undesirable thoughts, feelings, or motives to another person. It serves as a defense mechanism to avoid confronting or accepting these aspects in oneself.
Scapegoating — blaming the wrong party for a transgression; scapegoating is the practice of unfairly blaming an individual or group for a problem or fault. It often serves to divert attention away from the real issue or to absolve the blamer of responsibility.
Gaslighting— a form of psychological manipulation where the perpetrator tries to make the victim doubt their own perceptions, memories, or sanity. The aim is to gain control or induce confusion.
Stonewalling — refusing to speak or dilvulge information. Stonewalling involves refusing to communicate or cooperate, often in a relationship setting. It serves as a way to avoid conflict or evade responsibility, but it can be damaging to relational dynamics — and is prevalent in Cluster B.
Grandiosity; extremely high self-regard, often out of proportion to actual achievements. Grandiosity is an inflated sense of one’s own importance, skills, or achievements. Often seen in narcissistic personalities, it can manifest as excessive confidence, arrogance, or a belief in one’s own exceptionalism.
Love bombing — a technique in which the narcissist first showers you with affection and grand displays of positive attention early on in your relationship, in order to secure a quick bond that blinds you to their darker traits and behaviors that begin to spill out more prominently later on down the road.
Splitting — the tendency to view people or situations as entirely good or entirely bad, with no middle ground. Common in borderline personality disorder, it can lead to unstable relationships and emotional volatility.
Black and white thinking — this cognitive distortion involves viewing situations in extreme, either/or terms. It lacks nuance, often categorizing things as good or bad, right or wrong, with no middle ground. This can limit one’s ability to see alternative perspectives.
Lying — the act of deliberately presenting false information as true. While it can serve various purposes, such as self-preservation or manipulation, it erodes trust and can have significant relational consequences.
Malignant envy — this virulent form of envy is destructive and stems from a desire not just to attain what another has, but also to deprive them of it. It can lead to harmful actions aimed at undermining the envied individual.
Denial — a psychological defense mechanism where one refuses to accept reality or facts, often to protect oneself from painful emotions or situations. It can be both conscious and unconscious. Common in all of us, it is often especially pronounced in Cluster B.
Narcissistic rage — triggered by perceived threats to self-esteem or self-worth, narcissistic rage is an intense, disproportionate anger often aimed at destroying the source of the threat. It can be overt or covert, involving passive-aggressive behavior.
Cruelty — causing physical or emotional harm to others, often deriving pleasure from their suffering. It’s an extreme form of antisocial behavior that can manifest in various ways, from verbal abuse to physical violence.
Bullying — a repeated, intentional act of aggression, often exploiting a power imbalance to intimidate or harm others. It can be physical, verbal, or relational, and occurs in various settings like schools, workplaces, and online.
Sadism — the act of deriving pleasure from inflicting pain, humiliation, or suffering on others. It can be psychological or physical and is considered a concerning trait when it leads to harmful actions.
Word salad— a jumble of words and phrases that lack coherent meaning. Often seen in severe mental disorders, it can also be used manipulatively to evade questions or confuse listeners.
Narcissism is a complex psychological construct that manifests in various forms, each with its own set of characteristics and implications. It actually refers to a range of conditions that fall under the umbrella of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) — which itself falls under the umbrella of Cluster B.
Grandiose Narcissism
Grandiose narcissism is the most commonly recognized form — it’s the stereotype of what most people refer to when they think of a narcissist. Individuals with this type exhibit an inflated sense of self-importance, a lack of empathy, and a need for excessive admiration. They often believe they are special and unique, deserving of special treatment. Their self-perception is rarely grounded in reality, leading them to overestimate their abilities and underestimate the contributions of others. This form of narcissism is usually quite visible and can be disruptive in both personal and professional settings.
Vulnerable Narcissism
In contrast to the grandiose type, vulnerable narcissists are sensitive and introverted. They still have a heightened sense of self-importance but are plagued by insecurity and a fear of rejection. Their narcissism serves as a defense mechanism to protect a fragile self-esteem. Unlike grandiose narcissists, they are not outwardly arrogant but may harbor secret fantasies of greatness that they fear will never be realized.
Malignant Narcissism
This is a severe form that combines traits of narcissism, antisocial personality disorder, aggression, and sadism. Malignant narcissists are not just self-centered; they are also willing to manipulate or harm others to achieve their goals and often do so repeatedly. They lack remorse and are often deceitful, making them particularly dangerous in relationships and organizational settings.
Social psychologist Erich Fromm, who fled the Nazis in the 1930s, describes the Nazi “quintessence of evil” as an canonical case of malignant narcissism. They are among the most concerning members of Cluster B.
Covert Narcissism
Also known as “closet” or hidden narcissism, this type is less obvious than the grandiose form. Covert narcissists often present as shy, reserved, or self-deprecating. However, they share the same sense of entitlement and lack of empathy as other types. Their narcissism is expressed in more subtle ways, such as passive-aggressiveness or quiet disdain for others.
Communal Narcissism
This type is characterized by a grandiose sense of one’s own altruism. Communal narcissists believe they are the epitome of generosity and kindness. They seek admiration not for their looks or achievements but for their perceived selflessness. However, this is often a faΓ§ade to garner praise and adoration.
Collective Narcissism
This is not an individual trait but a shared belief within a group that they are exceptional or superior. It can manifest in various settings, from nationalistic fervor to corporate culture. Collective narcissism can be dangerous as it often leads to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination.
Somatic Narcissism
Somatic narcissists are obsessed with their physical appearance or bodily achievements. They may spend excessive time and resources on grooming, exercising, or undergoing cosmetic procedures. Their self-worth is tied to their physicality, and they often seek sexual conquests to validate themselves.
Cerebral Narcissism
Cerebral narcissists derive their sense of superiority from their intellect rather than their appearance. They consider themselves smarter than everyone else and seek to demonstrate this at every opportunity. They are often dismissive of others’ opinions and intolerant of intellectual disagreement.
Spiritual Narcissism
This form manifests in the realm of spirituality or religion. Spiritual narcissists believe they have a direct line to a higher power and may consider themselves enlightened or morally superior. They use their spiritual beliefs to justify their actions, even when those actions harm others. Abusive priests and handsy preachers with large hard drives fall into this group.
Eco-Narcissism
A relatively new concept, eco-narcissists are individuals who flaunt their environmentally friendly lifestyle for the sake of appearing superior. Their primary concern is not the environment but the social capital gained from appearing conscientious.
“Global cabal” is one of several popular conspiracy theories in radical right-wing discourse that refers to a perceived “Jewish conspiracy” behind the international order of institutions like NATO and the UN. There are many euphemisms and alternate names for the same core conspiracy theory alleging the existence of a single group of shadowy people who control world events behind closed doors as clandestine world rulers. It has appeared in many forms, derivatives, and retellings throughout history, from Nazism to one of its latest incarnations: QAnon.
A cabal is a small, usually secretive group that uses its considerable power to establish control over a larger group, or more broadly over society itself. The term is derived from the word kabbalah, a school of thought in Jewish mysticism that is concerned with the essence of God. Thus the concept of a global cabal ruling secretly over the world has deeply anti-Semitic origins, even though a number of its proponents are unfamiliar with the foundations of the idea in anti-Jewish hatred.
Structure and origin of global cabal conspiracy theory
The most basic tenet of the global cabal conspiracy theory genre is that a single group controls everything that happens in the world, but manages to keep that control entirely secret from everyone except those who believe in the global cabal. The identity of the controlling group may be different in different networks of believers, but it is typically seen as an evil cabal working various nefarious plots: Jewish bankers in the case of the Nazis (emerging out of the anti-Semitic blood libel conspiracy theory), Freemasons, The Illuminati, reptilian lizard people, Democratic pedophiles in the case of QAnon, and so on.
The origins of the global cabal conspiracy trace back to the 18th century, when the Illuminati conspiracy theory began to circulate. The Illuminati conspiracy theory alleged that a secret society of Freemasons was working to overthrow the governments of Europe and establish a New World Order. This conspiracy theory quickly spread to other parts of the world, and it has been used to explain a wide range of events, from the French Revolution to the 9/11 attacks.
Global cabal conspiracies have a predilection for collapsing the distinction between opposites. The Nazis claimed that communism and capitalism were both Jewish plots; conspiracists in America allege that bitter political rivals like the Bushes and the Clintons are actually BFFs in on the “real” story conducted behind the scenes and out of the public eye. The Russian rhetorical tactic of whataboutism is a quintessential manifestation of this phenomenon, wherein the speaker refutes an accusation by stating that other people elsewhere have also done that thing, often people on the accuser’s side or team.
How to deprogram global cabalists
The staying power and allure of conspiracy theories surprises many people — why would anyone want to believe in these far-fetched, over the top ridiculous ideas about how the world works? People believe in conspiracy theories because they offer simple solutions in a complex, overwhelming world. They also offer a sense of superiority and positive self-image by means of collective narcissism — which likewise makes them fragile and prone to insecurities and doubts.
People going through traumatic or epochal life events are especially vulnerable to the power of conspiracy theories. They find comfort and easy social support in the arms of the group of believers, but buy in to the cultish practice of demonizing and dehumanizing the non-believers. Their abrasiveness can make it difficult to approach them about the topic of their belief in conspiracy theory, even if they’re a close family member — sometimes especially if they’re a close family member.
Often the conspiracy theory believer will refuse to read any information from a source that is not in the right-wing echo chamber. If you think they might, however, send them this essay by Yuval Noah Harrari. It’s the best I’ve found to explain the core essence of the “belief system” and the core con of the whole thing.
If they won’t accept information from credible sources, you might find an opening by asking them questions about their beliefs, getting them to talk more about the ideas, and look out for opportunities to ask “frame breaking questions” that address the fundamental flaws of the global cabal theory: that even small numbers of people are difficult to control, much less a whole planet; and that no one can predict the future with a high degree of accuracy.
In reality, there is not one but many conspiracies at work all around us to knit the fabric of history together. James Madison — the architect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — called them factions. Many of these conspiracies work directly against one another, and many work entirely independently but pursue some percentage of similar goals in common.
Global cabal conspiracy theory is totalitarian, in the sense that it collapses all of the immense complexity of human existence into billions of puppets pulled by the strings of a very few puppetmasters. Real life is a multiverse — and that can be overwhelming, and confusing.
The anxiety of the modern world can be intense, and conspiracy theories offer a seductively simple relief. But ask your global conspiracist friend or family member whether or not they think there are some things that are too good to be true: like a story about a handful of people causing everything that happens in the world.
Global cabal conspiracies list
Global cabal is part of a broader category of conspiracy theories, which often involve secret or hidden groups working behind the scenes to control events or manipulate public opinion. While these ideas can be intriguing, they are often unsupported by evidence and can lead to misinformation, great misunderstanding, and even political violence.
Here’s a list of other belief systems that are related to or often associated with global cabal conspiracy theories:
The Illuminati: A supposed secret society controlling all world events.
Chemtrails: The belief that aircraft trails contain harmful substances that the government is spraying on the earth for purposes of a top-secret geoengineering program.
Area 51: Associated with UFOs and government secrecy.
False Flag Operations: The idea that governments stage attacks to manipulate public opinion.
MK-Ultra: A real CIA program that has spawned various conspiracy theories.
Reptilian Elite / Lizard People: The idea that shape-shifting reptilian beings control Earth.
Adrenochrome: Another derivative of blood libel and global cabal in which elites harvest a substance created by the oxidization of adrenaline in young children for its anti-aging and psychedelic properties
HAARP: A research program that has been associated with mind control and weather manipulation theories.
Vaccine Conspiracy Theories / Anti-vax movement: Various theories about the hidden dangers of vaccines.
Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG): Anti-Semitic theories about Jewish control over governments, and a chosen secret cabal of the anti-government white power movement that flourished in the U.S. after the Vietnam War.
Flat Earth Theory: The belief that the Earth is flat, not spherical.
Big Pharma Conspiracy: The idea that pharmaceutical companies suppress natural cures.
Deep State: The belief in a hidden government within the legitimate government, popularized by Trump.
Satanic Ritual Abuse/ Satanic Panic: The belief in widespread satanic ritual abuse, often linked to elite groups.
QAnon: A wide-ranging conspiracy theory alleging a secret plot against President Trump. The latest incarnation of the global cabal casts Donald Trump in the role of savior from the shadowy group of Democratic pedophiles who run the country and — via NATO and the UN — the world.
PizzaGate: False claims that the Democratic Party was running a child sex trafficking ring out of a DC pizza shop.
Crisis Actors: The belief that events like mass shootings are staged with actors.
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory: white nationalist variant of the global cabal conspiracy, in which the nefarious plot of the shadowy Elites this time is to dilute the white race by allowing sane immigration policy. This stochastic terrorism strategy is being waged by Rupert Murdoch‘s Fox News via fish stick-heir Tucker Carlson, resulting in directly named ideological inspiration for some of the most heinous mass murders of our time including the Anders Breivik killing of 77 in Oslo, Norway and the assassination of 10 people, mostly Black, in a Buffalo supermarket the shooter chose for its high percentage of Black people. Great Replacement theory is also known as white genocide conspiracy theory.
Our ability to see patterns in randomness and dissemble stories on the spot, along with numerous other cognitive and psychological biases, make us vulnerable to belief in conspiracy theories.
In an increasingly complex world of information bombarding us as blinding speed and high volume, the cognitive appeal of easy answers and turnkey βcommunityβ may be much stronger than ever before.
Chances are you’ve had an encounter with an emotional predator — whether you’re aware of it or not. Most everyone is familiar with the physical abuser: typically the man who beats his wife or female partner. But emotional abuse, and psychological abuse, are also integral components of abuse and are often present with, and precursors to, intimate partner physical violence.
Often individuals who abuse others have a personality disorder that increases their chances of becoming an abuser. Many of these personality disorders have narcissism at their roots — a psychological defense mechanism in which an individual harbors grandiose fantasies about themselves and feels selfishly entitled to having all their demands met.
Narcissists require a constant stream of admiration, or “narcissistic supply,” coming their way. They achieve this through charm, emotional and psychological manipulation, and all sorts of shady, unethical, or downright illegal tactics and behaviors. When a narcissist wants something from you, or wants you to do something, he can become a devious emotional predator who takes advantage of your good will for his own ends without thinking twice.
How to identify an emotional predator
One way to protect yourself from emotional predators is to understand how they behave, and become familiar with how to detect manipulative and deceptive behavior as early on as possible. If you see any of the warning signs below in a loved one, coworker, community member, or position of leadership, then use caution in dealings with this individual. Seek external advice and assistance in threat assessment before placing further trust in this person.
Emotional predation can take place at all levels: interpersonal interactions and intimate partnerships, within groups and organizations, as well as at much larger scales on the order of societies, nations, and — increasingly — global networks. If you feel something “off” in an interaction that feels loaded with emotional pressure, stop for a moment and do some critical thinking about whether someone is trying to prey on your emotions, and how to respond.
Emotional predators are often found leading cults (both small and large), so take a look at those who surround them and ask if they seem like mindless followers in thrall to the cult of personality of one individual. Assess whether you and/or others who interact with the psychic vampire experience the following phenomena:
Manipulating your emotions; emotional blackmail— A form of manipulation where someone uses your feelings against you to get what they want. It often involves guilt-tripping, fear, and obligation, making you feel trapped in a cycle of compliance.
Love bombing — Used to secure your loyalty in the first place, love bombing is a technique in which the emotional predator showers you with affection, admiration, and gifts in the early stages of your relationship. Their goal is to create a strong attachment quickly, that will make it harder for you to see and recognize their darker traits coming out later on.
Negging; undermining confidence and self-esteem— Negging is a tactic where someone offers backhanded compliments or subtle insults to undermine your self-esteem. The goal is to make you feel vulnerable, so you seek their approval.
Creating unnecessary chaos — Some individuals thrive on creating chaos to divert attention from their actions or to keep others off-balance. It’s a control tactic that leaves you feeling disoriented.
Consistent inconsistency; intermittent reinforcement — This involves unpredictable behavior, where positive reinforcement is given sporadically. It keeps you guessing and hooked, as you never know when the next “reward” will come; as in gambling, e.g.
Grandiosity — An inflated sense of self-importance and superiority over others. It’s often a mask for deep-seated insecurities.
One-way street — In a one-way relationship, one person’s needs and wants are prioritized over the other’s. It’s a dynamic that leaves one feeling drained and unappreciated.
Masters of deceptive and misleading stories — Some individuals are adept at crafting narratives that bend the truth, often to serve their own interests or manipulate others.
Love to play victim and hero — These individuals portray themselves as both the victim and the hero in different narratives, manipulating emotions to gain sympathy or admiration.
Diverting attention — Diversion tactics are used to shift focus away from the individual’s actions, often by blaming others or creating new issues.
Disregarding the law — Some people view laws as mere suggestions, often rationalizing illegal actions for personal gain or out of a sense of entitlement. The so-called Sovereign Citizens movement essentially codified this as an ideology the group believes in, and tries to use as legal argument in court (failing each time).
Denying plain facts; denialism — Denialism involves refusing to accept proven facts, often to protect one’s ego or agenda.
Assert the opposite of reality — This tactic involves making claims that are directly contradicted by observable facts, creating a confusing and disorienting environment.
Magical thinking — Magical thinking is the belief that one’s thoughts or actions can influence unrelated events. It’s often a way to avoid responsibility.
Projection — Assigning their own feelings or imputing their own motives into you. Projection involves attributing one’s own undesirable feelings or motives to another person, often as a defense mechanism.
See the world as with them or against them (splitting) — Splitting is a cognitive distortion where people are categorized as all good or all bad, with no middle ground or nuance.
Nurturing and maintaining enemies (paranoia) — Some individuals maintain a sense of purpose or identity by creating and nurturing perceived enemies, often based on exaggerated or imagined threats.
Moves the goalposts — Changing the criteria for success or approval, making it difficult for others to meet expectations.
Refuses to take responsibility or admit fault — Some folks deflect blame and never admit fault, often rationalizing their actions to avoid accountability.
Gaslighting — causing you to question your own sanity. Gaslighting is a form of manipulation where someone tries to make you doubt your own perceptions and sanity.
Bullying — Bullying involves repeated, intentional harm or intimidation, often to assert control or superiority over someone else.
Frequent liar / compulsive liar — Some individuals lie habitually, either to manipulate others or sometimes without any apparent reason.
Aggressive and easily angered — These individuals have low tolerance for frustration and may resort to aggression or anger to assert control or mask insecurities.
Arm yourself with as much information as you can about emotional predators and the tactics of undue influence techniques they use, as well as the real world history of cults and their consequences — and how to get people out of them via deprogramming techniques. Here’s a cults and mind control book list to get you started:
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological concept that can be understood as the mental discomfort or tension a person experiences when holding two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or attitudes simultaneously. The concept was first introduced by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957.
The term refers to the internal conflict that arises when a person’s beliefs or values clash with new information or actions. This conflict leads to an uncomfortable feeling — motivating the individual to reduce the dissonance by either changing their beliefs, acquiring new information, or minimizing the importance of the inconsistency.
Examples of cognitive dissonance
Smoking and Health Awareness: A person who smokes but is aware of the health risks associated with smoking may experience cognitive dissonance. They may try to reduce this discomfort by downplaying the risks, avoiding information about smoking’s dangers, or quitting smoking altogether.
Environmental Concern and Behavior: Someone who is concerned about the environment but continues to use plastic bags may feel a similar tension. They might resolve this by justifying their behavior (“It’s just one bag”) or by making a change to reusable bags.
Mechanisms to reduce cognitive dissonance
People employ various strategies to reduce the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance:
Changing Beliefs or Behavior: This involves altering one’s beliefs or actions to align with the conflicting information, such as quitting smoking in the first example.
Seeking Supportive Information: People may seek out information or opinions that support their existing beliefs, thereby reducing the conflict.
Minimizing Importance: By downplaying the significance of the conflicting belief or action, individuals can reduce the discomfort they feel.
Impact on Decision Making
Cognitive dissonance plays a significant role in decision-making processes. When faced with a choice, people often experience dissonance after making a decision, wondering if they made the right choice. This can lead to a phenomenon known as “post-decision dissonance,” where individuals overemphasize the positive aspects of their choice and downplay the negatives to feel more comfortable with their decision.
Cognitive dissonance summary
Cognitive dissonance is a complex but relatable psychological phenomenon that affects many aspects of our daily lives. It’s the mental tug-of-war that occurs when our beliefs, values, or actions are in conflict. Understanding this concept can provide insight into human behavior and decision-making, shedding light on why people sometimes act in ways that seem irrational or contrary to their stated beliefs.
By recognizing cognitive dissonance in ourselves and others, we can better navigate the complexities of human thought and behavior, fostering empathy and self-awareness. Whether it’s making a significant life decision or understanding why we feel a certain way about a minor inconsistency, cognitive dissonance is a valuable lens through which we can explore the human psyche.
Covert narcissists, also known as closet or hidden narcissists, exhibit a more subtle and hidden form of narcissism. Unlike their overt counterparts, they tend to present themselves as modest, self-effacing, or even victimized. However, beneath this humble exterior lies an underlying sense of entitlement, grandiosity, and a constant need for attention and validation.
Key Traits of Covert Narcissists:
Insecurity: They often feel inadequate and may suffer from anxiety or depression.
Passive-Aggressive Behavior: Rather than being openly demanding, they may use subtler tactics to manipulate others.
Victim Mentality: They may cast themselves as the victim to gain sympathy and control others.
Sensitivity to Criticism: Even mild criticism can provoke intense reactions, as their self-esteem is fragile.
Chronic Feelings of Envy: They may resent others’ success or happiness and believe they are entitled to the same.
Comparing covert narcissists to other types
1. Overt Narcissists:
Overt narcissists are the opposite of covert narcissists. They are open and unabashed about their self-centered behavior, displaying arrogance and a sense of superiority or supremacy. Unlike covert narcissists, who may mask their true intentions, overt narcissists tend to be more transparent.
Differences:
Overt narcissists are openly grandiose, while covert narcissists hide their grandiosity.
Overt narcissists seek attention directly, while covert narcissists manipulate subtly.
Malignant narcissists are more openly antagonistic, while covert narcissists use passive-aggressive tactics.
Malignant narcissists may harm others intentionally, while covert narcissists often manipulate indirectly.
Covert narcissism resources
This curated list of five key resources for understanding covert narcissism provide valuable insights into identifying and dealing with covert narcissists:
Description: This platform often features articles by mental health professionals that delve into various types of narcissism, including covert narcissism. It’s a great starting point for understanding the subject from a psychological perspective.
Description: Mayo Clinic offers a comprehensive overview of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, including symptoms and treatments. While not specifically targeting covert narcissism, it gives an essential foundation on narcissistic behaviors.
Description: Healthline’s guide specifically focuses on covert narcissism, providing detailed information on recognizing the signs and understanding how it differs from other forms of narcissism.
Description: This resource is dedicated to helping victims of narcissistic abuse. Angie Atkinson, a certified life coach, offers various tools, including videos and articles, to understand and recover from covert narcissistic behavior.
Description: This podcast series by a professional therapist addresses issues related to narcissistic relationships, including covert narcissism. It offers insightful episodes that can be valuable for those dealing with covert narcissists in their lives.
Covert narcissism in a nutshell
Covert narcissists represent a unique and challenging form of narcissistic personality. They are adept at hiding their true intentions and can be difficult to identify, especially when compared to other, more overt forms of narcissism. Their passive-aggressive behavior and tendency to cast themselves as victims make them particularly insidious. Understanding the differences between covert and other types of narcissists can provide valuable insights into their behavior and help in recognizing and managing interactions with them.
Phobia indoctrination is one of the principle ways a charismatic leader will lull potential followers into his thrall, by putting them into a state of perpetual fear and anxiety. They know, either instinctively or through training (or both), that people can be induced into a prolonged state of confusion easily, and that many people in states of confusion act quite irrationally. Abusers, cult leaders, and other controllers use demagoguery and other tricks to hide in plain sight and continue to accrue power while passing themselves off as harmless or extremely patriotic.
These chaos agents use emotional manipulation and other tactics of emotional predators as a tool of control. They whip followers up into a fear frenzy frequently enough to instill a set of phobia-like instinctual reactions to chosen stimuli. In addition to stoking fears of the enemies at the gates, they also inculcate irrational fears of the consequences of questioning their authority — invoking authoritarianism. Any doubts expressed about the leadership or its doctrine are subject to terrifying negative results. Cults use this formula to wield undue influence over followers, and prevent them from questioning or leaving the group.
Phobia indoctrination is a tool of cults
As part of a larger overall program of brainwashing or mind control, cults and destructive organizations use imaginary extremes (going to hell, being possessed by demons, failing miserably at life, race war, Leftist apocalypse, etc.) to shock followers into refusing to examine any evidence whatsoever. A form of unethical hypnosis, phobia indoctrination can now be carried out on a mass scale thanks to the internet and our massive media apparatus. Be sure to be on the lookout for any cult warning signs in groups and messaging all around you.
Sociopaths and other types of emotional predators are taking ample advantage of their advantage in time and distance over the slow pace of justice. The wielding of fear as a cudgel in American politics has reached a fever pitch, with anti-Critical Race Theory hysteria, anti-vaxxers, anti-government types, anti-science, Lost Cause-revival zombie MAGA footsoldiers screeching about the “freedom!!!” they wish the government to provide them for persecuting their enemies, and other social horrors are merely the tip of the climate changing iceberg.
Phobia indoctrination tactics
Strategies of phobia indoctrination include Repetition and Conditioning, where fears are built through constant exposure; Misinformation and Propaganda, using false information to paint something as dangerous; Utilizing Existing Fears, exaggerating known fears or anxieties; and Social Pressure and Group Dynamics, leveraging social influences to convince others that irrational fears are common.
Other tactics include Authority and Expert Manipulation, where false credentials are used to lend legitimacy; Emotional Manipulation, appealing directly to emotions; Isolation and Control, where a person’s environment is manipulated; and Media Manipulation, using media to provoke fear.
We had better get familiar with the lexicon and vocabulary of the coming era, so we can fight the creeping scourge of thought control roiling the land.
Recognizing cult warning signs can be vital in identifying and understanding the risk before getting involved with a group who may not have your best interests in mind.
Cults, in general, refer to organizations or groups that often manipulate and exploit members, typically by using unorthodox beliefs and practices. Recognizing cult warning signs can be vital in identifying and understanding the risk before getting involved with a high demand group that may not have your best interests in mind.
Us vs. Them Mentality: Cults often draw clear lines between insiders and outsiders, emphasizing that only they possess the truth. This divisive mindset encourages isolation from family, friends, and society, leading to further control over the members.
Coercive Persuasion and Manipulation: High-pressure tactics are common in recruiting and retaining members. This may include controlling information, employing guilt or fear, manipulating emotions to maintain allegiance, and other tactics of emotional predators.
Excessive Financial Demands: Many cults require significant financial contributions, sometimes even requiring members to relinquish personal assets. This financial control reinforces dependence on the group.
Rigidity of Beliefs and Practices: A cult’s ideology is often absolute, with no room for questioning or dissent. Those who challenge the beliefs are typically met with hostility, punishment, or expulsion. This fundamentalist mentality permeates the entire group’s thinking and behavior.
Unrealistic Promises: Cults may lure individuals with promises of spiritual enlightenment, exclusive knowledge, or personal success, often unrealistic or unattainable. These promises can entice individuals seeking meaning or connection in their lives.
Control Over Personal Lives: Intense control over members’ personal lives, including relationships, employment, and living arrangements, can be a clear warning sign. Such control can erode personal autonomy and self-identity.
Emotional Abuse and Fear Tactics: Cults frequently use fear, shame, and guilt to control members, creating an environment where members feel constant anxiety about meeting the group’s standards or displeasing the leader.
A Focus on Recruitment: Many cults prioritize recruitment above all else, viewing every interaction as an opportunity to bring others into the fold. The pressure to recruit can be relentless and is often a central component of the group’s activities.
Impacts on Health and Wellbeing: The demanding nature of cult involvement can lead to negative effects on mental, emotional, and physical health. This can manifest as anxiety, depression, exhaustion, or other health issues, often ignored or downplayed by the group.
Recognizing these warning signs is crucial for individuals, families, and communities to understand the potential dangers and take appropriate steps to protect themselves. The subject of cults is sensitive, often tied to deeply personal and societal fears, and it requires careful consideration and empathy.
Overview: Operated by Rick Alan Ross, an internationally known expert on cults, CEI offers extensive resources, including a database of information on specific groups, techniques for intervention, and guidelines to recognize coercive persuasion.
Target Audience: Anyone looking to educate themselves about cults, from concerned family members to academic researchers.
International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) – Website
Overview: ICSA is a global network of people concerned about psychological manipulation and abuse in cultic or high-demand groups. They offer conferences, publications, and support networks.
Target Audience: Researchers, professionals, former cult members, and concerned family and friends.
Overview: Created by Steven Hassan, a mental health counselor and former cult member, this site offers resources on combating mind control in various settings, including cults, terrorism, and human trafficking.
Target Audience: General public, mental health professionals, and individuals directly affected by cults.
Overview: Based in the UK, the CIC provides information, advice, and support to those concerned about cults. They offer educational programs and direct help to those affected.
Target Audience: UK residents, though the information is applicable globally.
Overview: This online community allows individuals to discuss personal experiences, share research, and ask questions related to cults. Moderated for respectful dialogue, it offers a more informal but still informative perspective.
Target Audience: Those looking for community interaction, shared experiences, and casual information on the subject.
Two psychologists ended up unlocking important keys to both the mind and to economics. Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman created the field of behavioral economics and revolutionized cognitive psychology with the discovery of a set of cognitive and psychological biases that affect our decision-making abilities.
These systematic errors in our thinking and logic affect our everyday choices, behaviors, and evaluations of others. For more on this topic, please also see the Cognitive Distortions and Logical Fallacies data sets.
Heuristics: Mental shortcuts
Psychological biases are often the result of heuristics, which are mental shortcuts that help people make decisions quickly, but sometimes at the expense of accuracy.
One of the most well-known biases is confirmation bias, which is the tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or hypotheses. This can lead individuals to ignore or dismiss evidence that challenges their views.
Another common bias is the anchoring effect, where individuals rely too heavily on an initial piece of information, known as the “anchor,” when making decisions. For example, if you are told that a shirt is on sale for $50, down from $100, you might perceive it as a good deal, even if the shirt is not worth $50.
The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that leads people to overestimate the likelihood of events that are easily recalled. For instance, if someone recently heard about a plane crash, they might overestimate the dangers of flying, even though statistically, it is much safer than driving.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where individuals with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. Essentially, they are not skilled enough to recognize their own incompetence. On the flip side, highly competent individuals may underestimate their relative competence.
The halo effect is a type of bias where the perception of one positive trait of a person or thing influences the perception of other traits. For example, if someone is physically attractive, they are often perceived as more intelligent, talented, or kind.
Loss aversion is the tendency to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. People are generally more upset about losing $20 than they are happy about gaining $20. This bias can lead to risk-averse behavior.
The bandwagon effect refers to the tendency of people to align their beliefs and behaviors with those of a group. This can be seen in various social phenomena such as fashion trends and political movements.
The hindsight bias is the inclination to see events as being more predictable after they have happened. People often believe that they βknew it all along,β which can create overconfidence in their ability to predict events.
These are just a handful of the full list of 30 psychological biases detailed below in the dictionary table. Arm yourself with awareness of these biases, as striving to think critically can help in making more rational and informed decisions.
Psychological biases dictionary
Psychological bias
Explanation
Example
action bias
Belief that when we're faced with an ambiguous situation or challenge, that we must take some action vs. doing nothing, whether doing something is a good idea or not (and often quickly, without taking the time to fully examine the problem); also known as "naive interventionism"
sports enthusiasts rooting for their favorite teams are notorious for the superstitious rituals they are in psychological anguish if not able to perform, despite the objective fact that they have no ability whatsoever to affect the outcome (in pop culture, Robert DeNiro's character in Silver Linings Playbook exemplifies this)
adjustment heuristic
Tendency to start from an implicitly suggested reference point when assessing probabilities (the "anchor") and making adjustments to that reference point to reach an estimate
affect heuristic
We tend to underestimate the role of feelings of liking & disliking in our judgments and decision-making
Instead of considering risks and benefits independently, individuals with a negative attitude towards nuclear power may consider its benefits as low and risks as high, thereby leading to a more negative risk-benefit correlation than would be evident under conditions without time pressure (Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson, 2000)
anchoring effect
Fixating on a value or # that gets compared to everything else, b/c we tend to compare/contrast limited sets of items (aka βrelativity trapβ) β store sale items take advantage of this (so we compare the new value to the old, but not the old value on its own as a measure of worth)
availability heuristic
Tendency to make quick "intuitive" judgments about the size of given categories by the ease with which particular instances/examples of the class come to mind
bandwagon effect
Similar to groupthink, arising from our built-in desire to fit in and conform, we tend to "go along with the trend" when it becomes apparent to us
contagion heuristic
Tendency to avoid contact with people or objects viewed as "contaminated" by previous contact with someone or something else viewed as "bad"
Related to/inclusive of magical thinking β believing a person's sweater still carries their "essence," e.g.
confirmation bias
We tend to agree w/those who agree with us & avoid associating with those who don't, to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance (the Internet has sadly made this worse)
conjunction fallacy
A formal fallacy that occurs when one believes a specific condition is more probable than a general one
current moment bias
Preference to experience pleasure now, & put off the βpainβ til later; lack of ability to imagine ourselves in the future & altering today's behaviors accordingly
disjunction fallacy
Misjudging that the disjunction of two events must be as likely as either of the events individually (as definitionally, via probability theory)
false consensus effect
People tend to overestimate the degree to which the general public shares their beliefs and opinions
potentially related to the availability heuristic, the self-serving bias, and naive realism
focusing illusion
Placing too much emphasis on one aspect of an event, outweighing its importance and causing error in judgment
Gambler's fallacy
Putting a tremendous amount of weight on previous events, believing they will influence future outcomes (even when outcome is random)
also frequently a logical fallacy
Identifiable Victim Effect
Tendency for people to care deeply about a single, specific tragedy but seem disinterested in vast atrocities affecting thousands or millions of people
more broadly, abstract concepts motivate us less than individual cases (especially when given visual evidence)
ingroup bias
Overestimating abilities and values of our immediate group & underestimating that of outgroups (oxytocin plays a role)
naive realism
The belief that each one of us sees the world objectively, while the people who disagree with us must be either uninformed or irrational
"Everyone is influenced by ideology and self-interest. Except for me. I see things as they are."
negativity bias
We pay more attention to bad news
neglecting probability
Reason we're afraid to fly even though it's statistically far more likely to be in a car accident (same way we fear terrorism but not more mundane accidents that are far more likely)
observational selection bias
Suddenly noticing things we didn't notice before & assuming frequency has increased (also contributes to feeling appearance of certain things or events can't be coincidence)
optimism bias
Tendency to believe that good things happen more often than bad things
planning fallacy
Systematic tendency toward unrealistic optimism about the time it takes to comple
positive expectation bias
Sense that our luck has to change for the better
post-purchase rationalization
Making ourselves feel better after we make crappy decisions (aka Buyer's Stockholm Syndrome)
projection bias
Assumption that most people think just like us (false consensus bias is related: thinking that others agree with us)
resemblance bias
Tendency to ignore statistical facts and use resemblance as a simplifying heuristic to make difficult judgments
self-serving bias
Tendency to evaluate ambiguous or complex information in a way that is beneficial to the speaker's interests, as well as to claim responsibility for successes and attribute failures to others or to uncontrollable external factors
shifting baseline syndrome
We tend to use very recent data points in our research (even when more data is available) and thus can miss picking up on some long-term trends
status-quo bias
We fear change, so tend to make choices that guarantee things remain the same (& by extension, assume that any other choice will be inferior, or make things worse)
treadmill effect
Our desire for the new version of a product or service is acute, even if upgrades are minor & incremental; but the pleasure we get from the new object wears off quickly to leave us back at the original satisfaction baseline
The terse portmanteus are blunt and blocky, like a brutalist architecture vocabulary. Their simplicity indicates appeal to the small-minded masses for easily digested pablum.
About Newspeak
Newspeak is a fictional language created by George Orwell for his dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The language serves as an essential tool for the oppressive regime, known as The Party, to control and manipulate the population of Oceania. Newspeak is intentionally designed to restrict the range of thought, eliminate words that convey dissent or rebellion, and enforce political orthodoxy. The language accomplishes this by reducing the complexity of vocabulary and grammar, condensing words into simplified forms, and eliminating synonyms and antonyms. The Party aims to eliminate the potential for subversive thoughts by ensuring that the language itself lacks the necessary words and expressions to articulate them.
In Orwell’s world, Newspeak works hand in hand with the concept of “doublethink,” which requires individuals to accept contradictory beliefs simultaneously. This manipulation of language and thought is central to maintaining the Party’s power and control over the populace. Newspeak’s ultimate goal is to render dissent and rebellion impossible by making the very thoughts of these actions linguistically unexpressable. As a result, Newspeak serves as a chilling representation of how language can be weaponized to restrict personal freedoms, suppress independent thought, and perpetuate an authoritarian regime.
Newspeak rises again
Those boots ring out again, from Belarus to Hungary to the United States. There are book burnings and the defunding of libraries in multiple states. From Ron DeSantis to Trumpian anti-intellectualism to the rampant proliferation of conspiracy theories, It’s a good time to brush up on the brutalism still actively struggling to take hold.
Newspeak Dictionary from 1984
Newspeak term
Definition
ante
The prefix that replaces before
artsem
Artificial insemination
bb
Big Brother
bellyfeel
The blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhite
To accept whatever one is told, regardless of the facts. In the novel, it is described as "...to say that black is white when [the Party says so]" and "...to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary".
crimestop
To rid oneself of unorthodox thoughts that go against Ingsoc's ideology
crimethink
Thoughts and concepts that go against Ingsoc, frequently referred to by the standard English βthoughtcrimeβ, such as liberty, equality, and privacy, and also the criminal act of holding such thoughts
dayorder
Order of the day
dep
Department
doubleplusgood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning "superlatively good", such as excellent, fabulous, and fantastic
doubleplusungood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning "superlatively bad", such as terrible and horrible
doublethink
The act of simultaneously believing two, mutually contradictory ideas
duckspeak
Automatic, vocal support of political orthodoxies
facecrime
A facial expression which reveals that one has committed thoughtcrime
Ficdep
The Ministry of Truth's Fiction Department
free
The absence and the lack of something. "Intellectually free" and "politically free" have been replaced by crimethinkful.
βful
The suffix for forming an adjective
fullwise
The word that replaces words such as fully, completely, and totally
goodthink
A synonym for "political orthodoxy" and "a politically orthodox thought" as defined by the Party
goodsex
Sexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage
goodwise
The word that replaced well as an adverb
Ingsoc
The English Socialist Party (i.e. The Party)
joycamp
Labour camp
malquoted
Inaccurate representations of the words of Big Brother and of the Party
Miniluv
The Ministry of Love, where the secret police interrogate and torture the enemies of Oceania (torture and brainwashing)
Minipax
The Ministry of Peace, who wage war for Oceania
Minitrue
The Ministry of Truth, who manufacture consent by way of lies, propaganda, and distorted historical records, while supplying the proles (proletariat) with synthetic culture and entertainment
Miniplenty
The Ministry of Plenty, who keep the population in continual economic hardship (starvation and rationing)
Oldspeak
Standard English
oldthink
Ideas from the time before the Party's revolution, such as objectivity and rationalism
ownlife
A person's anti-social tendency to enjoy solitude and individualism
plusgood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning "very good", such as great
plusungood
The word that replaced "very bad"
Pornosec
The pornography production section (Porno sector) of the Ministry of Truth's Fiction Department
prolefeed
Popular culture for entertaining Oceania's working class
Recdep
The Ministry of Truth's Records Department, where Winston Smith rewrites historical records so they conform to the Party's agenda
rectify
The Ministry of Truth's euphemism for manipulating a historical record
ref
To refer (to someone or something)
sec
Sector
sexcrime
A sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for procreation
speakwrite
A machine that transcribes speech into text
Teledep
The Ministry of Truth's Telecommunications Department
telescreen
A two-way television set with which the Party spy upon Oceania's population
thinkpol
The Thought Police, the secret police force of Oceania's government
unperson
An executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the βevil of Cluster Bβ), hold significant power.
Tunnel vision is both an actual physical condition, and a metaphor for a myopic type of thinking. In the former, people who experience tunnel vision have a loss of peripheral vision that results in a constricted, circular field of vision akin to looking through a tunnel. In the cognitive metaphor, tunnel vision refers to a resistance to considering alternative points of view or potential solutions to a problem. Whether due to conviction in one’s position or mental laziness in exploring other options, tunnel vision can be dangerous and lead to deleterious outcomes.
Motivated reasoning is a closely related concept to tunnel vision, in that both phenomena feature someone being predisposed to a specific belief or outcome. In both there is a tendency to back a certain course of action even before evidence is available or fully examined, and to continue to hold that position regardless of any new evidence that may come in that challenges the preferred narrative. Tunnel vision can lead to bad decisions, because focus is being placed on a favored outcome while ignoring potentially much better solutions or courses of action.
Key aspects of tunnel vision
Limited perspective: Tunnel vision in decision-making occurs when people fail to consider the bigger picture or explore alternative viewpoints. They may become fixated on a specific goal, approach, or outcome, which prevents them from recognizing other potentially more effective or beneficial options.
Confirmation bias: This cognitive bias occurs when people selectively focus on information that supports their pre-existing beliefs or assumptions, while disregarding or downplaying evidence that contradicts them. This biased thinking reinforces tunnel vision and leads to poor decision-making. Related to: motivated reasoning.
Groupthink: In group settings, tunnel vision can be amplified by groupthink, a psychological phenomenon where members of a group prioritize conformity and harmony over critical evaluation and independent thinking. This can result in a narrow-minded consensus that overlooks important information and alternative perspectives.
Emotional factors: Strong emotions, such as fear, stress, or overconfidence, can also contribute to tunnel vision in decision-making. These emotions may cloud judgment, cause people to fixate on specific aspects of a situation, and prevent them from thinking objectively and rationally.
Inability to adapt: Tunnel vision can lead to rigidity and an inability to adapt to changing circumstances. Decision-makers may stubbornly cling to their initial plans or beliefs, even when faced with new information or challenges that call for a different approach.
How to avoid tunnel vision
To mitigate tunnel vision in decision-making, it’s essential to cultivate self-awareness, engage in critical thinking, and actively seek out diverse perspectives and alternative solutions. By challenging assumptions, being open to new information, and considering a broader range of factors, individuals and groups can make more informed and effective decisions.
Get a second opinion
Have a brainstorming session to evaluate other points of view
Take a break for a while and come back to the problem or issue again after some time away from it
Do thought experiment exercises where you put yourself in someone else’s shoes and try to imagine how they would solve the problem, or what decision they might make given their own interests and beliefs.
