You’ll hear a common retort on the extreme right that now holds sway in the mainstream Republican Party, in response to protests about the dismantling of democracy in this country — that we’re “a republic, not a democracy.” Right off the bat, a republic is a form of democracy — so they are claiming something akin to having a Toyota and not a car. It’s a rhetorical trick, in which people who fully know better are hacking the simple ignorance of civics and basic political philosophy of the right-wing political base.
John Birch Society loonies laud “a republic, not a democracy”
The “republic, not a democracy” meme would go on to be featured in the John Birch Society Blue Book — an organization so toxically extremist that even conservative darling William F. Buckley distanced himself from them. They feared the idea that increasing democratization would be a shifting balance of power away from white conservative men, and they spun numerous conspiracy theories to explain this as the result of nefarious undercover plot to overthrow Western Civilization.
In reality, the trend towards greater democracy is something the Founders themselves envisioned — though they likely could not have imagined how it would turn out. They believed fiercely in self-governance, and a clear separation from the tyranny of kings.
Black and white thinking is the tendency to see things in extremes, viewing the world through a very polarized lens. Even complex moral issues are seen as clearcut, with simple right and wrong answers and no gray areas in between.
Also referred to as all-or-nothing thinking or dichotomous thinking, black and white thinking is a very rigid and binary way of looking at the world. Black and white thinkers tend to categorize things, events, people, and experiences as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuance or shades of gray. This can manifest in various aspects of their lives including relationships, decision-making, and self-evaluation. Black and white thinking can be a defense mechanism, as it provides a sense of certainty and control in situations that are complex, uncertain, or anxiety-provoking.
For example, a person who engages in black and white thinking may view their work performance as either completely successful or a complete failure, without considering any middle ground. They may view themselves as either a “good” or “bad” person, based on a single action or mistake. This type of extreme thinking can lead to feelings of extreme anxiety, depression, and self-doubt, as well as difficulties in personal and professional relationships.
Black and white thinking in political psychology
Black and white thinking can also be seen in political or social contexts, where individuals categorize people or groups as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuances or complexities. This type of thinking can lead to polarizing beliefs, rigid ideologies, and an unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue or compromise.
The origins of black and white thinking are complex and multifaceted, but it can stem from a variety of factors, including childhood experiences, cultural and societal influences, and psychological disorders including personality disorder. For example, individuals who have experienced trauma or abuse may engage in black and white thinking as a way to cope with the complexity and ambiguity of their experiences. Similarly, cultural or societal influences that promote a strict adherence to binary categories can also contribute to black and white thinking.
Psychological disorders such as borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders are also associated with black and white thinking. For example, individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) may see themselves or others as either completely good or completely bad, without any middle ground. This type of thinking can lead to unstable relationships, impulsive behavior, and emotional dysregulation.
Narcissists too, especially malignant narcissists, tend to exhibit black and white thinking, with the frequent framing of any narrative as being primarily about themselves (good/The Hero) and everyone else (bad/The Other).
Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era
The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking
The modern information ecosystem has created unprecedented conditions for black and white thinking to flourish. Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, systematically promote content that evokes strong emotional responses—often content that presents complex issues in oversimplified, polarizing terms.
Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms
Contemporary digital platforms operate on engagement metrics that inadvertently reward binary thinking:
Filter Bubble Formation: Recommendation algorithms create echo chambers where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs
Engagement Optimization: Content that provokes outrage or strong agreement receives higher distribution (and ultimately, revenue), marginalizing nuanced perspectives
Attention Economy Dynamics: The competition for limited attention spans incentivizes simplified, emotionally charged messaging over complex analysis — going straight for the jugular of common mental heuristics works
Information Processing Under Cognitive Load
Research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that when individuals experience high cognitive load—a common state in our information-saturated environment—they default to simplified decision-making heuristics. This neurological tendency combines with digital information delivery systems to create systematic biases toward binary categorization.
Contemporary Political Manifestations
Black and white thinking has become increasingly prominent in political discourse, with profound implications for democratic institutions and social cohesion.
Legislative Dynamics: Congressional voting patterns show dramatic increases in party-line voting, with bipartisan legislation becoming increasingly rare. This reflects not just strategic positioning but fundamental shifts in how political actors conceptualize policy problems and solutions.
Media Ecosystem Fragmentation: The proliferation of ideologically aligned media sources enables individuals to construct information diets that reinforce binary worldviews. Traditional journalistic ethics of objectivity and balance in a fundamentally evidentiary role have been challenged by partisan media models that explicitly advocate for particular political perspectives.
Electoral Coalition Building: Political campaigns increasingly rely on mobilizing base supporters through appeals to fundamental differences with opponents, rather than building broad coalitions through compromise and incremental policy development.
Identity-Based Political Cognition
Modern political psychology research reveals how black and white thinking intersects with identity formation:
Social Identity Theory: Individuals derive significant psychological satisfaction from in-group membership and out-group differentiation
Motivated Reasoning: People process political information in ways that protect their group identities and existing belief systems
Moral Foundations: Different political coalitions emphasize different moral frameworks, creating seemingly irreconcilable worldview differences
Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts
Black and white thinking creates cascade effects across multiple institutional systems:
Democratic Governance Challenges
Compromise Mechanisms: Effective democratic governance requires negotiation and compromise between competing interests. Binary thinking undermines these processes by framing compromise as betrayal of fundamental principles.
Policy Implementation: Complex policy challenges—from healthcare to climate change to economic inequality—require nuanced, multifaceted solutions. Binary thinking promotes oversimplified policy approaches that often fail to address underlying systemic issues.
Constitutional Design: Democratic institutions assume citizens capable of evaluating competing claims and making informed choices. Black and white thinking can undermine these foundational assumptions necessary to making democracy work.
Economic System Implications
Market Dynamics: Binary thinking in economic contexts can create boom-bust cycles, as investors and consumers oscillate between extreme optimism and pessimism without recognizing gradual trends and mixed signals.
Innovation Ecosystems: Complex technological and business model innovation requires tolerance for ambiguity and iterative development. Binary thinking can stifle innovation by demanding immediate, clear success metrics. It turns out that diversity is good to the bottom line, actually.
Labor Relations: Effective workplace dynamics require ongoing negotiation between competing interests. Binary thinking can transform routine workplace disagreements into fundamental conflicts.
Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis
Understanding black and white thinking requires sophisticated analytical frameworks:
The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model
Black and white thinking rarely operates in isolation but typically forms part of broader cognitive bias patterns:
Confirmation Bias: Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs
Group Attribution Error: Assuming individual group members represent entire groups
Systems Thinking Applications
Effective analysis of black and white thinking requires systems-level perspective:
Feedback Loops: How binary thinking creates self-reinforcing cycles that become increasingly difficult to break
Emergence Properties: How individual cognitive patterns create collective social and political dynamics
Leverage Points: Identifying where interventions might most effectively disrupt binary thinking patterns
Historical Pattern Recognition
Historical analysis reveals recurring patterns in how societies navigate between binary and nuanced thinking:
Crisis Periods: Times of social stress typically increase binary thinking as individuals seek certainty and clear action frameworks
Institutional Adaptation: How democratic institutions evolve mechanisms to manage polarization and maintain governance capacity
Cultural Evolution: How societies develop norms and practices that promote or discourage binary thinking
Contemporary Case Studies
Social Media Discourse Patterns
Analysis of millions of social media posts reveals systematic patterns in how binary thinking spreads:
Viral Content Characteristics: Posts that go viral disproportionately feature binary framing of complex issues
Engagement Metrics: Binary content generates higher levels of shares, comments, and emotional reactions
Network Effects: Binary thinking spreads through social networks more rapidly than nuanced analysis
Political Movement Dynamics
Examination of contemporary political movements reveals how binary thinking shapes organizational development:
Movement Mobilization: Binary framing helps movements build initial coalition support by clarifying friend-enemy distinctions
Strategic Communication: Binary messaging dominates political advertising and fundraising appeals
Coalition Maintenance: Binary thinking can help maintain group cohesion but may limit strategic flexibility
Crisis Response Patterns
Analysis of responses to major crises—from pandemics to economic disruptions to international conflicts—demonstrates how binary thinking affects collective decision-making:
Policy Development: Crisis conditions often promote binary policy choices that may not address underlying complexity
Public Communication: Crisis communication frequently relies on binary framing to motivate public compliance with policy measures
International Relations: Crisis situations can push diplomatic relations toward binary alliance structures
Neurological and Psychological Foundations
Understanding black and white thinking requires examining its neurological and psychological foundations:
Cognitive Processing Systems
System 1 vs System 2 Thinking: Daniel Kahneman’s research demonstrates how automatic, intuitive thinking (System 1) tends toward binary categorization, while deliberative thinking (System 2) enables more nuanced analysis.
Threat Detection Mechanisms: Evolutionary psychology suggests that binary thinking may have adaptive advantages in environments requiring quick threat assessment, but becomes maladaptive in complex modern contexts.
Cognitive Load Theory: When individuals experience high cognitive load, they default to simplified decision-making processes that favor binary categorization.
Identity Formation: Erik Erikson’s work on identity development demonstrates how binary thinking can serve important functions during identity formation periods but may become problematic if it persists into adulthood.
Attachment Theory: Insecure attachment patterns can promote binary thinking about relationships and social situations as defensive mechanisms.
Organizational and Institutional Responses
Educational System Adaptations
Educational institutions increasingly recognize the need to develop students’ capacity for nuanced thinking:
Critical Thinking Curricula: Programs specifically designed to help students recognize and resist binary thinking patterns
Media Literacy: Training students to recognize how information systems promote simplified thinking
Interdisciplinary Approaches: Educational approaches that demonstrate how complex problems require multiple perspectives and methodological approaches
Democratic Institution Reforms
Various proposals aim to reduce the institutional incentives for binary thinking:
Electoral System Design: Ranked-choice voting and other electoral innovations that reward coalition-building over polarization
Deliberative Democracy: Institutional mechanisms that bring citizens together for structured discussion of complex policy issues
Legislative Process Reform: Procedural changes that incentivize negotiation and compromise over partisan positioning
Technology Platform Governance
Growing recognition of how digital platforms shape thinking patterns has led to various reform proposals:
Algorithm Transparency: Requiring platforms to disclose how their algorithms prioritize content
Digital Literacy: Public education initiatives to help users recognize and resist algorithmic manipulation
Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking
Individual-Level Interventions
Mindfulness Practices: Regular mindfulness meditation has been shown to increase tolerance for ambiguity and reduce automatic binary categorization.
Cognitive Behavioral Techniques: Specific therapeutic approaches for identifying and challenging binary thought patterns.
Exposure to Complexity: Deliberately seeking out information sources and experiences that present complex, nuanced perspectives on important issues.
Perspective-Taking Exercises: Structured practices for understanding how situations appear from multiple viewpoints.
Community-Level Initiatives
Dialogue and Deliberation Programs: Community-based initiatives that bring together people with different perspectives for structured conversation about local issues.
Collaborative Problem-Solving: Community projects that require cooperation across different groups and perspectives.
Civic Education: Educational programs that help citizens understand how democratic institutions work and why compromise is essential for effective governance.
Cross-Cutting Social Connections: Initiatives that help people form relationships across traditional dividing lines.
Institutional Design Principles
Procedural Safeguards: Institutional mechanisms that slow down decision-making processes to allow for more deliberative consideration of complex issues.
Stakeholder Inclusion: Decision-making processes that systematically include multiple perspectives and interests.
Transparency and Accountability: Mechanisms that make decision-making processes visible and subject to public scrutiny.
Adaptive Management: Institutional frameworks that allow for policy adjustment based on evidence and changing circumstances.
Implications for Democratic Resilience
The prevalence of black and white thinking poses significant challenges for democratic governance:
Representation and Legitimacy
Electoral Representation: Binary thinking can undermine representative democracy by making it difficult for elected officials to represent diverse constituencies with complex, sometimes conflicting interests.
Institutional Legitimacy: When citizens view political institutions through binary lenses, it becomes difficult to maintain the shared commitment to democratic norms necessary for effective governance.
Minority Rights: Binary thinking can threaten minority rights by reducing complex questions of individual liberty and collective welfare to simple majority-minority power dynamics.
Policy Development and Implementation
Evidence-Based Policy: Effective policy development requires careful consideration of evidence, trade-offs, and unintended consequences—all of which are undermined by binary thinking.
Policy Adaptation: Democratic institutions must be able to adapt policies based on new evidence and changing circumstances, which requires tolerance for complexity and ambiguity.
Cross-Sector Coordination: Modern policy challenges often require coordination across different levels of government and between public and private sectors, which is complicated by binary thinking.
Future Research Directions
Understanding and addressing black and white thinking requires ongoing research across multiple disciplines:
Technology and Cognition
AI and Decision-Making: How artificial intelligence systems might be designed to promote nuanced rather than binary thinking.
Digital Environment Design: Research on how different digital interface designs affect cognitive processing and decision-making.
Virtual Reality and Perspective-Taking: How immersive technologies might be used to help individuals understand complex situations from multiple perspectives.
Political Psychology and Behavior
Motivation and Binary Thinking: Research on what motivates individuals to adopt or resist binary thinking patterns in political contexts.
Group Dynamics: How binary thinking spreads through social networks and political organizations.
Leadership and Framing: How political leaders can effectively communicate about complex issues without resorting to binary framing.
Institutional Design and Reform
Comparative Democratic Systems: Analysis of how different democratic institutions manage polarization and promote constructive political discourse.
Experimental Governance: Small-scale experiments with different institutional designs that might reduce incentives for binary thinking.
Technology Governance: Research on how to regulate digital platforms in ways that promote constructive rather than polarizing discourse.
Toward cognitive complexity
Black and white thinking represents a fundamental challenge to effective individual decision-making, social cooperation, and democratic governance. While binary thinking may have served adaptive functions in simpler environments, the complexity of modern challenges requires more sophisticated cognitive frameworks.
Addressing this challenge requires coordinated efforts across multiple levels—from individual practices that promote cognitive flexibility to institutional reforms that reduce incentives for polarization. The stakes are particularly high for democratic societies, which depend on citizens’ capacity to engage constructively with complexity and difference.
The path forward requires neither naive optimism nor cynical resignation, but rather sustained commitment to developing our collective capacity for nuanced thinking about complex problems. This involves both protecting democratic institutions from the corrosive effects of extreme polarization and actively building new capabilities for constructive engagement across difference — knowing that some will disagree and continuously fight us on reforms.
Understanding black and white thinking is not merely an academic exercise but an urgent practical necessity for navigating the challenges of the 21st century. By developing more sophisticated analytical frameworks and practical interventions, we can work toward societies that are both more thoughtful and more effective at solving complex collective problems.
Related concepts and further reading
Cognitive Bias Research: Systematic exploration of how human thinking systematically deviates from logical reasoning
Political Psychology: Interdisciplinary field examining how psychological processes affect political behavior
Systems Thinking: Analytical approaches that focus on relationships and patterns rather than isolated events
Democratic Theory: Normative and empirical research on how democratic institutions work and how they might be improved
Media Ecology: Study of how communication technologies shape human consciousness and social organization
Conflict Resolution: Practical approaches for managing disagreement and building cooperation across difference
Who are the Christian nationalists? They are people, groups, and congregations who tend to believe in Strict Father Morality, and Christian nationalist leaders desire to establish some sort of Christian fascist theocratic state in America. Nevermind that religious freedom and the ability to worship as one pleases was precisely one of the major founding ideals of the United States, as we know from the many, many outside writings of the founders at that time — these folks consider that context “irrelevant” to the literal text of the founding documents.
Getting “separation of state” backwards
Prominent Christian nationalist David Barton re-interprets the famous 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists to allege support for a “one-way wall” between church and state. Barton contends that Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” was intended to protect religious institutions from government interference rather than ensuring the government’s secular nature. By advocating for this one-directional barrier, Barton seeks to justify the integration of religious principles into public policy and government actions — improbably, given the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Barton and his fellow Christian nationalists are either intentionally or unfathomably not taking the logical next step in the chain of power and authority: if the government is informed, infused, or even consumed by religious dogma and doctrine, then is that government not by definition infringing on the rights of any citizens that happens not to believe in that code or creed?
The answer, as we well know from the colonization of America itself, is YES. We left the Church of England in large part to worship of our own accord — and to make money, of course. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington were especially concerned about religious liberty and the neutrality of government in religious matters.
Thus, in large part, the ideas of the Christian nationalists are misinterpretations at best, and willful invention at worst. In some it is clearly a naked power grab and not much more — think of Trump holding an upside-down Bible in Lafayette Square. In general, Christian nationalism doesn’t actually seem very Christian at all.
Whether they are True Believers or Opportunistic Cynics, the Christian nationalist organizations and right wing groups on this list — as well as a number of prominent individuals within these organizations — represent a threat to democracy as we know it — especially with Project 2025 so close to coming to fruition in a second Trump administration. Best we get a look at who they are.
What’s the difference between conservatives and reactionaries?
In short:
A conservative wants to preserve the status quo (or change it slowly). A reactionary wants to reverse progress and return to a previous order — often an idealized or mythologized past.
The Core Difference:
Conservative
Reactionary
Wants to conserve existing institutions, traditions, and social order.
Wants to restore a past order — often rejecting modernity altogether.
Accepts some gradual change if necessary to preserve stability.
Sees recent changes (modernization, liberalization) as corruptions that must be undone.
May negotiate with progress or adapt slowly.
Opposes progress on principle — progress is the problem.
Historical Example:
Conservative:
→ Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution, but didn’t want to destroy parliamentary government. He wanted to preserve traditions and institutions to prevent chaos.
Reactionary:
→ Joseph de Maistre welcomedauthoritarian monarchy and theocracy after the French Revolution, believing divine right rule was the only cure for societal decay.
In Modern Terms:
A conservative in America might say: “We shouldn’t rush into sweeping changes — we need to preserve family values, religious freedom, and limited government.”
A reactionary might say: “Modern society is degenerate. We need to abolish democracy, bring back monarchy or biblical law, and return to the way things were before feminism, secularism, or civil rights.”
Where It Gets Tricky:
Many reactionaries call themselves conservatives — especially in American politics — because “reactionary” is usually a pejorative term today.
But ideologically:
Conservatives = cautious, incremental, defensive of the present order.
Reactionaries = revanchist, nostalgic, hostile to modernity.
In Summary:
All reactionaries are right-wing extremists, but not all conservatives are reactionaries.
Conservatives defend the status quo. Reactionaries want to roll back history.
Spectrum of Political Attitudes Towards Change
Position
Attitude Toward Change
View of the Past
View of the Future
Examples
Radical / Revolutionary
Overthrow existing system
Irrelevant or oppressive past
Build something entirely new
Anarchists, Communists, Revolutionaries
Progressive / Liberal
Reform existing system
Learn from past mistakes
Improve society incrementally
Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Liberals
Conservative
Preserve system as-is or allow very slow change
Respect traditions
Stability is more important than change
Traditional Conservatives, Libertarians (sometimes)
Reactionary
Undo modern changes, return to past order
The past was better / pure
Restore lost greatness
Christian Nationalists, Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists
Marc Andreessen, a prominent tech billionaire, co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and one of Twitter (X)’s current investors, holds a complex and often controversial set of beliefs and ideologies. But who is Marc Andreessen, really — as in, what does he believe in? What is he using his wealth and power to achieve?
His perspectives are often polarizing, marrying an unyielding faith in the transformative power of technology with a worldview that is dismissive of societal concerns and hostile to traditional democratic values. Here are some of the key aspects of his views:
1. Techno-Optimism and Elitism
Andreessen is a strong advocate for techno-optimism, believing that technological advancements are the key to solving societal problems and driving progress. However, this optimism is often tied to an elitist worldview, where he sees technologists and wealthy entrepreneurs as the primary drivers of societal advancement.
His “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” outlines a vision where technologists are the leaders of society, unencumbered by social responsibility, trust, safety, and ethics — particularly in the realm of AI, which he believes ought to race ahead to whatever end, risks be damned.
2. Critique of Government and Social Structures
Andreessen criticizes the U.S. government for being strangled by special interests and lobbying, yet his firm has engaged in significant lobbying efforts.
He expresses disdain for centralized systems of government, particularly communism, while advocating for technologists to play a central role in planning and governing society.
3. Accelerationism and Right-Wing Influences
Andreessen embraces “effective accelerationism,” a philosophy that champions technological advancement at any cost. This is influenced by thinkers like Nick Land, known for his anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian ideas.
The initiative seeks to undo over a century of progressive reforms, tracing back to the establishment of a federal administrative framework by Woodrow Wilson, through the New Deal by Roosevelt, to Johnson’s Great Society. It proposes a significant reduction in the federal workforce, which stands at about 2.25 million people.
Project 2025 plans
Essential measures include reducing funding for, or even abolishing, key agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Education and Commerce. Additionally, Project 2025 intends to bring semi-independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission under closer presidential control.
At its heart, Project 2025 aims to secure a durable conservative dominance within the federal government, aligning it closely with the principles of the MAGA movement and ensuring it operates under the direct oversight of the White House. The project is inspired by the “unitary executive theory” of the Constitution, which argues for sweeping presidential authority over the federal administrative apparatus — in direct contradiction with the delicate system of checks and balances architected by the Founders.
It is also inspired by religious fervor (and the cynical exploitation thereof) — and Project 2025 has brought together a pantheon of Christian nationalist organizations and groups to draft policy that could be implemented with alacrity, select potential appointees for the administration, build networks with GOP at the state and local levels — and with right wing groups and networks around the world.
Project 2025 goals
To realize their extremist, authoritarian goal, Dans is actively recruiting what he terms “conservative warriors” from legal and government networks, including bar associations and offices of state attorneys general. The aim is to embed these individuals in key legal roles throughout the government, thereby embedding the conservative vision deeply within the federal bureaucracy to shape policy and governance for the foreseeable future.
The concept of ego defenses, also known simply as defense mechanisms, is fundamental in the field of psychology, particularly within the psychoanalytic framework established by Sigmund Freud and further developed by his daughter Anna Freud and other psychoanalysts. These mechanisms are subconscious safeguards that protect individuals from anxiety and the awareness of internal or external dangers or stressors.
Understanding ego defense mechanisms
Ego defenses operate at a psychological level to help manage the conflicts between internal impulses and external reality. They often work by distorting, transforming, or somehow denying reality. While these mechanisms can vary widely in terms of their sophistication and the level of distortion they involve, all serve the primary function of reducing emotional distress.
Some common defense mechanisms include:
Denial: Refusing to accept reality because it is too painful or difficult to face.
Repression: Unconsciously blocking unacceptable thoughts or desires from consciousness.
Projection: Attributing one’s own unacceptable thoughts or feelings to others.
Rationalization: Creating a seemingly logical reason for behavior that might otherwise be shameful.
Displacement: Redirecting emotions from a ‘dangerous’ object to a ‘safe’ one.
Regression: Reverting to behavior characteristic of an earlier stage of development when confronted with stress.
These mechanisms aren’t inherently bad; they can be essential for coping with stress and can be adaptive in many circumstances. However, when overused or used inappropriately, they can lead to unhealthy patterns and psychological distress.
Ego defense mechanisms and disinformation
When it comes to disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist ideologies, ego defenses play a crucial role in how individuals process and react to information that conflicts with their existing beliefs or worldviews. This intersection is particularly apparent in the phenomena of denial, projection, and rationalization.
Denial comes into play when individuals refuse to accept verified facts because these facts are uncomfortable or threatening to their pre-existing views or sense of self. For example, someone might deny the impacts of climate change because acknowledging it would necessitate uncomfortable changes in their lifestyle or worldview.
Projection is evident when individuals attribute malicious intent or undesirable traits to others rather than recognizing them in themselves. In the realm of conspiracy theories, this can manifest as accusing various groups or organizations of conspiring for control, thereby projecting one’s own feelings of vulnerability or distrust.
Rationalization allows individuals to justify belief in disinformation or extremist ideologies by providing reasonable but false explanations for these beliefs. This can often involve elaborate justifications for why certain pieces of disinformation fit into their broader understanding of the world, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
The psychological appeal of extremist ideologies
Extremist ideologies often provide a sense of certainty, control, and identity, all of which are deeply appealing on a psychological level, particularly for individuals feeling disconnected or powerless. These ideologies can effectively reduce psychological discomfort by providing simple, albeit inaccurate, explanations for complex social or personal issues.
How ego defenses facilitate belief in extremist ideologies
Ego defenses facilitate adherence to extremist ideologies by allowing individuals to:
Avoid cognitive dissonance: Maintaining a consistent belief system, even if it’s flawed, helps avoid the discomfort of conflicting beliefs.
Feel part of a group: Aligning with a group that shares one’s defensive strategies can reinforce a sense of belonging and identity.
Displace emotions: Directing negative emotions towards ‘out-groups’ or perceived enemies rather than dealing with personal issues or societal complexities.
Ego defenses keep false beliefs “sticky”
Ego defenses are not only fundamental to personal psychological functioning but also play a significant role in how people interact with and are influenced by broader societal narratives. Understanding the role of these mechanisms in the context of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist ideologies is crucial for addressing these issues effectively. This understanding helps illuminate why such beliefs are appealing and resistant to change, highlighting the need for approaches that address underlying psychological needs and defenses.
Knowing the power of ego defenses helps explain why we shouldn’t expect people to part with their strongly-held false beliefs based on simple exposure to actual facts or corrective information — there is often something much deeper going on. In fact, confronting a conspiracy theorist or extremist with contradictory facts or information can often lead to a backfire effect, where the individual comes away more strongly committed to their false beliefs than they were before.
Stochastic terrorism is a term that has emerged in the lexicon of political and social analysis to describe a method of inciting violence indirectly through the use of mass communication. This concept is predicated on the principle that while not everyone in an audience will act on violent rhetoric, a small percentage might.
The term “stochastic” refers to a process that is randomly determined; it implies that the specific outcomes are unpredictable, yet the overall distribution of these outcomes follows a pattern that can be statistically analyzed. In the context of stochastic terrorism, it means that while it is uncertain who will act on incendiary messages and violent political rhetoric, it is almost certain that someone will.
The nature of stochastic terrorism
Stochastic terrorism involves the dissemination of public statements, whether through speeches, social media, or traditional media, that incite violence. The individuals or entities spreading such rhetoric may not directly call for political violence. Instead, they create an atmosphere charged with tension and hostility, suggesting that action must be taken against a perceived threat or enemy. This indirect incitement provides plausible deniability, as those who broadcast the messages can claim they never explicitly advocated for violence.
Prominent stochastic terrorism examples
The following are just a few notable illustrative examples of stochastic terrorism:
The Oslo and Utøya Attacks (2011): Anders Behring Breivik, driven by anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant beliefs, bombed government buildings in Oslo, Norway, then shot and killed 69 people at a youth camp on the island of Utøya. Breivik’s manifesto cited many sources that painted Islam and multiculturalism as existential threats to Europe, showing the deadly impact of extremist online echo chambers and the pathology of right-wing ideologies such as Great Replacement Theory.
The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting (2018): Robert Bowers, influenced by white supremacist ideologies and conspiracy theories about migrant caravans, killed 11 worshippers in a synagogue. His actions were preceded by social media posts that echoed hate speech and conspiracy theories rampant in certain online communities, demonstrating the lethal consequences of unmoderated hateful rhetoric.
The El Paso Shooting (2019): Patrick Crusius targeted a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 23 people, motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment and rhetoric about a “Hispanic invasion” of Texas. His manifesto mirrored language used in certain media and political discourse, underscoring the danger of using dehumanizing language against minority groups.
Christchurch Mosque Shootings (2019): Brenton Tarrant live-streamed his attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 51 people, influenced by white supremacist beliefs and online forums that amplified Islamophobic rhetoric. The attacker’s manifesto and online activity were steeped in extremist content, illustrating the role of internet subcultures in radicalizing individuals.
Stochastic terrorism in right-wing politics in the US
In the United States, the concept of stochastic terrorism has become increasingly relevant in analyzing the tactics employed by certain right-wing entities and individuals. While the phenomenon is not exclusive to any single political spectrum, recent years have seen notable instances where right-wing rhetoric has been linked to acts of violence.
Right-wing media platforms have played a significant role in amplifying messages that could potentially incite stochastic terrorism. Through the strategic use of incendiary language, disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, these platforms have the power to reach vast audiences and influence susceptible individuals to commit acts of violence.
The advent of social media has further complicated the landscape, enabling the rapid spread of extremist rhetoric. The decentralized nature of these platforms allows for the creation of echo chambers where inflammatory messages are not only amplified but also go unchallenged, increasing the risk of radicalization.
Challenges and implications
Stochastic terrorism presents significant legal and societal challenges. The indirect nature of incitement complicates efforts to hold individuals accountable for the violence that their rhetoric may inspire. Moreover, the phenomenon raises critical questions about the balance between free speech and the prevention of violence, challenging societies to find ways to protect democratic values while preventing harm.
Moving forward
Addressing stochastic terrorism requires a multifaceted approach. This includes promoting responsible speech among public figures, enhancing critical thinking and media literacy among the public, and developing legal and regulatory frameworks that can effectively address the unique challenges posed by this form of terrorism. Ultimately, combating stochastic terrorism is not just about preventing violence; it’s about preserving the integrity of democratic societies and ensuring that public discourse does not become a catalyst for harm.
Understanding and mitigating the effects of stochastic terrorism is crucial in today’s increasingly polarized world. By recognizing the patterns and mechanisms through which violence is indirectly incited, societies can work towards more cohesive and peaceful discourse, ensuring that democracy is protected from the forces that seek to undermine it through fear and division.
Faced with these realities and the census projection of a majority minority population in the United States by the year 2045, the Republican right-wing is struggling to keep piecing together a voting base that can achieve victories in electoral politics. The GOP is now 3 cults in a trenchcoat, having been hollowed out and twisted to the point of trying desperately to hold increasingly extreme factions together for another election cycle in which they can try to capture power forever through gerrymandering and other anti-democratic election engineering — or at least long enough to erase the evidence of their criminal behavior during the Trump years culminating in a coup attempt on January 6, 2021.
Led by Charles Koch et al, the mostly aging, Boomer crowd who controls much of the US government either directly or indirectly as a donor or operative is starting to panic for one reason or another: the fear of death looming, existential worries about thwarted or unmet ambition, economic turn of the wheel starting to leave their fortunes in decline (with inflation as a common boogie man since the Wall Street Putsch of the 1930s). Much of this crowd inherited the free market ideological zeal of the Austrian School of economics (later, trickle down economics) from their fathers along with their trust fund fortunes that some have squandered (Trump), tread water with (Coors, Scaife), or grown (Koch, DeVos).
In a world of increasing disinformation, it’s more important than ever to be armed with actual information. And being curious about the meaning, nature, and origins of things is a rewarding journey in and of itself.
Think of these dictionaries as tools for your mind — they can help you make connections between concepts, understand the terminology being used in the media and all around you, and feel less lost in a sea of dizzying complexity and rapid change. A fantastic vocabulary also helps you connect with people near and far — as well as get outside your comfort zone and learn something new.
Dictionaries List
This section includes dictionaries and definitions of important terms in important realms — and is continually being built out. Stay tuned!
Authoritarianism is a political system where a single leader or a small group holds significant power, often without the consent of the governed. Decisions are made by authorities without public input, and individual freedoms and democratic principles are usually suppressed. The government may control various aspects of life, including media and the economy, without checks and balances. This leads to a concentration of power that can foster corruption and human rights abuses. In an authoritarian regime, obedience to the authorities is often emphasized over personal liberties and democratic participation.
Definitions and terms relating to the study of the mind, including ideas from social psychology, political psychology, positive psychology, and Buddhist psychology.
surveillance won’t be obvious and overt like in Orwell’s classic totalitarian novel 1984 — it’ll be covert and subtle (“more like a spider’s web”)
social networks use persuasion architecture — the same cloying design aesthetic that puts gum at the eye level of children in the grocery aisle
Example:
AI modeling of potential Las Vegas ticket buyers
The machine learning algorithms can classify people into two buckets, “likely to buy tickets to Vegas” and “unlikely to” based on exposure to lots and lots of data patterns. Problem being, it’s a black box and no one — not even the computer scientists — know how it works or what it’s doing exactly.
So the AI may have discovered that bipolar individuals just about to go into mania are more susceptible to buying tickets to Vegas — and that is the segment of the population they are targeting: a vulnerable set of people prone to overspending and gambling addictions. The ethical implications of unleashing this on the world — and routinely using and optimizing it relentlessly — are staggering.
Profiting from extremism
“You’re never hardcore enough for YouTube” — YouTube gives you content recommendations that are increasingly polarized and polarizing, because it turns out that preying on your reptilian brain makes you keep clicking around in the YouTube hamster wheel.
The amorality of AI — “algorithms don’t care if they’re selling shoes, or politics.” Our social, political, and cultural flows are being organized by these persuasion architectures — organized for profit; not for the collective good, not for public interests, not subject to our political will anymore. These powerful surveillance capitalism tools are running mostly unchecked, with little oversight and with few people minding the ethics of the stores of essentially a cadre of Silicon Valley billionaires.
Intent doesn’t matter — good intentions aren’t enough; it’s the structure and business models that matter. Facebook isn’t a half trillion dollar con: its value is in its highly effective persuasion power, which is highly troubling and concerning in a supposedly democratic society. Mark Zuckerberg may even ultimately mean well (…debatable), but it doesn’t excuse the railroading over numerous obviously negative externalities resulting from the unchecked power of Facebook in not only the U.S., but in countries around the world including highly volatile domains.
Extremism benefits demagogues — Oppressive regimes both come to power by and benefit from political extremism; from whipping up citizens into a frenzy, often against each other as much as against perceived external or internal enemies. Our data and attention are now for sale to the highest bidding authoritarians and demagogues around the world — enabling them to use AI against us in election after election and PR campaign after PR campaign. We gave foreign dictators even greater powers to influence and persuade us in ways that benefit them at the expense of our own self-interest.
… some pure, holy, unchanging thing. A perfect, Platonic form.
But there is nothing unchanging. And religion is overall fading — except at the edges; the extremes.
We want desperately to believe in something. This can make us vulnerable to hucksters, tricksters, deceivers, and all kinds of charms and fakery. The modern life condition exacerbates this, with its fractious social isolationism, vapid consumerism, and erosion of community.
May I suggest that we could find solace by cultivating belief in ourselves, and in each other? Be critical when warranted, but beat back this terrible cynicism that engulfs public discourse, filling it with day to day ennui. We don’t have to be at each other’s throats.
