psychology

The apocalyptic mindset   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged liberty psychology religion on by

It’s hard for me to understand the popularity of authoritarian movements. Why would people willingly cede power to someone whose overriding goal is power? Yet it’s happened over and over. Lately I’ve been looking at comments on the Internet and seeing a strong pattern. They see the world as facing an apocalyptic battle between two utterly opposed forces. Their side is good, and anyone who opposes it must be evil. Not only that, their opponents are all on the same side. It’s hard to think of immigrants, Constitutional lawyers, liberals (in all the senses of the word), Muslims, socialists, and the Pope all as a unified front, but to orthodox MAGAs they are.

Evangelical Christianity, which is the heart of Trump’s support, loves the idea that history is a struggle between Satanic and divine forces, and they expect it to culminate in a world war which God, of course, will win. It colors people’s worldview even when they aren’t thinking of supernatural forces. It’s their habit to think of political conflicts as fights between two fully consistent and completely opposed forces. It’s a view that doesn’t leave much room for good people who disagree, honestly mistaken ideas, and people who aren’t wholly on one side or the other.

When you accept this view, it’s reasonable to think anyone on your side is completely trustworthy, anyone opposed is a thorough liar, and anything which supports your side must be right. Anything your side does is good, including threatening to destroy a civilization. It helps if the civilization to be destroyed is aligned with a non-Christian religion.

In praying to God from the Pentagon, “Secretary of War” Hegseth raged: “Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

Jackson Lahmeyer, a Trump-aligned candidate from Oklahoma who is also an Evangelical pastor, proclaimed, “Good and evil, that’s the story of the Bible. The good news is that at the end good always wins.” Look at chapter 16 of Revelation, if you have the stomach for it. Angels spread skin disease, pollute the seas and fresh water, cause deadly heat waves, and dry up a major river. They’re allegedly working for God, so this makes them “good.”

The Crusades were run on the same mindset. Armies set out to take Jerusalem and the surrounding area because “God wills it!” When the Crusaders took the city in 1099, they massacred thousands of people, mostly Muslims and Jews. They considered their own side “good” not because of their character or deeds, but because they claimed to be on God’s side. They could cite Biblical precedents, such as the genocide of the Canaanites.

Communicating with people who look at the world that way is hard. By the very fact of disagreeing with them, you’re on the side of “evil.” The important thing is to reject their worldview vocally and persistently.

The anti-thinkers

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged psychology SanityProject on by

In the long view of world history, there has been gradual progress toward more well-being and freedom. It’s hard to see it right now, since the past couple of decades have seen a decline, but the long-term trend remains. In many countries you can usually travel freely, criticize the government, and follow the religion of your choice. Four hundred years ago you wouldn’t have seen much of that anywhere.

What has made it possible is people who think. They’ve shown that people who are free to make choices are better off than people under the heel of authority. Often they’ve been inconsistent, but they’ve pointed the world in the right direction.

Most people find thinking uncomfortable, though. It carries the risk of discovering one’s beliefs are wrong. It means uncertainty about what to do. Most people would rather have a set of beliefs which they don’t need to question. They’ll think only within safe bounds, on matters that don’t challenge their worldview. In most cases this just means laziness, but some actively reject reason. They don’t aim to understand reality, but to shape it by making assertions. They’re anti-thinkers.

“Mr. Shouter” in my earlier post is a perfect example of the anti-thinker. Anyone who disagrees with him is a “liar” and “Communist.” He thinks his conclusions are valid because he proclaims them loudly, and disagreement with him is proof of evil.

What can you do with such people? Trying to persuade them just wastes your time and raises your blood pressure. Still, it’s important to discourage them and limit their influence, especially if there’s an audience. Don’t lose your temper or resort to cursing or violence. Keep the high ground. You can say “You don’t know what you’re talking about” or “I’ll come back when you have some reasons to offer.” If you’re dealing with really nasty stuff, such as advocacy of violence, you can say, “That’s not only wrong, it’s disgusting.” Then walk away from the discussion.

Don’t assume anyone who disagrees is an anti-thinker, though. People can be confused and honestly have the facts wrong, and sometimes what sounds weird turns out to be right. Some people are intellectually lazy but not aggressively irrational. But when you encounter refusal to present a coherent case, appeal to emotions alone, accusations against you, and the appeal to authority, you’re facing an anti-thinker. Unless it’s to demolish their case for an audience, such people aren’t worth your time and don’t deserve your attention.

Turning your back deprives them of the respect they think they’re entitled to. It encourages others to think more clearly. To whatever level you make a difference, you’re pushing the general discourse in a better direction.

Of course, reflect on what you’re saying, and don’t dismiss people too quickly. You can be wrong, too. Sometimes you’ll need to improve your arguments or change your conclusions.

A Boston trip and a character snapshot 3

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged Boston Massachusetts psychology on by

Saturday was an excellent first day of spring. I went to listen to the Boston Bach Birthday celebration at the First Lutheran Church. They had all-day performances, mostly on the organ, and a German lunch with bratwurst and sauerkraut. The lunch was a rare opportunity; there are no German restaurants in the area. The music included two recently discovered chaconnes by Bach, maybe their first public performance in Boston. It also included group singing of some old hymns, including one from Luther’s German Mass, which is 500 years old this year. They got this atheist singing hymns in a Lutheran church. 😇

It was sunny and about 50 degrees outside. After lunch I walked through the Public Garden and Boston Common. Near Park Street Station I saw a small group protesting the US oil blockade of Cuba. A guy (let’s call him Mr. Shouter) started yelling at them. I and another man I don’t know (Mr. Talker) went over to talk to him; my aim was just to distract him from a potentially nasty confrontation. In the few minutes we were there, I got some impressions of how that kind of mind works.

Cuba Blockade Protest, March 21, 2026, Boston CommonMr. Shouter was yelling that Cuba has a Communist government. True enough. He also yelled that dissent was impossible in Cuba because anyone who criticized the government would be shot and sent to a concentration camp. It wasn’t clear in which order. Granted, dissent in Cuba is dangerous, even if he exaggerated. I tried to tell him that a large part of that was true, but the best way to weaken Cuba’s rulers was open trade. Cuba hasn’t been a threat to the US at least since the Soviet Union collapsed. He didn’t reply to me or give me much notice; he was more interested in what Mr. Talker said. Talker told him that he had visited Cuba and that it was impossible to stop Cubans from speaking out. Shouter called him a Communist and a liar. Talker didn’t lose his temper. After a little while, I said quietly to Shouter, “If you’d stop yelling long enough to hear what others say, you might learn something,” and went down into the subway station.

We’ve all seen people like Shouter, who always yell and never listen. They’re a cliché of TV and movies, often drawing the protagonist into an unwanted fight. It isn’t other people they’re trying to keep from hearing disagreement. It’s themselves. They’re convinced the world is a certain way, but they know their certainty is built on shaky ground. If they stopped screaming, they might have to think about what they heard. He wasn’t entirely wrong. Cuba lacks freedom of speech, and maybe Talker thought they have more than they do. But Shouter saw its government as incredibly efficient in finding and stamping out every dissenting voice, like Orwell’s Big Brother. He was desperate to banish any possibility that open dissent exists in Cuba. Havana has seen several protests recently, at considerable risk to the participants, but he needs to believe that doesn’t happen.

Weird as it is, some people get satisfaction from believing their foes are all-powerful. Maybe it’s that the greater the enemy is, the greater the victory will be. It’s a literally apocalyptic way of thinking, straight out of the Book of Revelation.

Hopefully Talker and I helped to avoid a nasty scene. I didn’t see anything about the Cuba protesters in the news, which likely means nothing newsworthy happened.

Travel advisory

A special note for today: Trump is deploying ICE to airports. If you have a scheduled flight that isn’t strictly necessary, seriously consider cancelling. Somalis will be targeted; if you have any connection to Somalia, cancel the flight unless it’s a matter of life or death. If you must fly, don’t make an idiot of yourself. Find a way to get where you’re going without exposing yourself to more risk than necessary.

Fact-free mob thinking

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged psychology religion SanityProject on by

On several occasions I’ve mentioned that I don’t support the Salvation Army because it holds that I’m going to Hell, along with all other non-Christians, while trying to look like a secular charity. This doesn’t seem to bother many people, though. Far more people blast it for being allegedly anti-LGBTQ. They pay no attention to the shift in the church’s tone; to them it’s now and forever hostile to gays.

While I don’t like the Salvation Army, I also don’t like unjust accusations. On its website, the page titled The LGBTQ Community and the Salvation Army, the US organization says it serves the LGBTQ community, it will provide shelter to transgender people, and it does not consider sexual orientation or gender identity in its hiring practices.
(more…)

Why is Trumpism still popular?

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged liberty psychology on by

In less than three months since he’s taken office, Donald Trump has imposed huge taxes by decree, harassed lawyers and judges, brought federal agencies into chaos, had people abducted from the streets without charges or access to legal counsel, antagonized America’s allies, and hinted at several acts of military aggression and conquest. The economy is already suffering from his actions and is likely to get a lot worse. In spite of this, his approval rating stands at close to 50%. Nearly half of registered voters, according to polls, approve of what he’s doing. Why?

In the past, I’ve discussed a couple of reasons. News media have abandoned objectivity. It’s hard to get just the facts. A second reason is the miserable state of education in the US. Schools turn out students who seldom read and lack critical thinking skills.

Here I’d like to talk about a third factor: the attitudes of the left.
(more…)