I think this is a good piece overall, but I'm not sure about this part: "Nobody wants it to be true that witches are plotting against them or that sinister and secretive Satanic cults threaten their children.". Doesn't believing that your enemies are black-hatted villains make problems seem simpler, and isn't that something people want? Might not monsters be easier problems to solve than the complex, diffuse issues that most people struggle with? I think it might be especially appealing to believe in the maximized evil of things you hate if it leads to believing that the correct course of action is loudmouthism where you decry the problem but aren't obligated to do anything substantive about it because only collective action or action by people more powerful than you could do anything.
I also have disagreements with the "Nobody wants it to be true..." statement. Much of human discomfort comes from uncertainty regarding bad things happening. Blaming someone, "witches" or whomever, erases that uncertainty. Blaming "the Jews" became an easy way to explain Germany's problems after the First World War. There was a "want" to pass the blame onto someone else so the more appealing narrative, that Germans are a superior race held back by "the Jews", could hold sway. The real trick to understanding "irrational" beliefs is understanding the "want" motivation for believing seemingly irrational things.
Great post again Dan. With paranoia, it can be tricky. I once wrote in an article, as a joke, that it's methodologically speaking unfortunate that we can't surreptitiously record human phone conversations unless we are a government agency. The editor was furious and asked me to remove this "paranoid nonsense". A week later, Snowden happened...
Terrific piece. Tightly integrated with your other terrific pieces painting a coherent well evidence picture. The writing is of exemplary clarity - as usual.
Very interesting essay. In American electoral politics, especially in the presidential race, this strategic paranoia about the opposing candidate and party is (very unfortunately) standard fare by both major parties. But this year seemed to reach new heights; the losing party leaned far too much into the fear-mongering and it notably contributed to their loss.
Your assertion may need reconsideration, and please allow me to explain why.
What *is* true is that the winning side also received celebrity endorsements. Celebrity endorsements being a normal part of our presidential campaigns, regardless of major party.
Additionally, candidate Trump stopping policy questions at a rally relatively late in his campaign to play music and dance for 39 minutes qualifies far and away less as "...coherent messaging...". And he won.
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone lost public office thereby."
- attributed to Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, journalist, satirist, social critic, cynic, and freethinker, known as the "Sage of Baltimore" and the "American Nietzsche"
Trump was ambient policy...nothing that can be nailed down, vague proclamations wherein citizen supporters fill in the blanks with their own perceptions. Per Harris...if a policy statement falls on unhearing ears, did it happen? I'm over it, anyone's opinion is fine with me.
It was fear-mongering. Democratic officials and media pundits casting the Republican Party candidate *and* the Republican voter base as “fascists,” “Nazis,” “Hitler,” etc is not evidence-based. Countless stories - “very fine people”, the Russian collusion, etc - were simply hoaxes. Some of the evidence that it contributed to the loss is the rising disillusionment among Democratic voters (Pew just published a report on this) and in the ever-dwindling public trust and readership of the media outlets (WaPo and MSNBC, for example) that were propagated this garbage.
I am strong critic of Democrats and do not consider myself a supporter of any political party (other than voting), but Republicans being fascists seems evidence-based to myself and many others.
And while I agree Nazis and Hitler are a stretch, they and Republicans now share fascist tendencies.
I am not familiar enough with WaPo and MSNBC election coverage to know if they propagated the Nazi and Hitler notions, or merely reported on it.
I looked up the Pew research you seem to indicate:
"...for the first time since 2016, more Americans say the Republican Party represents the interests of “people like them” very or somewhat well than say this about the Democratic Party (50% vs. 43%)."
Since that is the case, it reasonably follows that the U.S.A. public prefers fascism / strongman / dictatorship, no civil liberties, no free press, no freedoms, persecuting and effectively banning political adversaries, one party rule, leaders who misrepresent reality and or lie far and away more than the average politician, do not care for fiscal responsibility, shift government largesse from the poor to tax cuts for the rich, reducing labor and environmental protections, denying reality and science, exaggerate the danger of other groups to sow fear and so have voters put their trust in Republicans, a relatively non-partisan or at least balanced judiciary, women's reproductive choice, and so forth.
As a result, I may never tire of posting the following:
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone lost public office thereby."
- attributed to Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, journalist, satirist, social critic, cynic, and freethinker, known as the "Sage of Baltimore" and the "American Nietzsche".
My managing director when I worked in finance used to preach about always operating with an "ambient paranoia," which is to say that one should never lose sight of the fact that there are many others vying for your seat (or role/position), and that a healthy dose of paranoia can make you more effective at your job.
Insightful - impressive presentation! Personally, your modeling is what I label “real lived world applicable”, and it “feels personally meaningful” — especially in terms of my passion to “know thyself” ….
Is there a typo in the sentence, "By painting individuals and groups as sinister threats, such narratives do not justify hostility towards them. " Are the words "do not" correct?
If there's a philosophical afterlife, with suitably Elysian internet access, I hope Hume is a subscriber. And Girard, too; I wanted to ask how you see his work fitting with your analysis, and Storr's? (I am sorry if you're regularly asked this, and have answered at length before.)
He pops up all over Substack, it seems. I read 'I see Satan Fall like Lightning', and whether you go with the theological outcome of his insight or not, the insight remains fascinating. It seemed to chime with much of what you wrote (and have written).
Im certain that in particular situations, developing delusions is a survival strategy.
Social delusions are the result of social pressures. Have met several people who left Portland, SF, LA, and other similar places for middle america. Once here, they realize that their beliefs are not what they thought they were while surrounded by an entire city with extreme beliefs.
Groupthink terrifies me. Im susceptible to it, and the internet has amplified its strength. But Ive chosen rationale. The only way to remain rational in a world full of fragile egos is to be perpetually uncertain, and explain everything with Occams Razor. EG: Was there a grand conspiracy to extract federal tax dollars with the vaccine by our government and pharma? No. Government had an incentive to come up with a solution, so they incentivized pharma, and then government officials had an incentive to buy stock in those companies before the vaccines rolled out. The simplest explanation is usually correct.
At one time I was a clinician and found paranoid states (there are quite a few in the nosology/typology) were often very difficult if not impossible to treat. (Possibly of little relevance here but I suspect some of the mechanisms are similar).
Also was formerly a clinician (returned to school in 1985, so it's been a while), and found the same, working for 3 years in largest US prison as a young doc.
Many genetic traits that have been preserved by evolution for making the individual or group more fit, came with some serious baggage.
One of the first big ah-ha moments in my studies was this realization, in the clear context of the protective benefits of sickle cell trait (the heterozygous condition) in preventing death from malaria in malaria endemic parts of Africa (where I worked 14 years), that these benefits from sickle trait were greater than the rather high harm levels of youthful death (80-90%) of the sickle cell disease (the up-to-25%-likely homozygous condition - one 'trait' gene from both parents, when population is saturated with the trait). (Mechanism of protection article: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/204/11/1651/851334, as unrelated aside.)
Just as this author compellingly argues that the intellectual capacity for paranoia has both adaptive and maladaptive elements (thus being a trait that may be genetically stable in populations over time, instead of a fitness 'error'; "a feature not a bug") one might speculate that brilliance or 'genius' is, in some cases, similarly linked to schizophrenia-associated 'creative' genes. So I would like to read a few good studies of this hypothesis... (I expect that schizophrenia is not just a spectrum of states and causes, but closer to a common pathway syndrome of diverse causes, making this study much more difficult until we have good tools to distinguish specific 'schizophrenic' diseases).
Similarly the religiosity that is a hallmark of schizophrenia may well have served a postulated early human collaboration propensity to extend beneficial trust and reciprocity beyond the tribe (on basis of narrative instead of kin? - a transition facilitating key survival traits becoming more cultural instead of merely genetic) more than it harmed it, though religiosity capacity has also done both.
But perhaps a strongly adaptive 'touch' of humanizing schizophrenia in the early pre- sapiens family tree would help explain its rather uniform penetration in human populations all around the world.
Sometimes good things have a high price (and sometimes the best things in life are NOT free).
Certainly agree that as a species we’re a kludge (think that’s the word) of what worked along the way and much of which isn’t always helpful at any different given time or circumstance. Sickling crisis a good example - not seen many here but a few who were spared surgery by a diagnostic screen.
Is there research on the connection of modern paranoia and demonization to religious belief? Either at the societal or individual level. I'm biased by my own views of course, but I find it hard to believe an individual, or a large percentage of individuals, spending their entire lives training to accept what are transparently desert tribal myths from the earliest days of civilization as unquestionable truth doesn't contribute to susceptibility to useful delusions or fears.
I think this is a good piece overall, but I'm not sure about this part: "Nobody wants it to be true that witches are plotting against them or that sinister and secretive Satanic cults threaten their children.". Doesn't believing that your enemies are black-hatted villains make problems seem simpler, and isn't that something people want? Might not monsters be easier problems to solve than the complex, diffuse issues that most people struggle with? I think it might be especially appealing to believe in the maximized evil of things you hate if it leads to believing that the correct course of action is loudmouthism where you decry the problem but aren't obligated to do anything substantive about it because only collective action or action by people more powerful than you could do anything.
I also have disagreements with the "Nobody wants it to be true..." statement. Much of human discomfort comes from uncertainty regarding bad things happening. Blaming someone, "witches" or whomever, erases that uncertainty. Blaming "the Jews" became an easy way to explain Germany's problems after the First World War. There was a "want" to pass the blame onto someone else so the more appealing narrative, that Germans are a superior race held back by "the Jews", could hold sway. The real trick to understanding "irrational" beliefs is understanding the "want" motivation for believing seemingly irrational things.
Great post again Dan. With paranoia, it can be tricky. I once wrote in an article, as a joke, that it's methodologically speaking unfortunate that we can't surreptitiously record human phone conversations unless we are a government agency. The editor was furious and asked me to remove this "paranoid nonsense". A week later, Snowden happened...
Terrific piece. Tightly integrated with your other terrific pieces painting a coherent well evidence picture. The writing is of exemplary clarity - as usual.
Keep up the great work.
Thanks Pete - greatly appreciate it
Very interesting essay. In American electoral politics, especially in the presidential race, this strategic paranoia about the opposing candidate and party is (very unfortunately) standard fare by both major parties. But this year seemed to reach new heights; the losing party leaned far too much into the fear-mongering and it notably contributed to their loss.
Substituting celebrity endorsements for coherent messaging didn't help either.
Your assertion may need reconsideration, and please allow me to explain why.
What *is* true is that the winning side also received celebrity endorsements. Celebrity endorsements being a normal part of our presidential campaigns, regardless of major party.
Additionally, candidate Trump stopping policy questions at a rally relatively late in his campaign to play music and dance for 39 minutes qualifies far and away less as "...coherent messaging...". And he won.
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone lost public office thereby."
- attributed to Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, journalist, satirist, social critic, cynic, and freethinker, known as the "Sage of Baltimore" and the "American Nietzsche"
Trump was ambient policy...nothing that can be nailed down, vague proclamations wherein citizen supporters fill in the blanks with their own perceptions. Per Harris...if a policy statement falls on unhearing ears, did it happen? I'm over it, anyone's opinion is fine with me.
Was it fear-mongering, or valid, evidence-based concern?
Is there empirical evidence for your claim that - even if it does qualify as "fear-mongering" - it notably contributed to their loss?
It was fear-mongering. Democratic officials and media pundits casting the Republican Party candidate *and* the Republican voter base as “fascists,” “Nazis,” “Hitler,” etc is not evidence-based. Countless stories - “very fine people”, the Russian collusion, etc - were simply hoaxes. Some of the evidence that it contributed to the loss is the rising disillusionment among Democratic voters (Pew just published a report on this) and in the ever-dwindling public trust and readership of the media outlets (WaPo and MSNBC, for example) that were propagated this garbage.
You could probably insert "hysterical" in there too.
I am strong critic of Democrats and do not consider myself a supporter of any political party (other than voting), but Republicans being fascists seems evidence-based to myself and many others.
And while I agree Nazis and Hitler are a stretch, they and Republicans now share fascist tendencies.
I am not familiar enough with WaPo and MSNBC election coverage to know if they propagated the Nazi and Hitler notions, or merely reported on it.
I looked up the Pew research you seem to indicate:
"...for the first time since 2016, more Americans say the Republican Party represents the interests of “people like them” very or somewhat well than say this about the Democratic Party (50% vs. 43%)."
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/22/after-trumps-victory-democrats-are-more-pessimistic-about-their-partys-future/
Since that is the case, it reasonably follows that the U.S.A. public prefers fascism / strongman / dictatorship, no civil liberties, no free press, no freedoms, persecuting and effectively banning political adversaries, one party rule, leaders who misrepresent reality and or lie far and away more than the average politician, do not care for fiscal responsibility, shift government largesse from the poor to tax cuts for the rich, reducing labor and environmental protections, denying reality and science, exaggerate the danger of other groups to sow fear and so have voters put their trust in Republicans, a relatively non-partisan or at least balanced judiciary, women's reproductive choice, and so forth.
As a result, I may never tire of posting the following:
"No one in this world has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone lost public office thereby."
- attributed to Henry Louis Mencken, 1880-1956, journalist, satirist, social critic, cynic, and freethinker, known as the "Sage of Baltimore" and the "American Nietzsche".
In Trump’s first term, what policies did he enact that you believe to be fascist?
Your reply seems analogous to asking,
'What makes you believe climate change is anthropogenic?'
I don’t believe these two questions are analogous. I’m just curious which exact policies motivated you to hold this view.
My managing director when I worked in finance used to preach about always operating with an "ambient paranoia," which is to say that one should never lose sight of the fact that there are many others vying for your seat (or role/position), and that a healthy dose of paranoia can make you more effective at your job.
Your column is informative, insightful, and minatory
Insightful - impressive presentation! Personally, your modeling is what I label “real lived world applicable”, and it “feels personally meaningful” — especially in terms of my passion to “know thyself” ….
Is there a typo in the sentence, "By painting individuals and groups as sinister threats, such narratives do not justify hostility towards them. " Are the words "do not" correct?
Yes - thanks for noticing that!
Should we now be paranoid about A.I.?
https://substack.com/profile/12670845-stosh-wychulus/note/c-74651954
If there's a philosophical afterlife, with suitably Elysian internet access, I hope Hume is a subscriber. And Girard, too; I wanted to ask how you see his work fitting with your analysis, and Storr's? (I am sorry if you're regularly asked this, and have answered at length before.)
It's a good question - I just haven't read enough Girard. It's on the list!
He pops up all over Substack, it seems. I read 'I see Satan Fall like Lightning', and whether you go with the theological outcome of his insight or not, the insight remains fascinating. It seemed to chime with much of what you wrote (and have written).
Im certain that in particular situations, developing delusions is a survival strategy.
Social delusions are the result of social pressures. Have met several people who left Portland, SF, LA, and other similar places for middle america. Once here, they realize that their beliefs are not what they thought they were while surrounded by an entire city with extreme beliefs.
Groupthink terrifies me. Im susceptible to it, and the internet has amplified its strength. But Ive chosen rationale. The only way to remain rational in a world full of fragile egos is to be perpetually uncertain, and explain everything with Occams Razor. EG: Was there a grand conspiracy to extract federal tax dollars with the vaccine by our government and pharma? No. Government had an incentive to come up with a solution, so they incentivized pharma, and then government officials had an incentive to buy stock in those companies before the vaccines rolled out. The simplest explanation is usually correct.
At one time I was a clinician and found paranoid states (there are quite a few in the nosology/typology) were often very difficult if not impossible to treat. (Possibly of little relevance here but I suspect some of the mechanisms are similar).
Also was formerly a clinician (returned to school in 1985, so it's been a while), and found the same, working for 3 years in largest US prison as a young doc.
Many genetic traits that have been preserved by evolution for making the individual or group more fit, came with some serious baggage.
One of the first big ah-ha moments in my studies was this realization, in the clear context of the protective benefits of sickle cell trait (the heterozygous condition) in preventing death from malaria in malaria endemic parts of Africa (where I worked 14 years), that these benefits from sickle trait were greater than the rather high harm levels of youthful death (80-90%) of the sickle cell disease (the up-to-25%-likely homozygous condition - one 'trait' gene from both parents, when population is saturated with the trait). (Mechanism of protection article: https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/204/11/1651/851334, as unrelated aside.)
Just as this author compellingly argues that the intellectual capacity for paranoia has both adaptive and maladaptive elements (thus being a trait that may be genetically stable in populations over time, instead of a fitness 'error'; "a feature not a bug") one might speculate that brilliance or 'genius' is, in some cases, similarly linked to schizophrenia-associated 'creative' genes. So I would like to read a few good studies of this hypothesis... (I expect that schizophrenia is not just a spectrum of states and causes, but closer to a common pathway syndrome of diverse causes, making this study much more difficult until we have good tools to distinguish specific 'schizophrenic' diseases).
Similarly the religiosity that is a hallmark of schizophrenia may well have served a postulated early human collaboration propensity to extend beneficial trust and reciprocity beyond the tribe (on basis of narrative instead of kin? - a transition facilitating key survival traits becoming more cultural instead of merely genetic) more than it harmed it, though religiosity capacity has also done both.
But perhaps a strongly adaptive 'touch' of humanizing schizophrenia in the early pre- sapiens family tree would help explain its rather uniform penetration in human populations all around the world.
Sometimes good things have a high price (and sometimes the best things in life are NOT free).
Certainly agree that as a species we’re a kludge (think that’s the word) of what worked along the way and much of which isn’t always helpful at any different given time or circumstance. Sickling crisis a good example - not seen many here but a few who were spared surgery by a diagnostic screen.
Is there research on the connection of modern paranoia and demonization to religious belief? Either at the societal or individual level. I'm biased by my own views of course, but I find it hard to believe an individual, or a large percentage of individuals, spending their entire lives training to accept what are transparently desert tribal myths from the earliest days of civilization as unquestionable truth doesn't contribute to susceptibility to useful delusions or fears.
So paranoia fits into scapegoating in personal and social dimensions. It’s eternal and — apparently — untreatable. Is there no way out?
If JFK was paranoid instead of rational, he would be alive today!
Unlikely
Also, he would not be JFK.
I believe he would still be JFK
It's never too soon for a little paranoia.
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.zy6UweWUiwO_n-hKlihHUAHaHa%26pid%3DApi&f=1&ipt=b3aa6192729ca7256bb8b12f7fef5dda26fb2956e23ea5cfdd6982d223e9e1a9&ipo=images