MAGA Psychology and an Example of Brain Rot

I've been interacting with Trump fanatics for quite some time. In many interactions, I prefer to just let them speak freely without being too critical because I really want to observe their line of reasoning or thinking patterns that lead them to certain conclusions. In this post, I'll describe some of my most recent conversations, highlighting the absurdities.

I'll start with what I perceived to be, a clear example of brain rot. I was recently attending a lunch where everyone at the table was quite radical in their conservatism. However, these were not the types to wave a MAGA flag. They are more subtle in their fanaticism. They are most certainly Trump loyalists. I've never heard anything critical from them about Trump or the new conservative movement more broadly. Inevitably, politics got brought up. We were dining with someone who is in the medical field, and is of Southeast Asian descent. They were asked whether people in the medical profession are "liberal or conservative". These types of questions just fundamentally bother me because they highlight a quite prolific black and white thinking that plagues American politics. Is it not the case that people subscribe to another political philosophy that isn't aligned with American conservatism or liberalism? These words are not clearly defined to any extent and they're not descriptive or representative of the actual chain of thought leading someone to a conclusion that can be labeled as "conservative" or "liberal". Rather, bringing these up in conversation is a way to determine whether some person is aligned with your tribe. They are markers that designate whether there is a common ground, not a well thought out political philosophy that guides how institutions and governance should operate. This is evident in their usage of the term "The Government"; it's personified as some entity that is fundamentally pernicious, not a collection of institutions existing to achieve certain societal goals. The term is used as a synecdoche, reducing it to a monolithic entity that behaves independent of the constituents that fundamentally compose it, rather than perceiving it more broadly in action-oriented terms like Governance. This is what strikes me about these sorts of conversations. A governing body will emerge out of any societal structure; so what we should be talking about are the structures of governance needed to achieve societal goals. Instead, the conversation becomes unnuanced under a facade of sophisticated thinking. Even if we take these terms as useful descriptors of some underlying ideological framework, in the Trump framework, it's just not possible that they could refer to a gradable category. It's also not possible to be more or less liberal/conservative with respect to some question of policy. Rather, the terms are used as absolute demarcations, and are unjustifiably contrasted with one another. They construct a straw man of the contrasted term (in this case, liberalism) and then demonize it. In the context of these sorts of discussions, "conservative" is a short hand way of deciding whether your interlocutor is "in the correct group", if their implicit and often unexamined system of values correlates with the person asking the question. Anyway, this was just the beginning. I decided to stay quite and let the conversation flow rather than interject by calling out the fundamental conceptual errors determining the path of conversation.

The question was answered. Apparently, the medical community is more conservative. I understand the meaning of this differently than the way the message is interpreted by the Trump audience. The medical community likely is conservative in the sense that there are power structures resistant to change. This does not mean that medical practitioners are radical Trump supporters. Perhaps there are segments of the system that are resistant to change and just see the Trump administration as useful for preserving their status. However, rather than discussing this crucial difference, the conversation devolves. Instead of using "conservatism" in its traditional sense normally attributed to Edmund Burke, a philosophy rooted in skepticism of rapid change, respect for tradition, and the belief in organic social development, its used in its modern sense of market fundamentalism. Almost immediately, liberalism is conflated with socialism, socialism is conflated with Marxism, and Marxism is conflated with evil. The medical practitioner says "the community is typically more conservative because many of them are business owners who don't want to pay taxes". Then, he says that "socialized medicine doesn't work anyway, look what happened under Communism, it just doesn't work". There is so much to unpack here. Obviously, reform to the healthcare system does not imply a "socialized" system, whatever that may mean. This is just a manifestation of black or white thinking; its either a fully privatized market based solution or socialism (whatever that means). Again, given the level of generality in which these conversations operate and the frivolous ways in which these emotive terms are used, its hard to have a productive conversation. However, from the perspective of a Trump supporter, this conversation is incredibly productive; it reaffirms the dominant narrative that "anything to the Left is Evil" . By rapid firing emotively charged thought terminating words and phrases, the conversation is simply devoid of any meaningful thought. Emotive words like these have implicit arguments embedded within them. Douglas Walton, a philosopher known for his work on argumentation theory, discusses the argumentative use of emotive language as a way in which language is strategically used to persuade by appealing to emotions rather than relying solely on logic or evidence. The choice of words frames an issue in a way that predisposes an audience to accept or reject an argument. For example: "Tax relief" (implying that taxes are a burden) versus "public investment" (implying benefits). Walton emphasizes that in real-world argumentation, speakers often use emotive language to shift burdens of proof, gain rhetorical advantage, or obscure weak arguments. This is precisely what we have here; a Gish Gallop of weak implicit arguments using undefined terms that are conceptually devoid of any meaning, other than its specific contextual usage of avoiding critical thinking. Since Liberalism = Socialism = Marxism = Evil, we simply don't need to understand, investigate, or interrogate the claim "socialized medicine never works".

Presumably, there are a plethora of instances of "socialized medicine" a society can choose to instantiate. Each of which can be configured, designed, or funded differently to meet the needs of the population. By saying "socialized medicine never works, just look at Communist Russia", the person is arguing that every possible instantiation of socialized medicine in principle "wont work" by referring to one historical case, of which no evidence is presented as to whether that system "worked". Absolutely no reasons are given to support the implicit assertion that "in principle" the entire set of instances of this type, is unworkable. The MAGA person does not want to interrogate this line of inquiry. By even posing the question, you are deemed suspect, are apart of the opposing tribe; which means your thought is wrong by default. At this point in the conversation, no one seems interested in engaging in rigorous thought, rather they are only interested in confirming their preexisting world view. The line of reasoning goes like this: "Smart doctor says government bad, therefore I am right". From my perspective, I am waiting for someone to say something that actually has meaningful content. Perhaps we can focus on the "work" part of "socialized medicine does not work". What could this possibly mean in the mind of a Trump supporter? After all, we are comparing systems and evaluating their effectiveness on multiple dimensions. Is a market fundamentalist approach preferred because on the entire vector of possible dimensions, it performs better than socialized medicine? Do we only care about a subset of these possible measures, and does the fundamentalist approach out perform socialized medicine with respect to these? We are talking about system performance, so presumably someone should mention at least one key indicator we can use to anchor the discussion. If I say something "does not work", I should specify what aspects of that system are non-performant relative to some preferred alternative, and relative to some criteria. Eventually, someone says "Yeah the wait times in Canada are outrageous". Finally, something we can work with. But again, the conversation stays at an incredibly high level, where nuance and analysis are crowded out in favor of herd consensus. In my mind, I am asking "wait times on average? wait times for all possible procedures? wait times for certain very important procedures? What are the causes? Is it due to limited capacity? Are there funding constraints? Are these factors unique to the Canadian system or are they fundamental to all socialized systems? Despite these issues, was the Canadian system worse prior to switching to this system?". After all, if a system was indeed worse on all dimensions, it would probably be more obvious. Of course, no one poses any of these questions. With respect to one vague measure, Canadian health care performs less effectively than its American counterpart. Even if I grant that, does this mean "socialized medicine does not work"? Perhaps the Canadian system outperforms the US on quality of care, cost effectiveness, healthcare outcomes, public health impact, equity, coverage, resilience, disaster recovery, disaster preparedness, fault tolerance, and accessibility; we will simply never know unless we analyze the words "good" and "works". Between these two countries, its not obvious what type of system achieves its goals more effectively. Perhaps we value cost effectiveness more than faster wait times, because we can have some other government program focused on preventative care, reducing the need for health services; meaning that limited capacity wouldn't be an issue because there is not high demand. This type of systems thinking simply alludes the Trump psychology. Also, why limit the scope to Canada? Systems like those in Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia rank high due to universal coverage with shorter wait times than Canada and lower costs than the U.S. Wouldn't these be examples of "socialized medicine" working? Overall, Canadian public health outranks the US on life expectancy, infant mortality rate, obesity rate, preventable deaths, and healthcare spending per capita; would these be indications of a deteriorating US medical system? Of course, the US performs better on a variety of metrics, such as specialty care and high-end treatments. But this also depends on whether the person has insurance that will cover it and affordability. Should we prefer a system where specialty care outranks every other country, but only a select few citizens could have access to that specialty care? Across the board, Canadian prescription drugs are cheaper than those provided in the US; would you prefer having access to a system that has cheaper prescription drugs but worse specialty care? None of these questions are asked. The conversation could have incredible depth. Perhaps we could even discover a novel solution. But no, critical thinking is suppressed in the mind of a MAGA enthusiast. As the conversation progressed, I eventually tuned everyone out just thinking of all this. At some point, the conversation derailed further when Stalin was brought up and how he was worse than Hitler. It's funny that a conversation about healthcare devolves into Red Scare and borderline fascist apologetics.

I eventually tuned back in when I heard Russia brought up, and how it's doing great under Putin. Right-wing populists romanticize the Putin regime, among other authoritarians like Viktor Orban's Hungary. They see these places as conservative havens that promote "traditional values", free from any "Leftist" influences. Of course, not all conservatives think this. Many of the right-wing populists who subscribe to media outlets like Epoch Times or The Daily Wire tend to take these pseudo-contrarian positions. If "the Left" supports Ukraine, and anything the left does is by definition Evil, then given a black or white world view, they will support Russia, finding rationalizations in their echo-chamber. It's quite amazing to me how bad media literacy is among Trump supporters. They latch on to anti-woke media personalities and accept everything they have to say as gospel. Thankfully the conversation hit a dead end at this point. It was at this moment when someone engaged me in the conversation. I was asked if I was a "Liberal or Conservative". Obviously, I wanted to give an answer that didn't pigeonhole me into the demonized "liberal" category, while also being somewhat descriptive on how I approach the these questions of policy. I am trained as an economist and am well read in the history of economic thought and political philosophy so obviously this left-right framework doesn't quite map on to my understanding of things. How can I possibly explain that I reject market fundamentalism because I am familiar with the assumptions behind neoclassical economic models and Austrian economics, without someone assuming I am a Marxist? How can I possibly describe in a few sentences that modern conservatives and liberals share many assumptions in common originating from the Thatcher and Reagan era that I reject, when they conceive of the political landscape as "good versus evil" between two parties? How am I to explain that my opinions are primarily determined by econometric literature, the quality of economic models, and philosophical texts, to an audience who is completely unfamiliar with all of this, anti-intellectual, and skeptical of established knowledge? How am I supposed to explain that some of the wisdom from classical conservative writings resonate with me, but the anarcho-capitalistic austerity policies held by modern conservatives across the world, and the subsequent policy opinions, is the complete antithesis of what I hold to be established economic knowledge? They probably wouldn't have ever heard of those terms. I answered with this: "Some of what the liberals say resonates with me, some of what the conservatives say resonates with me, but neither of the parties sufficiently represent what I think about these things, and I've not encountered a politician worth endorsing.". I have no party loyalty. I am not a moderate. My opinions are formed quite differently than Trump loyalists. If you think about it as a Venn Diagram, maybe 5% of the policy stances held by republicans I somewhat agree with, and maybe 15% of the policy stances held by Democrats I somewhat agree with, but that leaves about 80% completely unrepresented. In terms of presidential candidates, there never is an optimal choice. I approach it via negativa, or through eliminative reasoning, or negative heuristic reasoning, such that I eliminate the obviously bad ones; obviously it would be Trump in this case. But what happens when I explain this nuance? Boredom, misunderstanding, confusion, etc. Almost somewhat of a disappointment, since I am close with these people. The conversation almost immediately shifts once they realize you're not in their camp.

In the context of political discourse like this, "brain rot" is a slang term used to describe the perceived decline in someone's ability to think critically, often due to excessive exposure to partisan media, propaganda, or low-quality online discussions. It refers to a state where a person's opinions become increasingly extreme, reactionary, or detached from reality due to ideological echo chambers, misinformation, or unhealthy media consumption habits. I am fairly certain that this conversation is the result of constant engagement with oversimplified or misleading political memes that replace critical engagement with complex issues, exposure to conspiracy theories (deep state narratives) that warp political views into paranoia, and engagement with figures who profit from outrage-driven content manipulate audiences into extreme positions. This entire conversation is a great example of treating politics like a sports team rivalry rather than a discussion of policies, overreliance on talking points from a single ideological source, and a compete absence of engagement with opposing viewpoints that haven't been filtered through the conservative news machine. It's sad to say, but there is a religious element to this. In prior conversations, I've seen people from religious communities prioritize faith-based narratives over evidence (e.g., vaccine conspiracies, claims that certain politicians are literal demons). Many of these conspiracy theories (QAnon, globalist cabals, "Satanic elites") borrow from religious apocalyptic storytelling which resonates with many right wing populists. I've seen people of this demographic align political developments with end-times prophecy, leading to paranoia and disengagement from real-world solutions; for example, a Biden reelection would indicate the end times. The most obvious issue is that religious identity is becoming entangled with nationalism; political loyalty is framed as a religious duty. I've literally heard people suggest that you "Cannot be a Christian and a Democrat". The irony is that right wing populists were "sick of the identity politics" but fail to acknowledge the powerful role of religious identity in political campaigning. Identity politics has completely consumed this new conservative movement. Hence, the pernicious brain rot that's overtaking any reasonable political discourse.

This leads me to my last section. Obviously, not everyone who identifies as a right wing populist or resonates with them, is as zealous as them. However, I still have some serious concerns with this demographic, such that it warrants critical investigation. I have a friend who I will keep anonymous. He and I actually get along quite well; we share a sense of humor, like the same activities, and have had fun times together. It's just that, sometimes when we get to discussing things, I just cant quite wrap my head around some of the ridiculous shit he says. Over the course of a few years, I decided to take notes when something really stands out. I think this is a useful case study to understand the mind of the more sophisticated MAGA mind:

The Over-Reliance on Jordan Peterson and the Ignoring of Broader Psychological Research

This person is obsessed with Jordan Peterson, much like many right-wing individuals who self-identify as libertarians. However, he ignores psychological research that contradicts Peterson’s views, focusing on one academic while disregarding the broader research community. His admiration for Peterson is not necessarily rooted in a commitment to intellectual rigor, but rather in anti-establishment sentiment. Jordan Peterson, a clinical psychologist and former professor, became famous for his criticisms of political correctness, gender identity laws, and postmodernism, as well as for his self-help philosophy rooted in Jungian psychology and conservative traditionalism. His appeal to figures like my friend likely stems from:

His framing of personal responsibility as the solution to societal and psychological problems.
His opposition to left-wing ideologies, which makes him a key figure in right-wing intellectual circles.
His use of scientific and psychological language to validate conservative beliefs, even when his interpretations conflict with mainstream psychological research.

A key issue with my friend’s obsession with Peterson is that it demonstrates intellectual inconsistency. If he were genuinely committed to psychology as a field, he would engage with a wide range of psychological literature, not just that which aligns with Peterson’s ideology. This is a consistent theme I've noticed; selective engagement with psychological research. If he believes in intellectual curiosity, why doesn’t he engage with cognitive science, behavioral neuroscience, or social psychology research that contradicts Peterson’s claims? If he values psychology as a science, why does he only engage with Peterson’s work while ignoring research that challenges it?

Beyond psychology, Peterson’s anti-establishment stance makes him attractive to figures like my friend, who may see him as a defender of free speech, masculinity, and traditional values. Some of his anti-leftist resistance comes in his critique of postmodernism and Marxism, which resonates with conservatives, despite many of his claims being based on misrepresentations of these philosophies. Furthermore, I am fairly certain Peterson and many conservatives have never actually engaged with these texts. Petersons attacks on academia as a "leftist indoctrination camp" align with right-wing populist narratives. This aligns with my friends ideology, as he is against his daughter attending university and has made numerous backhanded comments about college being indoctrination. Peterson has a tendency to overgeneralize from individual psychology to entire societal structures, which is a logical leap not supported by data, but very appealing to someone needing simple answers.

While Peterson is a psychologist, his views are not representative of the entire field. I've somewhat belabored this point in another post. If my friend were genuinely interested in psychology, he would explore topics like social psychology and systemic factors, the biopsychosocial model, the interplay between neurobiology and psychiatric methods like cognitive-behavioral therapy etc. Instead, he latches on to one individual whose views are politically charged, taking his views as gospel. My friend’s idolization of Peterson is part of a larger problem of intellectual tribalism, where people attach themselves to one thinker instead of engaging with the broader academic landscape. Cherry-picking one authority (who is often cherry picking the data himself) while ignoring others leads to intellectual stagnation. This produces this annoying illusion of intellectual depth. Many Peterson followers, including my friend, believe they are engaging in deep intellectual thought by consuming his content. However, true intellectual depth requires engaging with opposing views, reading primary research, and challenging one's own biases. His intense admiration for Peterson is not driven by a genuine commitment to psychology but rather by ideological alignment and anti-establishment sentiment. If he truly values psychology, intellectual honesty, and evidence-based thinking, he should engage with the full spectrum of psychological research rather than relying on Peterson as his sole intellectual authority.

Misrepresenting Depression as a Personal Choice and the Just World Bias

My friend believes that depression can be cured through self-means, such as prayer and personal willpower, which ignores the neurobiological and environmental components of mental illness. This oversimplification reduces depression to a matter of personal choice, reflecting Just World Bias—the cognitive distortion that assumes people’s circumstances are purely the result of their own actions rather than external factors. Obviously, this perspective oversimplifies depression, reducing it to a purely psychological or spiritual failing rather than recognizing its biological, social, and environmental causes. Scientific research overwhelmingly supports that depression is rooted in brain function rather than being a simple matter of attitude or willpower. Some key biological contributors include neurotransmitter imbalances such as a dysregulation of serotonin/dopamine, brain structure/function including increased amygdala activity, and genetic factors. I agree that prayer and spirituality can provide comfort and coping mechanisms, but external environmental factors are major contributors to depression. Traumatic childhood experiences, chronic illness, or economic factors all fall in this category. Evidence-based treatments for depression do not align with this mind-over-matter philosophy unless you're reading explicitly from a Christian apologist. SSRIs and cognitive behavior therapy are known treatment methods that he seems to ignore. So he likely accepts the role of medical treatment in physical illnesses (e.g., diabetes requiring insulin), yet denies biological interventions for mental health, despite both being physiological conditions. This is probably due to a ridiculous theory of mind like dualism required for Christian believers.

Holding the belief that depression is a personal failure or choice is an example of the Just World Bias—the cognitive tendency to believe that people "deserve" their circumstances. I constantly see this among the conservative community, particularly Protestants. The Just World Hypothesis (Lerner, 1980) describes how people prefer to see the world as fair, where good actions lead to rewards and bad actions lead to suffering. This bias leads to victim-blaming in mental illness, assuming that people suffering from depression must have caused their own distress through poor decisions or lack of faith. It allows individuals like my friend to maintain the illusion of control over mental health, falsely believing that those who suffer simply aren’t trying hard enough. His advocacy for prayer as a solution is problematic not because spirituality has no value, but because it overshadows medical and psychological interventions. While prayer can be beneficial for the believer, prayer is not the cause of better mental health outcomes. Religious people tend to have lower rates of depression, but its attributable to social support structures, not the prayer itself. People who engage in faith communities benefit from social connection, but this does not mean prayer alone is a cure. Such a simple confusion between correlation and causation that he completely disregards in favor of his ideological justification.

This connects to the last section; cherry picking scientific research to confirm his world view. Furthermore, it bothers me because it leads to victim blaming. This "pull yourself up by your bootstrap" mentality is very persistent among right wing populists.

Psilocybin, Cognitive Liberty, and Libertarian Hypocrisy

My friend opposes psilocybin use because it “alters the mind,” yet claims to uphold a libertarian political philosophy, which emphasizes individual autonomy, minimal government interference, and personal freedom. His stance on psilocybin contradicts libertarian principles, as it restricts individual choice based on moralistic reasoning rather than evidence-based harm reduction. Among self-labeled libertarians who are market fundamentalists, I consistently see "Freedom for Me, not for Thee". I want to be able to run my business however I want, including discrimination, but you cannot do XYZ in your personal time. "Altering the mind" is just a ridiculous reason anyway. If he opposes psilocybin because it “alters the mind,” does he also oppose alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, or prescription medications, all of which alter mental states?

A core tenet of libertarian ideology is that individuals should be free to make their own lifestyle choices as long as they do not harm others. Cognitive liberty is a fundamental principle of bodily autonomy, meaning individuals have the right to control their own minds and experiences. Famous libertarian thinkers, such as Milton Friedman and John Stuart Mill, have argued that government should not interfere with personal drug use unless it causes harm to others. By opposing psilocybin, he is taking a position more aligned with authoritarian drug policies rather than libertarian freedom. This selective moralization over which substances are acceptable mimics the same government overreach that libertarians criticize. If he believes the government should not interfere with people’s diets, firearms, or religious beliefs, why should it regulate harmless psychedelic substances?

The opposition of psilocybin resembles conservative moral panic, not libertarianism. Furthermore, his position is not evidence based. Leading scientific institutions support psilocybin research, why wouldn't this, along with an espoused libertarian political philosophy, be enough to at least be neutral on the question of policy? Well, like I mentioned earlier, he is skeptical of institutions of higher education. These are indoctrination mills according to him; unless a rogue intellectual like Peterson who is aligned with them politically, supports it. Libertarians would probably support a free market solution to the use of psychedelics; seems interesting that this isn't on the table for him. But again, freedom for me, not for thee. If he values freedom of thought, he should support cognitive liberty, even if he doesn’t personally use psilocybin. His moral discomfort does not justify restricting others’ choices.

The Carnivore Diet, Political Bias, and the Lack of Scientific Support

My friend believes the carnivore diet is the ultimate solution for health, largely due to ad-hoc explanations from right-wing media figures like Jordan Peterson. This belief reflects the politicization of diet rather than scientific evidence, as there are no conclusive studies proving long-term benefits of the carnivore diet. His stance exemplifies ideological bias rather than a genuine evidence-based approach to nutrition. Many of the alleged health benefits are anecdotal, and scientific research does not support the diet’s long-term safety or superiority over other balanced diets. Unlike well-researched diets such as the Mediterranean diet, DASH diet, or plant-based diets, the carnivore diet has no long-term peer-reviewed studies supporting its benefits. Instead, it raises several health concerns including:

Nutritional deficiencies like lack of fiber, leading to poor gut microbiome
vitamin and mineral deficiencies such as potassium and vitamin C.
Heart disease, since eating a ton of saturated fats is not good
Kidney disease, because massive protein intake can overload kidneys
High uric acid levels

Why trust anecdotes over warnings from medical institutions about excessive red meat consumption? This belief in the carnivore diet isn’t just a health decision—it’s a politically motivated stance. The right-wing media ecosystem has turned dietary choices into ideological battles, promoting meat consumption as a symbol of masculinity, self-sufficiency, and defiance against liberal environmentalism. Guys like Peterson and Rogan promote carnivore as a rejection of “liberal” food trends like plant-based eating. These views are prolific among right wing echo chambers. "Story Telling" in the form of anecdotes, intertwined with anti-establishment sentiments, simply take precedence over things like peer review, evidence based research, systematic data collection, and controlled studies. Conservative media outlets frequently contrast carnivore diet and plant based eating as "masculine" vs "feminine" or "woke".

This conclusion that he draws, is likely originating from the consumption of content from sources that reinforce his existing beliefs. Right wing influences repeat the same unproven claims, creating an illusion of credibility. Its much easier to subscribe to an ideological framework that rejects nuance in favor of absolute, simplistic narratives. Ignoring decades of nutritional science because of anti-establishment nonsense and politically aligning with conservatives on the topic of diet reflects someone caught up in culture war bullshit, not a thinker to be taken serious.

The Conflation of Philosophy and Business Strategy

My friend has a persistent tendency to conflate “philosophy” with “business strategy,” often framing his strategic decision-making process as deep philosophical inquiry. He frequently describes his approach to problem-solving in business as “philosophical pondering,” yet in reality, what he’s engaging in is the pragmatic evaluation of alternative strategies within a commercial framework. This mischaracterization not only inflates the intellectual weight of his analysis but also distorts the nature of what philosophy actually is.

Philosophy, at its core, is concerned with fundamental questions about existence, ethics, knowledge, and the nature of reality. It is an abstract and disciplined inquiry into concepts that often transcend immediate practical applications. Business strategy, on the other hand, is rooted in goal-oriented thinking, it involves weighing market conditions, competitive landscapes, risk assessments, and operational efficiencies to determine the best course of action. While strategic thinking can certainly benefit from philosophical frameworks, such as ethics in decision-making or epistemological considerations in data analysis, most of what my friend labels as “philosophy” is merely an iterative process of optimizing business outcomes.

What’s frustrating is that this conflation seems to serve as a form of self-aggrandizement, whether intentional or not. By labeling his considerations as “philosophical,” he positions himself as a thinker of profound depth when, in reality, he’s engaging in the standard processes that any competent strategist, entrepreneur, or executive must undertake. This rhetorical inflation often leads to conversations that feel needlessly convoluted, where he presents standard business dilemmas as if they are grand metaphysical conundrums, expecting a level of discourse that isn’t warranted by the subject matter.

This habit not only misrepresents what philosophy is but also dilutes the clarity of discussions on actual business strategy. Instead of focusing on actionable insights, he gets caught up in unnecessary abstraction, making it harder to distinguish meaningful strategic thinking from self-indulgent theorizing. If he were to acknowledge this distinction and engage more directly with business strategy as a discipline in its own right, our discussions would be much more productive and less encumbered by misplaced intellectual posturing.

The Selective Approach to Cognitive Biases: Exploitation vs. Understanding

My friend frequently discusses the concept of cognitive bias. One in particular stood out: consistency bias—the tendency for people to remain aligned with their past statements and behaviors, even when doing so is no longer rational. He was talking about exploiting this as a tool for persuasion in sales. His focus on how this bias can be exploited rather than how it can be understood and mitigated is something I find troubling. Instead of arming people with knowledge to defend against cognitive vulnerabilities, he seems more interested in leveraging these psychological mechanisms for financial or persuasive gain. This perspective comes across as inherently predatory, reinforcing the idea that business success justifies psychological manipulation.

What’s particularly frustrating is that while he appears highly aware of how cognitive biases can be used to influence purchasing decisions, he is simultaneously dismissive—or outright ignorant—of the extensive body of cognitive psychology research that explains how these same biases contribute to religious belief and broader forms of manipulation. It’s as if he’s willing to acknowledge these psychological principles when they serve his interests but refuses to engage with them when they challenge his worldview.

Cognitive biases are well-documented in psychology, with consistency bias being just one among many that influence human behavior. There is a clear ethical distinction between understanding these biases to help people make more informed choices and exploiting them to manipulate behavior for profit. Businesses, advertisers, and salespeople have long capitalized on biases like scarcity effect, social proof, and commitment bias to drive conversions. However, just because these tools exist does not mean their use is morally justified—especially when consumers are largely unaware of how they are being influenced.

If my friend’s stance were truly about effective communication or behavioral economics, he could approach the topic from a more neutral perspective, analyzing both how people can guard against manipulation and how businesses might apply these principles responsibly. Instead, his discussions often seem devoid of ethical consideration, presenting bias exploitation as a strategic advantage rather than a problematic practice.

What makes his selective application of cognitive psychology even more frustrating is his apparent unwillingness to acknowledge how these same biases contribute to religious belief formation, groupthink, and ideological adherence. The psychology behind commitment bias, authority bias, social reinforcement, and cognitive dissonance plays a massive role in religious devotion and faith-based belief systems. There is a wealth of research demonstrating how religious institutions—consciously or not—exploit these biases to maintain authority and reinforce faith. Yet, despite his enthusiasm for using cognitive psychology in sales, he seems either uninterested or outright dismissive of how these same mechanisms apply to religious indoctrination and manipulation.

This inconsistency suggests either a cognitive blind spot or a willful avoidance of inconvenient truths. Perhaps he does not want to acknowledge that some of the psychological mechanisms he uses for persuasion in business are the same ones that sustain religious and ideological structures he may be more sympathetic to. Or maybe he simply has not examined the research deeply enough to see the parallel. Either way, it reveals a significant gap in his intellectual honesty—one that makes it difficult to take his insights as fully developed or ethically sound.

If my friend were to take a more holistic approach, he would recognize that cognitive biases are not just tools for exploitation but also vulnerabilities that can be protected against. Ethical engagement with psychology should prioritize helping individuals recognize and counteract manipulation, whether in sales, religion, or any other domain where influence is exerted. Until he acknowledges this, his perspective feels less like a well-reasoned understanding of human behavior and more like a strategic justification for manipulation when it suits him—all while ignoring its implications when it does not.

Morality and Religious Justification

My friend has made the claim that he “would have no morals if he wasn’t a Christian.” On its own, this statement is ignorant because it assumes that morality is exclusively derived from religious belief, ignoring the vast body of ethical philosophy, psychological research, and sociocultural development that demonstrates the existence of secular and innate moral frameworks. However, beyond the philosophical flaw in this assertion, what makes it even more troubling is its inconsistency—especially when viewed in the context of his own behavior, which at times fails to align with the moral values he claims his faith provides. Given some of his past actions (referenced above), one could reasonably argue that his adherence to Christianity has not necessarily made him a more moral person, and that, in fact, he might even be more ethical if he weren’t bound by such a rigid, externalized system of morality.

The idea that morality is dependent on religion—and Christianity in particular—is a widely debunked assumption. There is overwhelming evidence from moral psychology and anthropology that ethical behavior is not exclusively tied to religious faith. Studies on moral development in children show that concepts of fairness, empathy, and harm avoidance emerge long before religious indoctrination takes place. Societies with high levels of secularism (such as Scandinavian countries) often exhibit lower crime rates, stronger social safety nets, and higher levels of overall well-being, suggesting that morality is not contingent on belief in a deity.

Additionally, many of the core ethical principles found in Christianity—such as compassion, honesty, and justice—are present in nearly every major religious and secular moral framework. This suggests that morality is not the exclusive domain of Christianity but rather a product of human reasoning, evolutionary cooperation, and societal norms. My friend’s assertion that he would have “no morals” without Christianity not only reflects a lack of understanding of moral philosophy but also undermines his own agency in choosing ethical behavior.

What makes his claim even more frustrating is that it does not appear to hold up under scrutiny when compared to his own actions. If Christianity is what keeps him moral, then why does he engage in behavior that contradicts those moral teachings? If his religious faith is his primary moral compass, then either his moral framework is failing to function effectively or he is using Christianity as a rhetorical shield rather than a genuine moral guide. It’s worth considering the possibility that my friend’s moral decisions are not actually the result of his faith, but rather his own personal inclinations, which he then retroactively justifies through religion. In other words, he may be engaging in the same behaviors he would regardless of his belief system, but Christianity provides a convenient narrative through which he can either claim moral superiority when it suits him or seek absolution when he fails to meet ethical standards.

Ironically, there’s a case to be made that he might be a more ethical person if he weren’t a Christian. Many religious moral systems, including Christianity, place a heavy emphasis on external accountability (i.e., divine judgment, heaven and hell) rather than internal moral reasoning. This can sometimes lead to a mindset where Moral behavior is motivated by fear of punishment rather than genuine ethical reflection, Actions are deemed right or wrong based on religious doctrine rather than rational ethical analysis, and moral failings are easily excused through repentance rather than true accountability. Without Christianity as a framework, he might have to engage in more critical moral reasoning, relying on ethical principles rooted in logic, empathy, and humanistic values rather than dogma. Instead of following rules dictated by scripture, he would be responsible for evaluating the impact of his actions on others in a more thoughtful and nuanced way.

Contradictions in his Approach to Science and Rationality

My friend presents himself as someone who values science and rationality, often invoking psychological literature to support his arguments—particularly when discussing personality, behavior, and sales techniques. However, his reliance on the Enneagram as a legitimate framework for personality analysis completely undermines his supposed commitment to scientific rigor. The Enneagram is widely recognized as pseudoscience, dismissed by personality psychologists due to its lack of empirical validity, poor test-retest reliability, and reliance on vague, unverifiable claims. Despite this, he continues to use it, not only to explain human behavior but also as a justification for manipulative sales tactics, showing a glaring double standard in his approach to psychological science.

The irony is inescapable: he is quick to exploit cognitive biases when it benefits him, yet he fails to acknowledge that his belief in the Enneagram is itself a product of one of the most well-documented cognitive biases—the Barnum effect. This is the tendency for people to believe vague, general descriptions apply specifically to them, a principle behind the widespread appeal of astrology, Myers-Briggs, and other unfounded personality typing systems. My friend prides himself on his use of “scientific literature” when it suits him, but his selective skepticism allows him to embrace pseudoscientific personality models while rejecting far more rigorously tested scientific theories.

One of the main reasons my friend refuses to question the Enneagram’s legitimacy is its deep connection to evangelical Christian circles. Its popularity within these groups is largely due to figures like Franciscan Fr. Richard Rohr, who helped frame the Enneagram as a spiritual tool rather than a scientific one. Evangelicals disregard its empirical failings because they approach it from a faith-based perspective, seeing it as a means of self-discovery and personal growth. However, just because something is personally meaningful does not mean it is scientifically valid. Even a cursory review of scientific literature would reveal that the Enneagram is not supported by modern personality psychology. Unlike the Big Five personality model, which is based on decades of cross-cultural research and has high predictive validity, the Enneagram is riddled with methodological flaws, lacks any genetic or neurological basis, and fails to hold up under controlled scientific scrutiny. It is a fad, fueled by anecdotal testimonials rather than rigorous scientific validation.

That said, psychology itself is not immune to scientific scrutiny and crisis. My friend often references “psychometric literature” and cognitive biases as if they are universally reliable, yet he never acknowledges the replication crisis that has plagued psychology as a discipline. Many psychological studies, particularly those in social psychology and personality research, have failed to replicate under controlled conditions, calling their validity into question. I sincerely doubt whether he knows the methods of psychometrics to a sufficient degree to meaningfully scrutinize the results. Rather than citing replicable, well-established findings from psychology’s “cognitive revolution”, he cherry-picks questionable sources that he likely does not fully understand. If he were genuinely committed to scientific accuracy, he would prioritize studies with strong experimental rigor and high reproducibility—but instead, he blindly references psychological concepts when they support his arguments, while ignoring psychology’s own epistemological shortcomings.

The most overwhelming inconsistency in my friend’s approach to rationality is his selective skepticism regarding different scientific disciplines. He is “skeptical” of the age of the earth and evolution, despite overwhelming geological, biological, and astronomical evidence supporting them. Yet, he has no problem uncritically accepting unverified, pseudoscientific ideas from psychology and economics (such as market fundamentalism or trickle down economics). This pattern is not unique to him—it is a broader trend among right-wing conservative circles, where scientific skepticism is strategically applied. Many conservatives reject theories from the physical and biological sciences (such as evolution and climate change) because they conflict with their ideological or religious beliefs, yet they readily embrace economic theories and psychological pseudoscience, which lack the empirical rigor of hard sciences but conveniently align with their worldview.

Theories from physics, chemistry, and evolutionary biology are based on repeatable experiments, mathematical modeling, and decades (if not centuries) of accumulated evidence. Meanwhile, theories from economics, personality psychology, and sales strategies are far more speculative, highly influenced by cultural trends, and often plagued by methodological weaknesses. Despite this, my friend is far more willing to accept shaky psychological models and economic dogma than he is to acknowledge the vast body of evidence supporting well-established scientific theories.

At its core, my friend’s approach to science and rationality is deeply inconsistent and self-serving. He presents himself as scientifically minded, yet his cherry-picking of disciplines and sources reveals that he is less concerned with truth than he is with preserving his ideological biases. He readily exploits cognitive biases in others while failing to recognize his own susceptibility to them. He rejects rigorously tested scientific theories while embracing unverified, faith-driven psychological fads. And most frustratingly, he wields “science” as a rhetorical weapon when it benefits him, but discards it the moment it conflicts with his preconceived beliefs. If he were truly committed to rationality, he would apply the same level of skepticism to his own beliefs as he does to others'. Until then, his claim to be scientifically literate is nothing more than a performance of selective skepticism, dictated by ideology rather than evidence.

The Enneagram as a Just-So Story: The Misuse of a Pseudoscientific Framework

My friend frequently relies on the Enneagram as an explanatory model for human behavior, economic outcomes, decision-making, and personal choices. However, this reliance is not only scientifically flawed—it also falls into the category of a “just-so story”: a narrative that retroactively explains observed phenomena without any real predictive or falsifiable basis. The Enneagram, despite its widespread popularity in certain circles, particularly among evangelicals, lacks empirical support and functions primarily as a tool of subjective interpretation rather than a scientifically grounded theory.

A just-so story is an unverifiable narrative that explains an observed phenomenon in a way that seems plausible but is not scientifically testable. The term originates from Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories, a collection of fictional tales explaining the origins of various animals’ traits in imaginative, ad hoc ways (e.g., "The Elephant Got Its Trunk Because It Was Pulled by a Crocodile"). In the realm of psychology and social sciences, just-so stories often emerge when people attempt to explain complex behaviors using simplistic, retrofitted explanations that lack empirical validation. The Enneagram fits this description perfectly. It classifies people into nine broad personality types, each with its own motivations, fears, and behavioral tendencies. However, these categories are not derived from scientific study but rather from speculative, quasi-mystical traditions. While they may feel intuitively true, they fail to provide any predictive power—instead, they offer post hoc rationalizations for behavior that could just as easily be explained through other frameworks.

Despite its modern popularity, the Enneagram has been widely dismissed by personality researchers due to its lack of empirical support and methodological rigor. Unlike the Big Five Personality Model, which is based on decades of cross-cultural psychological research and supported by genetic, neurological, and behavioral evidence, the Enneagram is rooted in esoteric traditions, anecdotal evidence, and vague, overlapping personality descriptors. A major flaw of the Enneagram is its poor test-retest reliability—when individuals take the test multiple times, they often receive different results, which contradicts the idea that these personality types represent stable, measurable traits. Additionally, the Enneagram suffers from the Barnum effect, meaning its descriptions are so general and universally relatable that people project their own experiences onto them, making them appear accurate when they are not. One of the most frustrating aspects of my friend’s reliance on the Enneagram is his tendency to use it as a totalizing framework—applying it not just to personality, but also to economic behavior, life choices, and decision-making patterns. This is problematic for several reasons:

Post Hoc Rationalization Instead of Prediction: My friend frequently applies the Enneagram retroactively to explain why people succeed or fail in business, why certain economic patterns emerge, or why individuals make specific life choices. But this is the exact problem with just-so stories: they do not predict outcomes—they only rationalize them after the fact. If the Enneagram had actual predictive power, it would be able to forecast behavior in a way that is empirically testable—but it does not.
Ignoring More Scientifically Grounded Explanations: There are well-established economic, psychological, and sociological models that explain human behavior far better than the Enneagram. Concepts like risk tolerance, cognitive biases, game theory, socioeconomic background, and education levels all have demonstrable impacts on decision-making. Instead of relying on these robust frameworks, my friend reduces complex, multi-variable interactions down to a simplistic personality label, which is both misleading and intellectually lazy.
The Appeal to Evangelical Trends Over Empirical Research: A major reason for the Enneagram’s enduring popularity among certain religious communities, including evangelicals, is not because it has scientific merit but because it has been framed as a spiritual tool. Figures like Richard Rohr have repackaged it in a way that aligns with Christian self-improvement narratives, making it more palatable to faith-based audiences than scientifically rigorous models like the Big Five. My friend’s reliance on it is likely influenced more by its popularity in evangelical culture than by any serious engagement with personality psychology.

What makes this particularly frustrating is that my friend likes to present himself as someone who values scientific thinking. He frequently references psychological literature and cognitive biases to make arguments, especially when discussing sales tactics and persuasion. However, his uncritical acceptance of the Enneagram directly contradicts his supposed commitment to rationality. If he truly valued evidence-based reasoning, he would apply the same skepticism to the Enneagram that he applies to other unverified claims—but instead, he defends it because it aligns with his ideological background and social circles. At its core, my friend’s use of the Enneagram as a just-so story reveals a deeper issue: his willingness to embrace unfounded explanations when they serve his personal beliefs, while rejecting more robust scientific models when they challenge those beliefs. Instead of engaging with empirical, falsifiable research, he relies on pseudoscientific narratives that feel true but lack actual explanatory power. Just acknowledge that this belief in the Enneagram is faith-based rather than scientific, and stop presenting it as a legitimate psychological model.

Defending Discrimination

My friend openly supports the idea that businesses should be allowed to reject services on religious grounds, arguing that individuals shouldn’t be “forced” to do business with people they dislike based on race, religion, or sexuality. At its core, this stance is a justification for legalized discrimination, dressed up as a defense of individual freedom and religious liberty. However, when examined critically, his position is both ethically indefensible and logically inconsistent, often relying on poor philosophical reasoning, including a distorted variation of the argument from consciousness.

One of the fundamental flaws in my friend’s reasoning is his conflation of personal freedom with the right to discriminate. Yes, individuals have freedom of belief, and no one is forcing them to personally engage with people they dislike. However, the moment they operate a business that serves the public, they take on certain legal and ethical responsibilities. The right to refuse service is not absolute. Businesses already cannot refuse service for arbitrary reasons—imagine if a restaurant refused to serve someone for being left-handed or for wearing glasses. Discrimination laws are not about “forcing” interactions but ensuring equal access to public goods and services. Public accommodations laws exist for a reason. Anti-discrimination laws prevent systemic exclusion from essential services. Without these protections, marginalized groups could face widespread denial of housing, healthcare, or basic commerce—outcomes that history has already demonstrated are real dangers. Religious beliefs do not grant a license to harm others. No one’s religious freedom is being violated by serving someone of a different race, religion, or sexual orientation. Providing a service does not imply endorsement of a person’s identity or beliefs—it is simply fulfilling the basic duties of a business operating in a society that values equal rights.

At the heart of my friend’s argument is the notion that a business owner’s personal beliefs should override anti-discrimination protections—that refusing service to someone on the basis of race, religion, or sexuality is a legitimate exercise of individual liberty rather than an act of prejudice. This argument fundamentally misunderstands what freedom of conscience actually means. Freedom of conscience ensures that individuals have the right to hold and express their beliefs without government coercion. It does not give someone the right to deny others equal treatment under the law or to exclude people from public services based on personal prejudice.

Society has already settled this debate in multiple historical contexts. The same reasoning my friend applies was once used to justify segregation, bans on interracial marriage, and discrimination against religious minorities. For decades, businesses in the U.S. claimed a “freedom of association” argument to justify refusing service to Black Americans, Jewish customers, and other marginalized groups. If we accept my friend’s logic, then a business owner could theoretically turn away anyone for any reason, effectively eroding civil rights protections and allowing systemic discrimination to thrive. While religious freedom protects personal belief and worship, it does not grant individuals or businesses the right to discriminate against others. Courts have consistently ruled that religious freedom has limits when it infringes on the rights of others. For example, religious beliefs do not justify refusing medical care, denying service in public spaces, or excluding protected groups from employment opportunities. If my friend believes that a business owner should be able to refuse service based on sexuality or religion, then by his own logic, a business owner should also be able to refuse service based on race, gender, or disability. This would open the door to a fractured, exclusionary society, where discrimination is legally protected as long as it is framed as a matter of “conscience.” Just imagine this slippery slope extended to its logical conclusion.

Furthermore, its hilarious that he does not see the glaring hypocrisy. Another glaring issue with my friend’s argument is that his version of freedom of conscience is highly selective. If he truly believes that business owners should be free to refuse service based on personal or religious convictions, then would he defend A Muslim-owned business refusing to serve Christian customers? A Jewish bakery refusing to sell wedding cakes to evangelical Christians? A secular restaurant refusing service to anyone wearing religious clothing? In reality, those who push these “freedom of conscience” arguments almost always apply them one way—they defend discrimination when it aligns with their own ideological or religious preferences but would likely object if the same logic were applied against them. This is not a principled stance; it is a thinly veiled justification for bias. Allowing discrimination under the guise of “freedom” only empowers systemic bigotry and undermines the principle of equal rights under the law.

Conflating Ethics with Abortion

My friend has a deeply flawed and reductionist view of morality, as he almost entirely conflates ethical discourse with the topic of abortion. To him, morality is seemingly synonymous with anti-abortion arguments, while other profound ethical concerns—such as the ethics of war, corporate exploitation, economic inequality, or deceptive business practices—are either ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. This narrow perspective not only misrepresents the field of moral philosophy, but it also exposes a deep inconsistency in how he applies ethical reasoning.

His reluctance to engage with broader moral issues—like whether it’s ethically justifiable to invest in the military-industrial complex or whether businesses should be held accountable for manipulative sales tactics—highlights a fundamental problem: his understanding of morality is selective and ideologically driven rather than comprehensive and philosophically rigorous. While abortion is undoubtedly a legitimate topic of ethical debate, my friend acts as though it is the only moral issue that truly matters. This is an incredibly shallow approach to ethics, especially when one considers the sheer breadth of moral philosophy, which spans issues such as:

Just War Theory – Is war ever ethically justified? What are the moral implications of profiting from the arms industry?
Economic Justice – What are the ethical obligations of corporations toward workers, consumers, and society at large?
Environmental Ethics – Should industries be held accountable for climate destruction and resource exploitation?
Healthcare and Social Welfare – Is it morally acceptable to deny people access to medical care based on their financial status?
Business Ethics – Are deceptive marketing strategies, psychological manipulation in sales, or monopolistic practices ethically defensible?

For every topic mentioned, he either has nothing to say, implying that these are not ethical questions, or takes the standard MAGA position. The ethical concerns of an entire civilization do not begin and end with abortion. His refusal to engage with these broader issues suggests a highly politicized moral framework, where morality is less about ethical consistency and more about reinforcing a single ideological stance. Anyone bringing up any of these topics is reduced to a "leftist".

One glaring example of my friend’s selective morality is his apparent lack of concern over the ethics of war and military profiteering. The military-industrial complex represents one of the most ethically contentious issues in modern society—governments and corporations profit directly from war, leading to conflicts that are often prolonged not for national security reasons, but because they benefit the defense industry financially. Many major defense contractors have financial incentives to perpetuate war, lobbying for increased military spending while downplaying diplomatic solutions. But for some reason, government spending on the social safety net is the problem. Redistributing funds from tax payers to defense contractors is perfectly acceptable, but redistributing funds from billionaires is Marxism. Governments justify military interventions on the grounds of national security, while overlooking civilian casualties, destabilization of regions, and exploitation of natural resources. Investors in these industries directly profit from war and human suffering—something that should absolutely warrant moral consideration. If morality is about protecting innocent life, then surely the mass killing of civilians, destabilization of entire nations, and economic incentives to perpetuate war should be at least as ethically troubling as abortion. But for some reason, these discussions simply do not seem to interest him.

Another troubling inconsistency is his complete disregard for ethical considerations in business, despite constantly positioning himself as someone who upholds “moral values.” He has no issue with exploitative sales tactics—despite the fact that many of them prey on psychological vulnerabilities to manipulate consumers into financial decisions that are not in their best interest. He dismisses the value of business ethics courses, believing them to be a waste of time. This suggests he sees profit maximization as the only relevant concern in business, rather than fairness, honesty, or corporate responsibility. Once during a discussion, he was parroting the ESG conspiracy theory, that orienting corporate decision making towards ESG goals is actually a globalist Marxist hidden agenda. He embraces unbridled competition, even when it leads to monopolies, economic inequality, and exploitative labor practices, all of which have massive moral implications. But apparently, this is all fine and dandy, because the laborers being exploited "freely chose to offer their labor".

At its core, my friend’s moral framework is deeply inconsistent. If his concern for morality were genuinely based on a principled commitment to protecting human life and dignity, then he would engage with the full spectrum of ethical issues that impact human well-being—not just abortion. His refusal to do so reveals that his moral reasoning is not rooted in a rigorous, philosophical approach, but rather in a narrow ideological agenda. More broadly, this approach is consistently employed by MAGA fundamentalists. If the protection of life is the ultimate moral priority, then why does he ignore the mass loss of life caused by war? This is particularly relevant, since his stance on Ukraine is to withdrawal because "the left is causing millions of Ukrainians to die", while he is apparently silent on the topic of mass genocide in Gaza. His moral philosophy is not based on intellectual consistency, but rather on a predetermined set of talking points that align with his ideological views. This is not genuine moral reasoning—it is moral grandstanding on one issue while conveniently ignoring all others. My friend’s reduction of morality to abortion alone is not only philosophically lazy, but it also undermines his credibility as someone who claims to care about ethical principles. True moral philosophy requires engaging with difficult questions across all aspects of human life, not cherry-picking one issue while ignoring countless others of equal or greater moral significance.

The Shallow and Inconsistent Morality of Divine Command Theory

In a recent discussion about his daughter transitioning from homeschooling to public school, my friend expressed shock at the supposed “lack of morality” in public schools—his primary example being the mere presence of bisexual people. This reaction is not only uninformed and prejudiced, but it also reveals something deeper: his ethical framework is entirely rooted in divine command theory, an approach to morality that is intellectually shallow, inconsistently applied, and ultimately indefensible upon closer examination. From my perspective, sexual orientation has no moral dimension in itself—it is morally neutral because it does not harm anyone. In contrast, behaviors that involve deception, manipulation, coercion, or exploitation—such as the very sales tactics he defends—are ethical concerns because they actively cause harm. My friend, however, misidentifies morality with conformity to religious edicts, failing to engage critically with why divine commands should be considered morally binding in the first place.

At the root of my friend’s worldview is divine command theory (DCT)—the idea that something is “moral” because God commands it, and something is “immoral” because God forbids it. This is an ancient but deeply problematic ethical framework that collapses under philosophical scrutiny for several reasons:

The Infinite Regress Problem: Why Ought I Follow a Divine Command?: If morality is defined solely by divine commands, then the question arises: why should I obey these commands? If the answer is simply “because God said so,” that is a circular argument—it does not provide a moral reason, just an assertion of authority. If we are meant to obey because God is all-powerful, then morality is reduced to might makes right—which is not an ethical justification, just a submission to force. If we obey because God is good, then goodness must exist independent of God’s commands, meaning DCT is unnecessary to explain morality.
Commands Themselves Do Not Impart Moral Value: Just because someone commands something does not make it moral—otherwise, we would have to accept that any dictator, king, or leader could define morality at will. If God’s commands are arbitrary, then morality itself is arbitrary—something is good or bad only because it was dictated, not because it has any inherent value. This leads to the Euthyphro dilemma: Is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral? If the former is true, then morality is arbitrary. If the latter is true, then morality is independent of God, and divine command theory is unnecessary. And no, "God is Good" does not solve the problem, it merely shifts the problem.
The Inconsistency in What He Considers “Moral” Issues: My friend obsesses over “correct sexuality” as if it is the pinnacle of moral inquiry, yet he does not apply the same scrutiny to actual moral concerns—such as economic exploitation, deception in business, or systemic injustices. Why is bisexuality a moral issue to him, but manipulating people’s cognitive biases in sales is not? The only reason he sees one as a moral issue and not the other is because his religion told him so, not because he has arrived at these conclusions through reasoned ethical reflection. His concern with “correct” sexuality is not derived from logic, harm analysis, or philosophical rigor—it is entirely inherited from religious dogma, which he has never critically examined.

My own moral framework is based on actions and their consequences—whether they harm others. This is a far more defensible ethical position than divine command theory because it provides a rational justification for morality. Unlike DCT, which relies on authoritarian decree, harm-based ethics can be logically justified: harm is observable, suffering seems to be universally undesirable, and eudaimonia tends to be preferable in most circumstances. I am not taking the strong position that this is unproblematic in some aspects, but at the very least it encourages moral reasoning and moral correction. One of the biggest problems with my friend’s moral outlook is that it is shallow and unexamined. He has likely never critically analyzed divine command theory or asked himself why he believes morality should be dictated rather than reasoned. It is easy to treat morality as a list of rules—this requires no deep thought or philosophical engagement. By reducing morality to sexual purity, my friend avoids having to think critically about his own ethical inconsistencies—such as his willingness to exploit cognitive biases in business while claiming to be morally upright. At the end of the day, all he needs to do is ask god for repentance. Many MAGA fanatics fundamentally believe that they only need to answer to god.

Deep-Seated Anti-Intellectualism and the Populist Contempt for Expertise

A recent conversation about my experience working in a highly technical lab environment revealed, yet again, my friend’s reflexive disdain for intellectualism. As I was discussing the challenges of working alongside scientists, engineers, and researchers—people whose work requires a high level of rigor and expertise—the immediate response was not curiosity, not an attempt to understand the complexity of the work, but rather an instinctive dismissal. Before I could elaborate on what I meant by the challenges of working in such an environment, my friend threw out the phrase “pompous intellectuals.” This knee-jerk reaction is not just his personal bias—it’s part of a larger cultural phenomenon that permeates certain strands of conservative thought: deep, reactionary anti-intellectualism. It’s a worldview that simultaneously rejects expertise while selectively elevating certain “intellectuals” who happen to align with their ideological beliefs. It’s not a rejection of intellectualism per se, but rather a rejection of intellectuals who don’t reinforce their preexisting biases. The inconsistency is staggering.

It’s a common feature of populist conservatism to frame experts—scientists, academics, and researchers—as out-of-touch elites, while simultaneously venerating ideologues like Jordan Peterson, Milton Friedman, and Thomas Sowell as intellectual icons. The hypocrisy here is so blatant it’s almost comedic:

Theoretical physicists? Pompous intellectuals.
Climate scientists? Brainwashed liberals.
Mathematicians or engineers working in national labs? Out-of-touch nerds.
Jordan Peterson, a former psychology professor who speaks in vague generalizations? A sage.
Milton Friedman, an economist whose theories have been used to justify massive economic inequality? A genius.
Thomas Sowell, an economist-turned-conservative pundit? An intellectual beacon.

This intellectual cherry-picking isn’t about rejecting expertise—it’s about rejecting any expertise that challenges their worldview. That’s why they’ll mock physicists and climate scientists but enthusiastically consume cherry-picked “intellectual” content that reinforces their beliefs. The goal is not intellectual integrity, it’s ideological validation.

This anti-intellectual attitude also manifested itself in a previous discussion about Christianity, where my friend made a strikingly revealing comment: "Certain Christians tend to make it overly intellectual." To me, that translates directly to: “Once I start thinking too hard about this, the house of cards collapses.” It’s an implicit admission of the fragility of his belief system. If an idea can’t withstand intellectual scrutiny, then it was never robust to begin with. But instead of engaging with philosophical complexity, my friend would rather dismiss deep thinking as unnecessary and faith as an unquestionable virtue. Among a large subset of the MAGA crowd, this same approach is applied to policy questions. This anti-intellectual impulse is deeply tied to the religious mentality of faith over reason. If you start questioning too much—if you start thinking about the contradictions, the lack of empirical support, the historical context, or the moral inconsistencies—you might start doubting. And doubt is dangerous to an ideology that requires absolute certainty to function.

Beyond religion, my friend’s contempt for intellectualism extends to his views on education and professional environments. The work culture I described—one where ideas are rigorously scrutinized, where people challenge your thinking, where depth of knowledge is valued over rapid-fire brainstorming—is precisely the type of environment he dislikes. Instead, he prefers the quick and dirty, profit-driven, rapid-fire idea generation environment, where depth is seen as unnecessary and economic utility is the only metric of value. His attitude toward philosophy as nothing more than a marketing strategy was just another symptom of this. To him, if knowledge doesn’t directly lead to profit, it’s a waste of time. This is exactly the same mindset I saw in my old boss—also a Christian—who seemed to see intellectual curiosity as a liability rather than an asset. This attitude is a direct extension of Prosperity Gospel thinking—the belief that wealth is a sign of righteousness, that economic success is evidence of divine favor, and that things like philosophy, theoretical science, or intellectual inquiry are distractions from “real” success (i.e., making money).

This is why he views technical experts with contempt—because their work does not always have immediate, obvious economic benefit, at least in the way he understands business. To him, an “intellectual” is someone who talks too much about abstract ideas but doesn’t generate profit. But this is where his thinking completely collapses under its own contradictions—because the people at the laboratory I work at are not “intellectuals” in the traditional sense.

They are nuclear engineers designing energy solutions for the future.
They are computational scientists running high-performance simulations that drive technological advancements.
They are systems biologists modeling complex interactions in living organisms.
They are climate scientists producing data that informs global policy.
They are operations researchers who apply advanced modeling methods to complex issues
They are policy experts who have decades of experience studying geopolitics

These are not “pompous intellectuals” pontificating about abstract ideas with no real-world impact—these are some of the smartest, most rigorously trained experts in the world, doing work that will shape the next century. The fact that he can lump them into the same category as political pundits he dislikes is a level of ignorance so extreme it genuinely blows my mind. His worldview is a mix of populist resentment, religious anti-intellectualism, and hyper-pragmatic business thinking that values economic profit over intellectual depth. He has never truly examined why he holds these views, because if he did, he might realize that his entire belief system is based on selective thinking, ideological reinforcement, and a fundamental rejection of critical engagement with reality.

Shallow and Misguided Understanding of Free Will

My friend has a habit of making backhanded comments about atheists and free will, often implying that atheists cannot consistently believe in free will or that their worldview somehow forces them into strict determinism. He frames this as if it's an obvious flaw of atheism, yet he completely disregards the severe issues within his own theistic framework—especially divine fatalism and the contradictions of libertarian free will. Worse still, he has no real grasp of the actual philosophical debate surrounding free will, failing to engage with determinism, indeterminism, compatibilism, incompatibilism, or any of the nuanced secular theories on the subject. Even more frustrating is the moral subtext of these claims. When theists talk about free will, there is always an implied ethical dimension, the suggestion being that atheists cannot behave morally because determinism would rob them of moral responsibility. This is not only an unfounded assertion, but it also reveals a deep intellectual laziness—one that refuses to engage critically with either the secular or theological complexities of free will.

For someone so eager to attack secular views on free will, my friend seems completely blind to the major free will problems within theism itself. If anything, theists have a far bigger issue reconciling free will than atheists do—especially in the context of divine omniscience, predestination, and divine providence.

Divine Omniscience and Fatalism: If God is omniscient and knows the future with absolute certainty, then every human action is already foreknown and cannot be otherwise. This leads directly to fatalism—if God already knows exactly what I will do, then I do not have the ability to do otherwise. The standard theistic response is to claim that foreknowledge does not equal causation, but this completely dodges the problem. If something is guaranteed to happen, then it is functionally indistinguishable from being determined—even if God is not directly causing it. This means that under classical theism, free will is an illusion, and human actions are simply playing out an already-written script.
The Contradictions of Libertarian Free Will: Many theists claim that free will means humans can genuinely choose between multiple possible futures, which is the standard libertarian free will position. But this clashes with God’s perfect knowledge and sovereignty. If humans can truly act freely, then their choices cannot be known in advance—which contradicts omniscience. If their choices are known in advance, then they are not truly free in the libertarian sense. Worse still, if God is perfectly good, then why did he create people who he knew would make evil choices? Why did he allow people to damn themselves to eternal suffering if he could have created a world where everyone freely chose good? The theist is now stuck in an even bigger contradiction—if libertarian free will exists, then God has chosen to allow evil unnecessarily.
The Double Standard in Blaming Determinism for Morality: My friend seems to suggest that determinism leads to moral nihilism, but he never applies the same standard to his own worldview. If everything is already foreknown by God, then our choices are not truly free, and moral responsibility is equally undermined. In fact, if God created people with full knowledge that they would commit atrocities, then God himself is morally responsible for their actions—far more so than in a secular deterministic framework.

The irony here is staggering. He claims atheism is incompatible with free will, yet his own theology makes free will impossible or meaningless. If he actually studied the topic, he’d realize that theistic free will has even bigger logical contradictions than secular free will does. While my friend scoffs at atheists for supposedly lacking a coherent view of free will, he has no idea how many secular theories exist that provide sophisticated answers to the problem. His argument is built entirely on a false premise—the idea that atheism necessitates strict determinism. This is simply not true. Compatibilists argue that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. A person can still make choices and be held morally responsible, even if those choices are influenced by prior causes. This is the dominant view in contemporary philosophy because it aligns with how we actually function in reality—we don’t act as if our choices are meaningless, and we naturally hold people accountable based on their ability to respond to reasoning and incentives. Honestly, if he were well read on the topic, he would know that there are theistic compatibilist theories of free will. Some neuroscientists and philosophers argue that free will emerges from complex interactions between neural structures rather than being a simple, binary concept. This is actually a stronger model than the theistic one, because it doesn’t rely on mystical forces or vague appeals to supernatural agency. In my other blog post, I elaborate on this position.

Beyond the philosophical incoherence, what really irritates me about my friend’s comments is the underlying moral implication: He doesn’t just claim atheists can’t explain free will—he implies that atheists cannot be moral because of this. He suggests that if determinism were true, moral responsibility disappears, and therefore only belief in God can justify morality. But moral responsibility does not require libertarian freedom. Even if our choices are influenced by prior causes, we still respond to incentives, reasoning, and consequences. There are countless secular moral frameworks—consequentialism, virtue ethics, humanism, contractarian ethics—that provide coherent justifications for moral responsibility. The theistic alternative provides no better response. It's much easier to ignore the vast number of secular free will theories, choosing instead to attack a strawman version of atheism. It's very easy to ignore the deep contradictions in his own theology, where divine foreknowledge makes libertarian free will impossible. This conception of free will is fundamental to the MAGA enthusiast. It explains away economic inequalities or systemic issues.

Misuse of Philosophical Terminology: The “AI Girlfriend” and Nihilism Confusion

My friend has a habit of throwing around big philosophical terms without really understanding them, and a prime example of this is his strange claim that men who have AI girlfriends are “nihilists.” This comment is not just philosophically inaccurate, but it also reveals a shallow and reactionary way of thinking—using intellectual-sounding language to mask a lack of real understanding. Instead of critically analyzing the cultural or psychological factors behind this trend, he slaps a big, dramatic philosophical label on it without any apparent grasp of what nihilism actually means. If he actually understood nihilism, he’d realize that his claim makes no sense. Nihilism is a complex and historically rich philosophical concept, but at its core, it refers to a rejection of meaning, values, or objective truth. There are different kinds of nihilism:

Existential Nihilism – The belief that life has no inherent meaning or purpose.
Moral Nihilism – The belief that objective moral truths do not exist.
Epistemological Nihilism – The belief that knowledge is impossible.

For men who engage with AI companions, are they rejecting all meaning in life? Do they claim that objective moral values don't exist? Do they believe knowledge itself is unattainable? No. They’re just lonely dudes engaging in a form of artificial companionship. That has nothing to do with nihilism. If anything, the entire premise of having an AI girlfriend contradicts nihilism, they are seeking connection, stimulation, and engagement with something they perceive as meaningful, even if it’s artificial. If anything, this phenomenon could be better understood through the lens of technological escapism, hyperreality (Baudrillard), or even existential anxiety, but nihilism? No.

This isn’t just about one misused term—this is part of a larger pattern where my friend seems to enjoy using philosophical jargon without engaging with the ideas behind them. It’s a performance of intellectualism rather than actual intellectualism. Instead of analyzing trends with intellectual rigor, he just throws out words like “nihilism” as placeholders for vague, negative connotations. The problem is that philosophical language has actual meaning, and when he misuses these terms, it exposes how little he actually understands. He’s essentially using “nihilism” as a synonym for “something I think is bad”—which is both lazy and inaccurate.

My friend’s weird take on AI girlfriends doesn’t exist in a vacuum. His knee-jerk dismissal of the phenomenon as “nihilism” fits into a broader reactionary impulse, especially among conservatives, to immediately condemn anything that challenges traditional norms of relationships and human interaction. Rather than Examining the economic, social, and technological factors driving this trend, asking whether this is a symptom of loneliness, shifting relationship norms, or technological alienation, or considering whether AI companionship offers genuine psychological relief to people who struggle with human relationships, he defaults to vague moral condemnation. Instead of engaging in an actual critique of modern relationships and technology, he just grabs an intellectual-sounding word and throws it at the problem. If my friend actually wanted to have a meaningful discussion about AI relationships, there are far more interesting and relevant philosophical angles to explore:

The Simulation of Love: Can AI simulate meaningful companionship? Does a relationship have to be mutually conscious to be "real"? Is emotional attachment significantly different from attachment to fiction characters, pets, or religious figures (cough cough)?
Technological Alienation: Are AI relationships symptoms of societal alienation, economic instability, or data culture dysfunction? Is this a rational response to ground zero conditions or are they avoiding real connections?
Ethical Implications: Should AI be designed to simulate these emotions or does this create a manipulative one sided power dynamic? Will this effect relationships in the long term?

All of these discussions would require actual philosophical engagement, but instead, he just reduces the entire thing to “nihilism” and moves on. That’s not analysis—it’s intellectual laziness masquerading as critique.

Misuse of the Curt Richter Rat Study: Cherry-Picking Science to Fit an Ideological Narrative

My friend has a habit of cherry-picking studies that reinforce his preexisting ideological biases rather than engaging with research in a critical, intellectually honest way. A prime example of this is his weird fixation on the Curt Richter rat study from the 1950s, which he interprets in a way that implicitly supports a right-wing, libertarian worldview—one where struggle and suffering supposedly build resilience, and those who “give up” simply lacked willpower or personal fortitude. Not only is this study old, questionable in its methodology, and potentially unreplicated, but his interpretation of the results is completely uncritical. It’s yet another example of pseudoscientific cherry-picking, where a single study is ripped from its historical and scientific context and used to make grand ideological claims about human behavior, society, and morality.

In the 1950s, Curt Richter conducted an experiment in which rats were placed in water to see how long they could swim before drowning. He found that rates who had previously been rescued and given time to rest swam much longer before drowning when placed in the water again. Rats who were not saved gave up quickly and drowned. His interpretation was that the experience of being rescued gave rats a sense of hope, making them more willing to keep struggling the next time they were placed in the water. At face value, this is a fascinating finding in animal psychology, but there are several critical issues that my friend conveniently overlooks when using this study as some kind of justification for his ideological beliefs.

For starts, the study is old, and I've never seen it replicated. In the 50's, scientific rigor, replication, and ethical standards were different from what they are today. Does this stop my friend from attaching meaning to it? Of course not, an old single study with an unclear replication history doesn't does not seem to be of significant concern. The methodology seems quite dubious, we simply don't know how consistent these results were across different trials. Furthermore, there is a huge difference between rat and human psychology. And yet, it's implied that these findings can generalize to human society. The data interpretation is also quite weak. Even if the study’s results were accurate, the interpretation of “hope” is completely speculative. The idea that rats develop hope through a learned experience of rescue is an interesting hypothesis but far from a definitive conclusion.

The real issue isn’t just that my friend takes an old, questionable study at face value, it’s that he uses it to justify a very specific ideological viewpoint. To be clear, this was not explicitly stated. But within the broader context of discussion, it seemed quite interesting to quote this study. The assumption that struggle makes people stronger, and that those who fail simply didn’t have enough willpower, is consistent with the libertarian view. There is an unspoken implication that people who “drown” in life (whether economically, socially, or psychologically) simply lacked the right mindset. There is a convenient rejection of structural factors, poverty, systemic inequality, lack of resources, and mental health issues, as if everyone has an equal opportunity to “keep swimming” if they just try hard enough. This is classic right-wing, libertarian bootstrap ideology: the idea that success is purely a matter of personal resilience and that failure is a personal defect rather than the result of structural or environmental conditions. It completely ignores the actual complexity of human behavior, psychology, and social systems, and instead reduces everything to a simplistic, individualistic narrative about perseverance, one that is deeply appealing to those who want to justify why they shouldn’t care about systemic issues.

My friend’s misuse of the Curt Richter rat study is a perfect example of cherry-picking data to justify an ideological stance. He takes a single, old study with questionable methodology and turns it into a sweeping generalization about human perseverance, completely ignoring the broader scientific, psychological, and sociological context. He doesn't care if the study has been replicated, doesn't critically examine its methodology, doesn't acknowledge alternative explanations, and doesn't apply logic consistently across different issues.

Cult-Like Faith in Trump and His Ignorance of Geopolitics

A recent conversation about the ceasefire in Gaza revealed yet again my friend’s complete detachment from reality when it comes to geopolitics. Somehow, despite all available evidence to the contrary, he attributed the ceasefire to Trump, when in fact it was Biden’s administration that played a role in the negotiations. This is just another example of his unwavering, cult-like faith in Trump, where every positive event in global politics is retroactively credited to Trump, while every failure is blamed on anyone but him.

If that wasn’t bad enough, he then launched into the usual right-wing playbook about how Trump will “end the war in Ukraine peacefully” if re-elected—a claim so detached from reality that it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how international relations, diplomacy, and military conflicts actually work. This isn’t just political bias—it’s ideological blindness, where Trump is seen not as a former president with a track record, but as an almost mythical figure capable of effortlessly solving complex global crises simply by existing. The fact that my friend immediately credited Trump for a ceasefire that occurred under Biden’s administration is an example of pure historical revisionism. The ceasefire was brokered under Biden, with U.S. diplomatic efforts playing a role in pressuring Israel and Hamas into negotiations. Trump was not in office, had no involvement, and had no influence over the ceasefire. There is zero evidence that Trump’s past policies somehow “set the stage” for it to happen. Yet, instead of acknowledging Biden’s actual foreign policy moves, my friend instinctively attributes any diplomatic success to Trump, even when Trump was completely absent from the process. This isn’t a rational assessment of political events, it’s faith-based, post-hoc justification for his ideological devotion to Trump.

After rewriting history to make Trump responsible for a ceasefire he had nothing to do with, my friend jumped to another absurd claim: that Trump, if re-elected, would “end the war in Ukraine peacefully.” This is one of the most overused, yet completely unfounded, talking points in right-wing circles. The idea that Trump, of all people, would resolve a war as complex as the Russia-Ukraine conflict painlessly and quickly is not just wishful thinking—it’s outright delusional. Trump has no track record in foreign policy indicating special diplomatic genius. In fact, he tends to bolster authoritarian regimes, undermine existing treaties, and has not brokered any long term peace agreements. So obviously, suggesting that Trump will easily resolve the disputes in Eastern Europe, is not evidence based. Putin does not want peace. Putin wants to control Ukraine and sees it as part of Russia’s historical sphere of influence. He invaded not because of American leadership, but because of his long-standing geopolitical ambitions. The only way Trump could “end the war peacefully” is by forcing Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands—which isn’t peace, but surrender. This will provide a short term ceasefire, which will ultimately set the stage for another Russian invasion if the Ukrainians cannot establish a credible deterrent. It will fundamentally weaken them for future territorial losses. Trump and his enthusiasts will see this as a political win for him and the party.

The most frustrating part of these discussions with my friend isn’t just that he’s factually wrong—it’s the sheer faith-based nature of his beliefs about Trump. He doesn’t engage in evidence-based reasoning when assessing Trump’s role in global events. Instead of analyzing Trump’s actual foreign policy record, he retroactively attributes success to him and assumes he will achieve future victories with no evidence. This same line of reasoning was present among MAGA supporters with respect to the state of the economy. Many people look in hindsight at the state of the economy during his first term, and somehow attribute any sort of success to him. Many people I know simply voted for him because "the economy was better under Trump"; quite amazing that the president was elected based on a misunderstanding between correlation and causation. In the MAGA world, evidence does not matter.

My friend’s take on the Gaza ceasefire and the Ukraine war is not an informed political opinion, it’s a predictable regurgitation of right-wing propaganda that ignores reality in favor of ideological convenience. I've had many discussions with MAGA loyalists where the conversation eventually becomes the interlocutor repeating the same talking points I've noticed propagating on conservative media. It's quite sad. In the context of this example, it would be great if my friend studied the real factors driving international conflicts instead of parroting simplistic talking points, acknowledged the flaws in Trump’s foreign policy rather than pretending he was some master diploma, or read foreign policy experts instead of treating cable news soundbites as absolute truth. The conversation would be so much more productive; but fundamentally, these right wing conservatives cannot do this.

Ignorance About Alan Turing and the Historical Suppression of Homosexuality

A recent conversation with my friend about The Imitation Game revealed just how deep his ignorance runs when it comes to history, homosexuality, and the persistent right-wing obsession with labeling everything as “woke.” After watching the movie, he questioned whether Alan Turing was actually gay or if his portrayal as a homosexual was just some Hollywood “woke” revisionism. This is an astounding display of ignorance, not just about Turing himself but about the widespread historical suppression of homosexuality, particularly in the 20th century. His knee-jerk reaction to seeing any acknowledgment of historical queerness as some kind of modern progressive fabrication isn’t just intellectually lazy, it’s emblematic of the broader right-wing obsession with framing any acknowledgment of marginalized groups as a political agenda rather than as an objective historical fact.

Turing was arrested in 1952 under gross indecency laws for having a sexual relationship with another man, at a time when homosexuality was still illegal in Britain. Instead of prison, he was subjected to chemical castration—a horrific practice meant to “cure” his homosexuality, which led to severe physical and psychological damage. His treatment at the hands of the British government was so appalling that the UK later issued a formal apology in 2009 and posthumously pardoned him in 2013—a rare move acknowledging historical wrongdoing. The fact that my friend even questioned whether Turing was gay is a textbook example of how historical realities get erased or dismissed by people who see any mention of homosexuality as a modern political imposition. If Turing being gay was a mere “Hollywood invention,” why did the British government criminalize him for it? Why did he undergo forced hormonal treatments? Why did he die under tragic and suspicious circumstances at a young age? The answer is simple: because he was a gay man living in a society that treated his existence as a crime. A war hero and father of computer science, was killed by the British government, because of his sexuality.

My friend’s reaction to The Imitation Game is not just an isolated comment—it’s part of a larger pattern where conservatives reflexively dismiss any historical acknowledgment of marginalized groups as “woke” propaganda. The moment a movie, book, or historical documentary includes women, LGBTQ+ people, or racial minorities in a positive light, conservatives immediately assume that history is being rewritten to push a progressive agenda. This isn’t a critique of historical accuracy—it’s a reactionary impulse, rooted in resentment toward any shift in cultural narratives that acknowledge the oppression of marginalized groups. This type of thinking exposes an implicit bias—the belief that history is “neutral” when it centers straight, white, male figures, but becomes “politicized” when it acknowledges the existence of others. This anti-woke reactionary sentiment is incredibly persistent among MAGA fanatics. This is part of a larger pattern where conservatives attempt to whitewash history to align with their ideological comfort zones. My friend wouldn’t think twice about a movie accurately portraying a historical figure’s heterosexual relationship, but the moment a historical figure is depicted as gay, it must be a political statement. Unfortunately, this kind of reasoning is a precursor to reactionary denialism in other categories of historical injustice. For example, was the Holocaust really that bad? Was slavery really that bad?

Ignorant Assumption That Atheists Don’t Understand Theology

A recent conversation with my friend revealed a classic and deeply flawed assumption that many theists make about atheists, the idea that atheists are ignorant of theology or religious history. He seemed genuinely surprised that I was already familiar with the theological issues he was describing, as if knowledge of religious concepts is somehow exclusive to believers. This reaction exposes a common but utterly misguided belief: that atheism is simply a result of ignorance about religion, and that if atheists just "learned more," they would inevitably find faith. The reality, of course, is quite the opposite, many atheists are well-versed in theology, religious history, and biblical studies, often to a greater extent than the average believer. The difference is, we approach it critically and academically rather than as an act of faith.

There is a common theistic assumption that "if you knew more then you'd believe". Atheism is a position born of ignorance, rather than a reasoned conclusion based on critical inquiry. This assumption is based on several false premises:

That knowledge of theology leads to belief: This is simply not true. In fact, many people become atheists precisely because they studied religion deeply and found its claims unconvincing, contradictory, or historically dubious. Some of the most well-known atheists—Bart Ehrman, Dan Barker, John Loftus—were once deeply religious and studied theology at an advanced level before ultimately rejecting it. The idea that understanding religious arguments should naturally lead to faith ignores the fact that many theological positions collapse under scrutiny.
That atheists only reject religion because they don’t understand it: This is an intellectually lazy way of dismissing atheism. Instead of engaging with why someone might reject religious claims, the assumption is that they simply haven’t been exposed to the right arguments. This is especially ironic given that most religious people know very little about competing theological perspectives—the average Christian, for example, is often completely ignorant of the historical development of their own faith, early Christian sects, or how biblical canon was formed.

A 2010 Pew Research Study found that atheists and agnostics scored higher than religious people on tests of religious knowledge, including questions about Christianity, the Bible, and world religions. If anything, it’s often believers who lack a deep understanding of their own faith—they simply accept it as inherently true without questioning its origins, contradictions, or theological evolution. I simply know about the things he mentioned because comparative religious studies, comparative mythology, philosophical arguments, the cognitive science and sociology of religion is simply fascinating to me. Of course, there are more specific doctrinal things that I won't know. But he even mentioned, with surprise, that I know more than most Protestants. This is not surprising to me. I do not practice a religion, but its fascinating to study.

If you are incapable of separating knowledge from belief, then an Atheist or Agnostic knowing things about your religion, might seem odd. I don’t need to be a theist to understand theology. I can study religious texts, historical context, and theological arguments without accepting them as true. Religious belief is not a prerequisite for understanding religion. This is true for every other subject—you don’t need to believe in astrology to understand how horoscopes work, and you don’t need to believe in Greek gods to understand Greek mythology. In fact, being an outsider to a belief system often makes it easier to study it objectively, since I am not emotionally invested in defending its conclusions. My friend’s reaction suggests that he sees religious knowledge as something that should naturally lead to belief, but that is not how rational inquiry works. Knowing about something does not make it true. I would have loved to make this distinction but given the fact that they're unaware of philosophical concepts like epistemology, this conversation can never get off the ground. I think cases like myself make the believe uneasy. They tend to think that, all they need to do is introduce us to scripture, when in reality belief formation is more complex and independent of the truth of whatever world view under discussion.

Delusional Take on Tulsi Gabbard and the Democratic Party

A recent conversation with my friend revealed yet another example of his complete misunderstanding of American political dynamics—this time in the form of his bizarre belief that the Democrats would have had a better chance of winning had they nominated Tulsi Gabbard instead of Kamala Harris. This is not just politically illiterate, but it also betrays a fundamental failure to grasp the ideological spectrum within American politics. To believe that Tulsi Gabbard was somehow a stronger Democratic candidate than Kamala Harris, you would have to be so far to the right that anyone who isn’t an outright socialist looks like a leftist to you. In reality, Gabbard has been steadily moving toward the right for years, aligning herself more closely with the Republican Party’s nationalist, anti-establishment, and isolationist wings than with the actual policy priorities of the Democratic Party. This is not a serious take on electoral strategy—it’s a misguided attempt to project right-wing preferences onto a left-leaning electorate that has absolutely no interest in a candidate like Gabbard. The idea that Gabbard could have been a viable left-wing alternative in a Democratic primary is laughable to anyone with even a cursory understanding of her political trajectory.

She’s more aligned with traditional republican and Right-Wing Populist politics. Gabbard has repeatedly echoed Trump-style isolationism, opposing U.S. involvement abroad while sympathizing with authoritarian figures like Bashar al-Assad. Her soft stance on dictatorships is far from the internationalist, pro-human rights foreign policy stance typically associated with Democrats. She has ab Anti-LGBTQ+ History: While she later walked back some of her earlier stances, Gabbard has a history of working with anti-LGBTQ+ groups, and many progressives have never fully trusted her supposed evolution on social issues. Over the years, Gabbard has leaned into anti-“woke” rhetoric, frequently appearing on Fox News, railing against identity politics, and taking up conservative cultural grievances, which appeals to right-wing voters but alienates the Democratic base. Her Increasing Alignment with the Republican Party. Gabbard formally left the Democratic Party in 2022, denouncing it as an “elitist cabal.” Since then, she has repeatedly endorsed Republican candidates, echoed MAGA talking points, and aligned herself more with Tucker Carlson and Fox News than with any actual left-wing movement.

If anything, her transformation from Democratic outsider to full-blown conservative populist proves exactly why she was never viable as a Democratic nominee in the first place. The fact that my friend doesn’t recognize any of this suggests he is so far to the right that he thinks Gabbard represents the “true left” while ignoring that the actual left doesn’t want her.

The other glaring flaw in my friend’s logic is that he completely ignores the actual voters who make up the Democratic Party. Even if you personally think Gabbard is a “better” choice, that doesn’t matter if the people who actually vote in Democratic primaries don’t want her. Gabbard polled terribly in the 2020 Democratic primary, never breaking out of low single digits. For my friend to argue that Gabbard would have been a better Democratic candidate is to completely ignore the actual preferences of the Democratic electorate. It’s not a serious argument—it’s a conservative fantasy that only makes sense if you assume Democratic voters secretly want right-wing nationalism. One of the most predictable patterns in conservative media is the constant search for a token “good Democrat” who will validate right-wing grievances. This is why Fox News loved Joe Manchin, why they constantly invited Bill Maher to complain about “woke culture,” and why they promoted Tulsi Gabbard as the Democrat they could tolerate. The reason right-wingers think Gabbard would be a good Democratic nominee is because she agrees with them on most of their key cultural issues. But being the “good Democrat” that Republicans like does not make you electable in a Democratic primary—if anything, it guarantees that actual Democratic voters will reject you. When my friend suggests that Gabbard would have been a better choice for the Democrats, he’s not speaking from a place of political reality—he’s just repeating the conservative delusion that the left would be better if it just acted like the right.

My friend’s belief that Tulsi Gabbard would have made the Democratic Party stronger is a perfect example of how ideological bias warps political analysis. It's also a great example of just how out of touch conservatives are with reality. But referring back to what I was writing about at the very beginning, anything Left of the right wing is considered socialism.

Knee-Jerk Dismissal of Neuroscience: Ignorance Disguised as Skepticism

Reflecting on one of my early conversations with my friend, I remember him casually saying, “neuroscientists don’t know anything.” At the time, I didn’t think much of it—maybe he knew something I didn’t, maybe there was some valid critique buried underneath the dismissive tone. But as I got to know him better, it became abundantly clear that his reaction wasn’t based on any substantive critique of neuroscience—it was a knee-jerk ideological response, grounded in his theistic assumptions and apologetics. The fact is, neuroscience is one of the most well-developed and interdisciplinary fields in modern science. It has made enormous progress in understanding the structure and function of the brain, from mapping neural circuits to developing computational models of cognition, to applying machine learning in neuroimaging analysis. My friend’s blanket rejection of neuroscience isn’t coming from an informed place—it’s coming from ignorance, defensiveness, and the need to protect his religious worldview.

The idea that “neuroscientists don’t know anything” is not just wrong—it’s comically uninformed. Neuroscience is a highly rigorous, data-driven discipline that:

Collaborates Across Multiple Scientific Fields: Neuroscience is deeply integrated with cognitive science, computational modeling, psychology, artificial intelligence, and even economics. Research in decision-making, reinforcement learning, and neuroeconomics has provided concrete insights into how the brain processes risk, reward, and complex problem-solving—something that his beloved personality psychology can’t even come close to achieving.
Uses Advanced, Data-Driven Methodologies: Functional MRI (fMRI), EEG, and single-cell recording techniques allow neuroscientists to map real-time neural activity with incredible precision. Computational neuroscience develops mathematical models to simulate brain function, bridging the gap between biology and artificial intelligence. Neuroscience also applies time-series analysis, Bayesian inference, and network theory—some of the most sophisticated statistical techniques used in science today.
Has Produced Groundbreaking Discoveries: We now understand memory consolidation in the hippocampus, how dopamine systems drive motivation and addiction, and the neurological basis of disorders like schizophrenia and depression. Brain-machine interfaces (BMI) and neural prosthetics have been successfully developed, allowing paralyzed individuals to control devices using only their thoughts. The Human Connectome Project has mapped extensive networks in the brain, showing the intricate connections between different cognitive functions.

For anyone to dismiss all of this with a vague statement like “neuroscientists don’t know anything” shows that he doesn’t even know enough about neuroscience to critique it properly. The real reason for his hostility toward neuroscience isn’t because he has an informed critique—it’s because the findings of neuroscience directly challenge core assumptions of his religious worldview.

The Mind is a Product of the Brain, Not an Immaterial Soul: One of the biggest threats neuroscience poses to traditional theism is its growing body of evidence that consciousness emerges from physical processes in the brain. Studies on brain damage, split-brain patients, and neurological disorders have demonstrated that changes in brain structure lead to changes in personality, memory, and decision-making—something that shouldn’t happen if the mind were an immaterial soul. Religious dualists need consciousness to be separate from the brain to maintain belief in a soul, but neuroscience is making that belief increasingly untenable.
Free Will is Constrained by Neural Mechanisms: Neuroscientific research suggests that many of our decisions are made subconsciously before we become aware of them. Experiments by Benjamin Libet and later neuroscientists have shown predictable neural activity occurring milliseconds before subjects report making a conscious decision. This challenges libertarian free will, which is a core assumption in many religious doctrines. Instead of engaging with this challenge, my friend chooses to dismiss neuroscience altogether.

Instead of engaging with actual neuroscientific research, I suspect he got his views from Christian apologetics, which routinely misrepresent or dismiss modern science when it conflicts with theology. Many religious apologists attack neuroscience without understanding it, often by cherry-picking unresolved debates and pretending they undermine the entire field. My friend doesn’t seem to have any independent knowledge of neuroscience, and his dismissal is almost certainly coming from second-hand sources that reinforce his biases.

What makes this even more absurd is that my friend seems to think that some of the weakest areas of psychological research—like personality studies—are somehow more scientifically valid than neuroscience. Personality psychology is notoriously weak in scientific rigor, with many of its findings suffering from replication issues, cultural bias, and vague constructs. Yet, he treats personality psychology as though it’s established fact while dismissing a field that has produced actual, repeatable, empirically verified discoveries about human cognition. My friend’s dismissal of neuroscience as a field is not just scientifically illiterate—it’s intellectually dishonest. His knee-jerk reaction isn’t based on an informed critique of the methods or findings of neuroscience. At the end of the day, neuroscience is one of the most well-established and rapidly advancing fields of science. The fact that my friend thinks he can casually dismiss it while holding onto vague, unsupported religious and personality psychology claims shows that he is not engaged in real critical thinking—he is engaged in self-preservation.

Okay so that was a lot. But I've had a lot on my mind. I just wanted to give examples of what conversations I've had with MAGA people to highlight common reasoning patterns I see to be defining features of how they approach things.

Search This Blog

CriticalThinkingAcademy

MAGA Psychology and an Example of Brain Rot

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 1

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 2

The Nature of Agnosticism Part 4.1