As the 2024 presidential election nears, two senior citizens are gearing up for mental marathons that will push them to their cognitive limits.

While both candidates have already earned nicknames for showing signs of mental decline, we must confront the uncomfortable question of whether either “dementia Donny” or “sleepy Joe” are fit for the job of commander-in-chief.

After all, with former President Donald Trump having just turned 78, and President Joe Biden at 81, they are the two oldest candidates to ever run for president, by far.

Were Trump to win and serve a full term, he’d be 82 years old on his final day in office — Jan. 20, 2029. In the same scenario, Biden would be 86 years old.

This question of whether either Biden or Trump are mentally up to the task of leading the free world deserves renewed interest after recent events, such as Biden’s fiery State of the Union speech, and a series of gaffes at Donald Trump rallies. The two men are scheduled to face off against each other on June 27 in a debate hosted by CNN.

And while more than a few articles have been written about the seeming cognitive decline of both candidates by well-known publications citing respectable sources, it is time to dig a little deeper, and inquire about what exact type of mental decline we are seeing in each, and to what degree.

Without medically valid, robust and transparent cognitive testing — neither Biden nor Trump have agreed to such a thing — it’s impossible to really know whether the signs of cognitive impairment we are witnessing in their public appearances are no cause for concern, or could actually have dangerous consequences due to their effects on decision making for a world leader of a superpower.

To answer these questions, we must rely on the next best thing: what experts are saying. This doesn’t mean talking heads on TV. Rather, where do professional psychologists and neuroscientists stand on the subject?

Let’s start with what we can safely say about both candidates, and that is that they are certainly experiencing cognitive decline. This is because it is natural and expected for any human who is in their 80s or nearing octogenarian status. In his article, “I’m a neuroscientist — our presidential candidates have shrinking prefrontal cortexes,” author Erik Hoel cites studies and data that shows it is clear that age-related cognitive decline typically starts in one’s 30s and essentially never stops.

At the beginning of this process of decline, it is basically impossible to see the signs without a series of specific memory tests and other mental examinations. But when you get up to the age range of our two presidential candidates, noticeable deficits such as verbal gaffes and obvious memory lapses become more frequent. While Hoel’s article does mention that there are what have been referred to as “super-agers” — individuals over 70 who show no signs of cognitive decline — it is safe to say through general observation over time that Biden and Trump don’t fall into that category.

The question of public interest: Are Biden and Trump experiencing standard cognitive decline, or are we seeing signs of dementia or some other troubling neurological disorder that would hinder a president’s ability to execute his duties? While cognitive decline is a natural part of aging, it is also a feature of dementia — a broad category of brain diseases that cause a long-term decrease in the ability to think and remember. Dementia can significantly impair a person's daily functioning.

According to Dr. John Gartner, a prominent psychologist and author — and critic of Donald Trump — the ex-president’s recent gaffes show something beyond your typical age-related cognitive decline. In contrast, Gartner argued that Biden is experiencing typical age-related cognitive decline but nothing more.

Gartner doesn’t mince words when it comes to the difference between the two candidates: “Biden’s brain is aging. Trump’s brain is dementing.”

Specifically, he cites Trump’s verbal behavior in his recent CPAC speech as being consistent with frontotemporal dementia with progressive aphasia. That means the physical integrity of the part of his brain associated with language is deteriorating in a way that leads to speech pathologies. What’s worse — this is not just an impairment with his ability to speak fluently and without slurs, but a sign of a deeper neurological impairment that is associated with general confusion.

Let’s review specific examples.

Gartner cites Trump’s frequent display of what is called a “phonemic paraphasia” — the substitution of a word with a nonword that preserves half of the intended word. Instead of “missiles” Trump might say “mishes,” and instead of “Christmas” Trump would similarly say “chrishis.” Essentially, Trump starts out with the correct stem of the word but is unable to complete it so he just garbles an ending. The Biden campaign has even attempted to score political points off Trump’s speech patterns, posting a video on X with the caption, “Trump slurs his words while ranting: In Mexico until [unintelligible].”

In his appearance on The David Pakman Show, Gartner tells Pakman that all of the experts he has talked to have said that nobody without brain damage commits these kinds of phonemic paraphasias.

As a neuroscientist myself, the question I’m mulling is whether Trump’s suspected brain damage is only in the area associated with speech production, known as Broca’s area, or also in the region associated with language comprehension, known as Wernicke’s area. The kind of paraphasia Trump is demonstrating, which does not involve a nonsensical pattern of words, is more likely to be a problem related to speech production, which is a less serious cognitive impairment.

The Trump-related gaffes that are much more concerning to me involve Trump confusing one person for another, in a way that is not just the result of a name slip, but an actual confusion of one person for another.

Trump’s former Republican rival Nikki Haley suggested Trump may be mentally unfit for holding office because — during a campaign speech in January — the former president seemed to repeatedly confuse her with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Trump accused Haley of turning down security for the U.S. Capitol offered by his administration on Jan. 6, 2021, and then destroying “all of the information, all of the evidence.”

This example is perplexing because Haley and Pelosi are on opposite sides of the political spectrum and have little in common other than being female politicians. Most notably, Haley had no official role whatsoever during the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

This isn’t the first time Trump has mixed up two women with whom he’s quite familiar.

In Trump’s deposition during his civil rape case last year, he identified the supposed victim E. Jean Carroll as his ex-wife, Marla Maples. While this made headlines, the video posted by the Wall Street Journal does not show the photo Trump was looking at, so it’s impossible to judge whether the photo was simply blurry and ambiguous, as Trump claims.

What appears more worrisome is Trump confusing Biden for former President Barack Obama over and over again in different speeches. According to New York Magazine, it has occurred on at least seven different occasions. On March 2 during a rally in Richmond, Va., Trump said “Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word.”

This slip would be minor if it weren’t for the fact that Obama hasn’t been president for almost eight years. Back in September, during a speech at the Pray Vote Stand summit in Washington, D.C., Trump appeared to boast that he beat Obama in 2016 and will do it again.

What makes things worse is that Trump has tried to explain these confusions as sarcasm or comedy, rather than blaming it on mental fatigue or something a little more understandable. This gives the impression that he’s trying to cover up cognitive impairment that is starting to become severe enough that it can’t be hidden from the public.

The last recent gaffe worth mentioning is one where Trump’s brain appeared to flat out stop functioning. As can be seen in this video, starting around the 2:10 mark, The Late Show host Stephen Colbert capitalized on this moment, saying:

“Donald Trump had two rallies this weekend — one in Virginia and one in North Carolina — but the two speeches had one unifying theme: His brain is broke. Here he is in Greensboro talking about how the U.S. doesn’t need to import oil from petro states.”

The clip of Trump then rolls, and he says something like, “We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will re-pi-tu, ahhh.”

He appears to have a cognitive glitch mid-sentence. Colbert then remarks, “Not entirely sure what’s going on there, but apparently he can’t say the word Russia without climaxing.”

So, what can we conclude from all these examples of verbal slippages and downright confusion?

It is obvious to me that Trump is cognitively impaired in a way that is not typical for even people as old as he. Then again, most 78-year-old men aren’t speaking regularly on a national campaign trail. To fairly compare Trump’s mental decline to Biden’s, we would need to see footage of Biden speaking for similar periods of time under similar pressure. Of course, we will never get to see that — Biden does not speak publicly nearly as much as Trump — but the State of the Union address did give us reason to think that Biden isn’t quite as cognitively impaired as much of the nation expected.

Additionally, a House committee hearing earlier this year corrected some misinformation put forth by special counsel Robert Hur that suggested Biden had forgotten the year his son died, which was used by right-wing news to further the claim that the president is mentally compromised.

My conclusion is that both presidential candidates are showing signs of cognitive impairment that could potentially develop into dementia down the line. A recent study at Columbia University found that 35 percent of individuals over 90 have clinical dementia, so it is quite common for those who are lucky enough to live that long.

What is of interest is the differences in the type of cognitive impairment we are seeing with the two candidates. While Biden’s mental and behavioral changes are more typical of aging — a gradual slowing of mental acuity and physical dexterity — Trump’s abnormalities are more like cognitive malfunctions. That being said, Trump’s mental state and the consequences for his decision making are more unpredictable, while Biden’s just put a big question mark over whether he can continue to do his job.

Perhaps the best thing for Democrats is for Biden to gracefully step aside and let a younger politician — Vice President Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, for example — who is mentally healthy and prepared to battle a cognitively impaired Trump. That way, there are no charges of hypocrisy, and voters could be presented with a candidate whose mental fortitude is as solid and reliable as their policy proposals. Unfortunately for Democrats, I don’t believe any of these people have a chance of winning.

But barring an acute health crisis, Biden — who, along with Trump just clinched enough delegates to become their respective parties’ nominees — shows no signs whatsoever of backing down or stepping away, no matter his limitations.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

As the United States witnesses the unprecedented criminal prosecution of former President Donald Trump, it’s time to ponder how these events will affect the upcoming presidential election.

While some Americans might expect the negative publicity of the court cases to diminish Trump’s popularity, an analysis of the relevant psychological phenomena suggests that the proceedings could ultimately have the opposite effect. In fact, CNN recently reported that a new poll shows Trump ahead of President Joe Biden by 5 percent nationwide. The criminal trials against Trump — four separate ones that together feature 88 felony charges — might not only fail to deter his supporters but could potentially galvanize them by tapping into powerful and counterintuitive mental effects.

First, let’s just start with some common-sense reasoning. It is no secret that Donald Trump is not an ethical person. From being buddies with the sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, to the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape in which he bragged about groping women — “Grab ‘em by the pussy” being his precise words — Trump's behavior has long since been a subject of public scrutiny, and for good reason. The current Stormy Daniels hush money case and other matters are not likely to reveal anything particularly new or shocking to the public. The only way the cases are likely to hurt Trump with voters is by keeping him off the campaign trail. And of course, they’ll hurt his pockets.

But given how close the race between Trump and Biden is, we must consider the possibility that the sum total of these public trials will be to confirm Trump’s ongoing narrative: that he is an agent of change going up against a corrupt system that will do all they can to stop an outsider from gaining power.

Conspiracy theories about a “deep state” — a government made up of a secret network of power operating in pursuit of their own agenda — will be seemingly validated in the eyes of Trump supporters as the trials play out in the months before Election Day 2024.

As a result, this could trigger what is known as the "backfire effect," a psychological phenomenon that would undoubtedly bolster Trump’s support. This effect occurs when people are presented with information that directly contradicts their deeply held beliefs. Instead of updating their views to align with new evidence — in this case, that Trump may actually be a criminal who indeed committed illegal acts — people become even more entrenched in their original position. It's like a mental defense mechanism that kicks in to protect their worldview from the uncomfortable cognitive dissonance caused by conflicting information.

ALSO READ: Marjorie Taylor Greene is buying stocks again. Some picks pose a conflict of interest

Regarding Trump's legal troubles, his supporters may view the criminal charges as a direct attack on their belief in his innocence and integrity. They will perceive the prosecution as a politically motivated witch hunt orchestrated by Trump's enemies to bring him down, causing them to double down on their support for Trump.

Additionally, the shared experience of feeling under attack can create a powerful sense of unity and solidarity among Trump's supporters.

A fundamental aspect of human psychology is the tendency to form in-groups and out-groups. When Trump is prosecuted — or persecuted, as Trump argues — his supporters will perceive it as an attack on their group identity. These followers see themselves as part of a righteous movement fighting against a common enemy. This "us vs. them" mentality means that the criminal prosecution will increase hostility toward the perceived out-group, which in this case is the legal system, the Democrats, and Joe Biden.

Another psychological phenomenon that may come into play is the "underdog effect." People often root for the underdog in a competition. The same can apply to legal battles and elections. The criminal prosecution of an individual can create a perception of them as the underdog, leading to increased public support and sympathy.

In Trump's case, his supporters view him as a brave outsider fighting against a rigged system, no matter that he is a billionaire former president who lives in rarified luxury and owns his own private Boeing 757 jet. The “underdog effect” can further boost their loyalty and admiration for Trump. This will cause them to rally around their leader and intensify their commitment to his cause.

Furthermore, the criminal trials against Trump may tap into the powerful narrative of victimhood and persecution. The psychological concept known as “persecution complex” suggests that individuals who perceive themselves as victims may experience heightened feelings of loyalty and camaraderie toward their in-group. By portraying himself as a victim of politically motivated persecution, Trump can reinforce his supporters' sense of shared victimhood and strengthen their resolve to stand by him.

ALSO READ: Trump-nominated FEC leader: let political donors hide their identities

It's important to note that these psychological effects are not limited to Trump's most loyal supporters. Even those who were previously on the fence or not planning to actively campaign for him may be swayed by the perception that he is being unfairly targeted. The criminal trials may serve as a rallying cry, mobilizing these individuals to become more vocal and engaged in their support for Trump.

For these reasons, as the legal proceedings unfold and the 2024 presidential election approaches, it is crucial for Democrats to carefully consider the unintended consequences of Trump’s criminal prosecutions, which follow civil court judgements that have already held Trump liable for business fraud, defamation and sexual abuse. (Trump maintains he’s innocent.) While holding Trump accountable for any alleged wrongdoing is undoubtedly important, the timing and nature of these prosecutions could inadvertently energize the campaign they seek to cripple.

Democrats must be prepared to counter the psychological effects that will very likely bolster Trump's support. This could involve developing compelling counter-narratives that resonate with voters, highlighting the importance of the rule of law and emphasizing the need for accountability regardless of political position. It will be essential to strike a delicate balance between pursuing justice and minimizing the risk of these unintended psychological consequences.

Ultimately, the Democrats may find themselves in a catch-22: either they allow Trump to evade accountability for his alleged crimes, or they risk unleashing a cascade of psychological effects that could propel him back into the White House. In this high-stakes game of political chess, the unintended consequences of their next move could determine the fate of the nation for years to come.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

As the 2024 presidential election nears, two senior citizens are gearing up for mental marathons that will push them to their cognitive limits.

While both candidates have already earned nicknames for showing signs of mental decline, we must confront the uncomfortable question of whether either “dementia Donny” or “sleepy Joe” are fit for the job of commander-in-chief.

After all, with former President Donald Trump at 77 and President Joe Biden at 81, they are the two oldest candidates to ever run for president, by far.

Were Trump to win and serve a full term, he’d be 82 years old on his final day in office — Jan. 20, 2029. In the same scenario, Biden would be 86 years old.

READ: Findings cast doubt on the existence of Jesus Christ

This question of whether either Biden or Trump are mentally up to the task of leading the free world deserves renewed interest after recent events, such as Biden’s fiery State of the Union speech, and a series of gaffes at Donald Trump rallies.

And while more than a few articles have been written about the seeming cognitive decline of both candidates by well-known publications citing respectable sources, it is time to dig a little deeper, and inquire about what exact type of mental decline we are seeing in each, and to what degree.

Without medically valid, robust and transparent cognitive testing — neither Biden nor Trump have agreed to such a thing — it’s impossible to really know whether the signs of cognitive impairment we are witnessing in their public appearances are no cause for concern, or could actually have dangerous consequences due to their effects on decision making for a world leader of a superpower.

To answer these questions, we must rely on the next best thing: what experts are saying. This doesn’t mean talking heads on TV. Rather, where do professional psychologists and neuroscientists stand on the subject?

Let’s start with what we can safely say about both candidates, and that is that they are certainly experiencing cognitive decline. This is because it is natural and expected for any human who is in their 80s or nearing octogenarian status. In his article, “I’m a neuroscientist — our presidential candidates have shrinking prefrontal cortexes,” author Erik Hoel cites studies and data that shows it is clear that age-related cognitive decline typically starts in one’s 30s and essentially never stops.

ALSO READ: Inside the neo-Nazi hate network grooming children for a race war

At the beginning of this process of decline, it is basically impossible to see the signs without a series of specific memory tests and other mental examinations. But when you get up to the age range of our two presidential candidates, noticeable deficits such as verbal gaffes and obvious memory lapses become more frequent. While Hoel’s article does mention that there are what have been referred to as “super-agers” — individuals over 70 who show no signs of cognitive decline — it is safe to say through general observation over time that Biden and Trump don’t fall into that category.

The question of public interest: Are Biden and Trump experiencing standard cognitive decline, or are we seeing signs of dementia or some other troubling neurological disorder that would hinder a president’s ability to execute his duties? While cognitive decline is a natural part of aging, it is also a feature of dementia — a broad category of brain diseases that cause a long-term decrease in the ability to think and remember. Dementia can significantly impair a person's daily functioning.

According to Dr. John Gartner, a prominent psychologist and author — and critic of Donald Trump — the ex-president’s recent gaffes show something beyond your typical age-related cognitive decline. In contrast, Gartner argued that Biden is experiencing typical age-related cognitive decline but nothing more.

ALSO READ: Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Squad’ dying?

Gartner doesn’t mince words when it comes to the difference between the two candidates: “Biden’s brain is aging. Trump’s brain is dementing.”

Specifically, he cites Trump’s verbal behavior in his recent CPAC speech as being consistent with frontotemporal dementia with progressive aphasia. That means the physical integrity of the part of his brain associated with language is deteriorating in a way that leads to speech pathologies. What’s worse — this is not just an impairment with his ability to speak fluently and without slurs, but a sign of a deeper neurological impairment that is associated with general confusion.

Let’s review specific examples.

Gartner cites Trump’s frequent display of what is called a “phonemic paraphasia” — the substitution of a word with a nonword that preserves half of the intended word. Instead of “missiles” Trump might say “mishes,” and instead of “Christmas” Trump would similarly say “chrishis.” Essentially, Trump starts out with the correct stem of the word but is unable to complete it so he just garbles an ending. The Biden campaign has even attempted to score political points off Trump’s speech patterns, posting a video on X with the caption, “Trump slurs his words while ranting: In Mexico until [unintelligible].”

In his appearance on The David Pakman Show, Gartner tells Pakman that all of the experts he has talked to have said that nobody without brain damage commits these kinds of phonemic paraphasias.

ALSO READ: Racism, arrests, extreme MAGA love: Meet Lauren Boebert’s primary opponents

As a neuroscientist myself, the question I’m mulling is whether Trump’s suspected brain damage is only in the area associated with speech production, known as Broca’s area, or also in the region associated with language comprehension, known as Wernicke’s area. The kind of paraphasia Trump is demonstrating, which does not involve a nonsensical pattern of words, is more likely to be a problem related to speech production, which is a less serious cognitive impairment.

The Trump-related gaffes that are much more concerning to me involve Trump confusing one person for another, in a way that is not just the result of a name slip, but an actual confusion of one person for another.

Trump’s Republican rival Nikki Haley suggested Trump may be mentally unfit for holding office because — during a campaign speech in January — the former president seemed to repeatedly confuse her with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Trump accused Haley of turning down security for the U.S. Capitol offered by his administration on Jan. 6, 2021, and then destroying “all of the information, all of the evidence.”

This example is perplexing because Haley and Pelosi are on opposite sides of the political spectrum and have little in common other than being female politicians. Most notably, Haley had no official role whatsoever during the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

This isn’t the first time Trump has mixed up two women with whom he’s quite familiar. In Trump’s deposition during his civil rape case last year, he identified the supposed victim E. Jean Carroll as his ex-wife, Marla Maples. While this made headlines, the video posted by the Wall Street Journal does not show the photo Trump was looking at, so it’s impossible to judge whether the photo was simply blurry and ambiguous, as Trump claims.

ALSO READ: 11 ways Trump doesn’t become president

What appears more worrisome is Trump confusing Biden for former President Barack Obama over and over again in different speeches. According to New York Magazine, it has occurred on at least seven different occasions. This month, on March 2 during a rally in Richmond, Va., Trump said “Putin has so little respect for Obama that he’s starting to throw around the nuclear word.”

This slip would be minor if it weren’t for the fact that Obama hasn’t been president for almost eight years. Back in September, during a speech at the Pray Vote Stand summit in Washington, D.C., Trump appeared to boast that he beat Obama in 2016 and will do it again. What makes things worse is that Trump has tried to explain these confusions as sarcasm or comedy, rather than blaming it on mental fatigue or something a little more understandable. This gives the impression that he’s trying to cover up cognitive impairment that is starting to become severe enough that it can’t be hidden from the public.

The last recent gaffe worth mentioning is one where Trump’s brain appeared to flat out stop functioning. As can be seen in this video, starting around the 2:10 mark, The Late Show host Stephen Colbert capitalized on this moment, saying:

“Donald Trump had two rallies this weekend — one in Virginia and one in North Carolina — but the two speeches had one unifying theme: His brain is broke. Here he is in Greensboro talking about how the U.S. doesn’t need to import oil from petro states.”

The clip of Trump then rolls, and he says something like, “We are a nation that just recently heard that Saudi Arabia and Russia will re-pi-tu, ahhh.”

He appears to have a cognitive glitch mid-sentence. Colbert then remarks, “Not entirely sure what’s going on there, but apparently he can’t say the word Russia without climaxing.”

So, what can we conclude from all these examples of verbal slippages and downright confusion?

ALSO READ: Two Trump legal lifelines are tilting Election 2024 in Donald's favor

It is obvious to me that Trump is cognitively impaired in a way that is not typical for even people as old as him. Then again, most 77-year-olds — Trump turns 78 this spring — aren’t speaking regularly on a national campaign trail. To fairly compare Trump’s mental decline to Biden’s, we would need to see footage of Biden speaking for similar periods of time under similar pressure. Of course, we will never get to see that — Biden does not speak publicly nearly as much as Trump — but the State of the Union address did give us reason to think that Biden isn’t quite as cognitively impaired as much of the nation expected.

Additionally, a House committee hearing on Tuesday corrected some misinformation put forth by special counsel Robert Hur that suggested Biden had forgotten the year his son died, which was used by right-wing news to further the claim that the president is mentally compromised.

My conclusion is that both presidential candidates are showing signs of cognitive impairment that could potentially develop into dementia down the line. A recent study at Columbia University found that 35 percent of individuals over 90 have clinical dementia, so it is quite common for those who are lucky enough to live that long.

What is of interest is the differences in the type of cognitive impairment we are seeing with the two candidates. While Biden’s mental and behavioral changes are more typical of aging — a gradual slowing of mental acuity and physical dexterity — Trump’s abnormalities are more like cognitive malfunctions. That being said, Trump’s mental state and the consequences for his decision making are more unpredictable, while Biden’s just put a big question mark over whether he can continue to do his job.

Perhaps the best thing for Democrats is for Biden to gracefully step aside and let a younger politician — Vice President Kamala Harris, California Gov. Gavin Newsom or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, for example — who is mentally healthy and prepared to battle a cognitively-impaired Trump. That way, there are no charges of hypocrisy, and voters could be presented with a candidate whose mental fortitude is as solid and reliable as their policy proposals. Unfortunately for Democrats, I don’t believe any of these people have a chance of winning.

But barring an acute health crisis, Biden — who along with Trump just clinched enough delegates to become their respective parties’ nominees — shows no signs whatsoever of backing down or stepping away, no matter his limitations.

NOW READ: Meet the GOP's deadbeat dads

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on Twitter and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

If you’re reading this, it is likely that Taylor Swift has hijacked your brain.

Don’t worry — you are not alone. Tens of millions of Americans have also recently had their cognitive system invaded by the same mental contagion. If you enjoy her music, this might be a pleasurable infection. If her tunes grate on your nerves, the constant activation of your Taylor Swift neurons could be a curse.

But your personal pleasure or suffering is not the only reason we should be interested in Taylor Swift’s global influence. Why? Because whether we realize it, her influence will likely play a significant role in the 2024 presidential election. America’s sweetheart, who is dating one of the biggest stars of football — a sport that commands the unwavering devotion of red America — will likely be supporting Democratic President Joe Biden rather than Republican Donald Trump.

ALSO READ: ‘Leave the drama to them:’ Mother of Lauren Boebert’s grandson speaks out

This undoubtedly has Trump sweating. Hours before the kickoff of Super Bowl LVIII, the former posted a message on his social media platform Truth Social, taking credit for a bill that he claims made Swift so much money and should cause her to be indebted to him. Trump also predicted there’s “no way” Swift “could endorse Crooked Joe Biden.”

Trump’s desperate plea makes it clear that Swift’s decision of who to endorse is a big deal. If Election 2024 is close, as expected, the Swifties of the United States could theoretically tip the scales.

The key to understanding Swift’s growing influence, from a scientific view, is understanding how she has become a meme, and one of unparalleled viral power.

In a world saturated with social media content and trends, the term "meme" has slipped into common vernacular, often evoking silly or clever images that have gone viral. But the original concept of a meme, as proposed by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, is a well-known scientific framework for understanding cultural phenomena, including the meteoric rise of Taylor Swift. Dawkins introduced the term in his 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, not to explain digital trends per se, but to describe a unit of cultural transmission.

ALSO READ: ‘Grab any cheerleaders?’ Fans decry Trump’s S.C. football appearance as a ‘terrible look’

A meme, in its original conception, is an idea, behavior, trend or philosophy that spreads from person to person within a culture. It is the cultural counterpart to the biological gene, often defined as a replicator of cultural information. Memetics, the mental counterpart to genetics, is the academic field that studies how memes propagate, evolve and affect societies.

Cultural transmission refers to the way in which information is passed along within a community, not through genetic inheritance but through communication and imitation. Every time a Taylor Swift song gets played on the radio, an Instagram reel, or sung by someone on the subway, the Swift meme is being propagated through our society.

Virality is a meme's ability to spread rapidly and widely from one individual to another, often through the internet. Adaptation, in memetics, involves a meme's change over time to fit its cultural environment better, enhancing its survival and propagation. Every time Swift’s cultural relevance begins to wane, she reinvents herself to adapt to a changing culture — and you can be sure her relationship with NFL star Travis Kelce was another way to do just that. This doesn’t mean the relationship isn’t genuine. It simply means that Swift’s decisions about her love life and her career cannot be disentangled from her role as a vehicle for cultural trends.

Lastly, social contagion is the phenomenon by which ideas and behaviors are transmitted through social networks, echoing the way diseases spread. Swift's ascent to stardom can be likened to the spread of a mental virus, an idea that found fertile ground in the hearts and minds of millions, then spreads and replicates easily.

The Swift meme thrives because it taps into universal themes — love, heartache, growth, resilience — while also embodying the specific zeitgeist of our times. For Swifties, it offers a mirror in which they see their own struggles and triumphs reflected. In this reflection, they find connection, and a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. This is the essence of social contagion and why certain memes, like Swift's songs and persona, become embedded in the collective psyche.

Recently, though, the Swift meme has transcended Swifties and pierced the collective consciousness of America more generally, as can be seen by this data from Google trends that plots the popularity of her name since 2004. Notice the exponential growth that has occurred in just the last few months as she criss-crossed the world on her Eras Tour and cheered boyfriend Kelce during his months-long run to victory earlier this month in Super Bowl LVIII.

In the two weeks since the Super Bowl, a flurry of over-the-top articles have been published that demonstrate the shocking virulence of the Swift meme. In an article that appeared in The Sunday Times Magazine, an esteemed professor of literature argued that Taylor Swift should be taught alongside Shakespeare. The professor went as far as to say that attending a Swift concert had been “one of the best nights of [his] life.”

A New Yorker article called “Listening to Taylor Swift in Prison” was also recently published, with teaser text that says, “Her music makes me feel that I’m still part of the world I left behind.” What is interesting is not just the stories of grown men who have caught the Swift bug, but the media outlets that are all publishing Swift stories, which have been virtually all of them.

Of course, the article you are reading is also part of this phenomenon. I, too, have become a Swiftie, after falling in love with her most recent studio album in 2022, Midnights, which is far more mature than any of her previous releases both musically and lyrically. Though despite the fact that I’ve listened to it maybe 100 times, I still think teaching it alongside the Bard is pretty insane. That means the social contagion has only hijacked a limited region of my neural machinery. You can protect yourself against the Swift meme by simply avoiding her albums and any content about her.

But this is easier said than done.

And that brings us back to the 2024 election.

A legitimately big question for the future of the nation is, will Swift, the 2023 TIME Person of the Year, publicly endorse Biden, and if so, how much of her memetic influence will she use to see that her candidate wins? It is this question that our scientific analysis can help answer.

Since we’ve determined that her career and personal decisions are intimately intertwined, it is almost certain that she won’t endorse Trump, despite her popularity with red America and a viral video — it was a complete fabrication — of Swift supposedly holding a flag reading “Trump Won.” During the 2020 campaign, Swift was publicly critical of Trump and advocated that Americans vote him out of office.

At this point, she literally can’t without losing all her media support and becoming enemy number one of the left.

The articles from websites such as The New Yorker are memetic influences that effectively trap Taylor Swift in a blue bubble and ensure that she doesn’t flip on the powers that catalyzed her stardom.

But this doesn’t necessarily mean that Swift will publicly back Biden this year, even if she did in 2020. Biden's team, of course, is actively dreaming of the day Swift does.

It’ll be interesting to see just how political she dares to get as the election approaches. The safest route for the continued spread of the Swift meme is for her to lay low and not rock the political boat much. That’s the prediction that memetics makes, and this Swiftie is pretty confident that we can trust the science.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

When delving into the perplexing world of politics and the enigmatic figure of Donald Trump, we often encounter a peculiar phenomenon amongst his supporters: a staunch refusal to accept any criminal allegation or felony charge against him, no matter how compelling the evidence.

There are many neurological and psychological reasons for this irrational behavior. But today, we will focus on the mental phenomena I feel are most urgent to explore ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

First, a disclaimer: I am not a psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist — I am a cognitive neuroscientist with a research focus in clinical psychology (in particular, anxiety’s effect on attention). In fact, much of my published work has appeared in psychology journals. As a science journalist, I have been covering the psychology of Trump and his supporters since he emerged on the political scene in 2015.

Now that Trump is running for president again while facing 91 felony charges, I feel a moral responsibility to illuminate all the mental factors that are driving Americans to support a man who is a master manipulator, and incapable of telling the truth. Unfortunately, these are qualities that are too common among presidential candidates, but Trump is a particularly egregious example, and therefore we must be vigilant. This article is meant to inform but also to warn voters of what is to come.

Cognitive challenge of disbelief

In 2009, a study published in PLOS ONE challenged our understanding of belief systems.

Researchers placed participants into the confines of an fMRI scanner and presented them with a mixture of factual and abstract statements. The results were illuminating. Disbelief, it turns out, is cognitively demanding. It requires more mental effort than simply accepting a statement as true. From an evolutionary perspective, this preference for easy belief makes sense; a perpetually skeptical individual questioning every piece of information would struggle to adapt in a fast-paced world.

ALSO READ: How Trump could run his campaign – and the nation – from behind bars

What does all this have to do with Trump supporters? Well, it’s far less cognitively demanding for them to believe anything their leader tells them. Any challenge to what Trump tells them is true takes mental work. This means there is a psychological incentive for Trump loyalists to maintain their loyalty. (I wrote about this phenomenon in a slightly different context in the Daily Beast article "Religious Fundamentalism: A Side Effect of Lazy Brains?")

Molding of belief: neuroplasticity at play

Now, let's consider the unique predicament faced by individuals who staunchly support Trump and want him to again become president. From the moment Trump began his political career and his social engineering career, his supporters have been exposed to narratives — Trump doesn't lie, Democrats are communists, the media is an enemy of the people — that emphasize loyalty and trust in their political idol. These narratives often steer away from critical examination and instead encourage blind faith. When coupled with the brain's inherent tendency to accept rather than question, it creates an ideal environment for unwavering allegiance. No matter that Trump, time and again, has been revealed to be a serial liar, habitually misrepresenting matters of great consequence, from elections to economics to public health.

ALSO READ: Trump is embracing five ‘fake news’ outlets he supposedly hates

For example, in the Psychology Today article "Why Evangelicals are Wired to Believe Trump’s Falsehoods," I explain that the children of Christian fundamentalists typically begin to suppress critical thinking at an early age. This is required if one is to accept Biblical stories as literal truth, rather than metaphors for how to live life practically and with purpose. Attributing natural occurrences to mystical causes discourages youth from seeking evidence to back their beliefs.

Consequently, the brain structures that support critical thinking and logical reasoning don't fully mature. This paves the way for heightened vulnerability to deceit and manipulative narratives, especially from cunning political figures. Such increased suggestibility arises from a mix of the brain's propensity to accept unverified claims and intense indoctrination. Given the brain's neuroplastic nature, which allows it to shape according to experiences, some religious followers are more predisposed to accept improbable assertions.

In other words, our brains are remarkably adaptable and continuously evolving landscapes. For ardent Trump supporters, residing in an environment that prioritizes faith over empirical evidence can reshape the neural circuits within their brains.

Imagine these neural pathways as trails in a forest. The more one traverses the path of unquestioning belief, the clearer and more entrenched it becomes. The path of skepticism, however, grows over with doubts and becomes difficult to navigate. This cognitive reshaping primes individuals to accept, and even defend, far-fetched statements and suggestions presented by manipulative politicians.

The Dunning-Kruger effect

This cognitive bias occurs when individuals with low ability at a task overestimate their capability. Translated to the context of understanding complex legal matters, some Trumpists might believe they have a superior grasp of the former president’s predicament and dismiss expert opinions, thinking they're immune to being misled.

The Dunning-Kruger effect becomes especially concerning in the context of polarizing issues, such as climate change. A research study from the University of New Hampshire in 2017, for example, revealed that a mere 25 percent of those identifying as Trump supporters acknowledged the role of human actions in climate change. This is in stark contrast to the 97 percent consensus among climate scientists on the issue.

This troublesome cognitive bias could be making it easier for Trump to deliver unchallenged falsehoods to his more uneducated followers. In some cases, not only are these individuals uninformed, they are unlikely to seek new information on their own. In their minds, they have nothing to learn because Trump and his acolytes have already told them what they need to know.

Reevaluating our cognitive reflexes

It is important to state that these phenomena are not exclusive to Trump supporters or any particular political group; this article serves as a broader reflection on the cognitive shortcuts that our brains favor.

If we aspire to build a society less susceptible to misinformation, we must embark on a paradigm shift. Our educational approach should pivot from passive acceptance of supposed “facts” to the exhilarating pursuit of questioning authority and healthy skepticism (as too much skepticism can also lead to irrational thinking). Recognizing that belief, in many ways, is the brain's default mode rather than a conscious choice, can serve as the first step in this cerebral revolution.

In conclusion, the unwavering belief in Trump, despite the felony charges against him, is not solely a political matter but, for some, a manifestation of our brain's intrinsic tendencies. Understanding this cognitive dynamic is pivotal in addressing the challenges posed by misinformation and fostering a more critical and discerning society.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the new book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him @BobbyAzarian.

As the holiday season approaches, family gatherings are set to transform homes into microcosms of the national political landscape. In these reunions, conversations can quickly turn from benign banter about sports to the divisive topic of politics. With an election cycle upon us the name “Trump” can be as contentious as it is inescapable, turning a festive gathering of lights and eggnog into an ideological battleground.

This is the challenge many of us face this Christmas: How do we, armed with our morals and convictions, navigate the treacherous terrain of political discourse with those we love — without the feast turning into a fracas?

If you are a lone liberal leaf in a staunchly conservative family tree, you may be dreading the holiday. If you are not alone, and the family is more-or-less divided on political topics, it can be even worse — all holy hell can break loose. It is not an exaggeration to say that families can be — and sometimes are — torn apart in the highly polarized political climate we find ourselves in.

ALSO READ: These healthcare nonprofits are accepting millions from Big Tobacco

The solution to this problem lies in developing strategies based on an understanding of neuroscience and psychology that can calm the storm within, ensuring that our physiological responses do not commandeer our interactions.

But what if I told you that an understanding of the relevant concepts holds the key to not just surviving these encounters, but potentially bridging family divides? The goal isn't to convert but to converse, and to plant seeds of thought that might, in time, bear fruit.

Let this article serve as a guide to navigating political discussions with grace and the subtle powers of persuasion.

The first thing we need to know is that two distinct yet interdependent cognitive systems govern our decision-making processes.

System 1, the intuitive and automatic pilot, reacts without conscious deliberation, guided by emotions and entrenched biases. It’s the system that flares up at the mention of Trump, fueling heated debates with reactionary zeal.

Supporters wait in line outside of the the Kellogg Arena to see U.S. President Donald Trump speak at his "Merry Christmas" rally being held at the Kellogg Arena on December 18, 2019 in Battle Creek, Mich. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Contrast this with System 2, the reflective and analytical mind, which involves active engagement with conscious reasoning and rational thought, akin to a chess player contemplating the board. It’s this system that allows for nuanced discussion, helping you dissect the layers of Trump's policies and rhetoric without devolving into tribalistic fervor.

By learning how to stay in a System 2 state of mind, and how to induce the same state in our conversation partners, we equip ourselves with a powerful tool for fostering more constructive dialogues.

Now, let’s imagine a generic Christmas family gathering. This will help you prepare to turn a contentious situation into a constructive conversation.

The turkey is carved, the casserole is cooked and the spiked eggnog is being poured around the table as the annual ritual of family gathering unfolds.

ALSO READ: Trump’s voice is hawking ‘gold bars’ on YouTube. But is it really Trump?

Yet, beneath the festive veneer, a familiar tension simmers, threatening to boil over as Uncle Bob, with a glint in his eye, extols the virtues of Donald Trump. As your patience wears thin, the conversation turns darker and angrier, until everyone at the table who is not a Trump supporter feels uneasy. You love Uncle Bob, and he loves you, but the burly conservative has been liberal with the whiskey and you can predict where the conversation is headed, if someone doesn’t do something to shift gears.

Before you can figure out how to do that, something is said that triggers you. Your body reacts instinctively, preparing itself for what it perceives as a threat. This is politics engaging our stress response. Our autonomic nervous system, the conductor of our body's stress orchestra, readies its instruments. The heart rate accelerates. Muscles tense. Breaths become fast and shallow. It's the famous “fight or flight” response, a survival mechanism that served our ancestors well when faced with physical danger.

But at a family dinner, it doesn't have any adaptive function.

These are the physiological consequences of the activation of the amygdala, an almond-shaped cluster of neurons in the brain's temporal lobe that functions as a "threat detector." When exposed to stimuli perceived as threats — be it an angry expression or a disparaging remark — the amygdala rapidly processes this information and ushers us into a defensive mode, marked by heightened tribalism and strict adherence to familiar worldviews.

The activation of the amygdala can instantly shift someone’s cognitive operating mode from System 2 to System 1. When this happens, it can be very hard for System 2 to get back in the driver’s seat. This reaction has been called "amygdala hijack,” capturing the essence of how our brain’s response to threat can momentarily commandeer our behavioral control.

If you get pulled into this confrontational mode and it is detected by your conversation partner, it will likely trigger the same mode in them. When this happens, both sides will start perceiving any attempts to be persuaded as an attack on their worldview. Once this happens, a polarization cycle emerges — a process in which individuals or groups with conflicting ideologies move progressively further apart in their beliefs and attitudes as a result of interacting.

ALSO READ: How Trump’s mouth is killing American exceptionalism

This cycle is self-reinforcing, with each instance of disagreement widening the divide: one party adopts a more extreme stance, then the opposing party responds by also adopting a more extreme stance, until both sides have doubled-down to the point that they are in complete opposition.

We must avoid polarization cycles whenever possible. This means we must escape amygdala hijack, and get back into a reflective rather than a reactive mindset.

So how do we activate System 2 in ourselves and others?

The first strategy is self-awareness. Practicing mindfulness can serve as a calming prelude to political discussions, grounding us and engaging the cognitive processes of System 2. This entails becoming conscious of the need to be mentally resilient to potential triggers. Like a captain who knows the sea, understand your emotional currents, and take steps to stay in control. For example, be aware of your emotional state, and as anger or frustration emerges, allow the feelings to pass rather than letting them control you.

In addition, simply becoming aware of your breathing to ensure it is deep and sufficiently slow can help regulate your body's stress response, bringing you back to a state of calm. Imagine each breath as a gust of wind, filling the sails of your composure and propelling you forward with intention and mental clarity. It's a technique that can be quietly employed, even mid-conversation, to maintain your equilibrium.

A hat tops off a Christmas tree at a "Merry Christmas" rally hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump at the Kellogg Arena on December 18, 2019 in Battle Creek, Mich. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

If the conversation does escalate, don't be afraid to take a break — just excuse yourself and step away. Use this time to regroup and calm your nervous system. When you return, you'll be better equipped to navigate the dialogue with poise.

Now that you know how to preemptively self-regulate, let’s focus on your interaction with your ideologically-dissimilar family member.

When you do reengage in the discussion, practice “active listening.” This involves focused attention and conscious processing of what the other person is saying, rather than mentally preparing your counterargument.) Repeat back what they've said, in a subtly different form, if possible, to show them you are paying full attention. This doesn't signify agreement; it simply shows that you’re open to learning new things and that you’re deeply considering their points. Use this opportunity to really understand why that person has that perspective as a result of their worldview, knowledge base and lived experience.

Remember that beneath every opinion lies a complex interplay of beliefs, biases and emotions. Understanding how these factors determine each individual’s unique point of view will give you a more accurate mental model of that person, which will help you see opportunities for alignment.

ALSO READ: Nazis bullied a conservative Tennessee town. Locals punched back. Trump should be worried.

This is practicing what is known as “cognitive empathy.” This type of empathy invites us to step into the shoes of another, to understand their web of beliefs and emotional landscape. Practicing cognitive empathy can turn a fiery debate into a constructive dialogue, enabling us to appreciate the reasons behind a family member's support for Trump, even if we don’t agree.

The practice of cognitive empathy is important, but equally important is the act of sharing your perspectives when they can help steer our collective future toward greater good. However, doing so can very easily trigger amygdala hijack and a polarization cycle. If each impassioned plea for reason seems to ricochet off an invisible ideological shield, then you can assume your conversation partner is locked in a System 1 state of mind, and you must engineer a System 2 state if you want to get through to them or, at least, emerge from the conversation relatively unscathed.

Our words have great influence when used strategically, with the power to either bridge divides or widen them. Careful selection of language can pivot a disagreement from adversarial to collaborative. Effective persuasion leverages the subtleties of language, the psychology of the audience, and narrative.

Consider a scenario where two people are engaged in a discussion that turns into a debate and one of them feels compelled to point out a flaw in another's understanding.

A direct approach might be to say, “What you don’t understand is… (e.g., the issue is more complex than you realize).” Such framing, especially with the use of "you," can inadvertently feel confrontational, suggesting a challenge to the listener's intelligence or worldview.

A more psychologically sensitive approach could be to shift from the individual-specific "you" to the more inclusive "people" or "we."

For instance, “What many people might not see is…” or “What we often overlook is...” Instead of insinuating a personal deficiency or oversight, it proposes a broader human tendency. Framing things this way positions the perspective not as a critique but as a shared revelation. It hints at a collective journey of discovery, inviting collaboration and co-creation.

By transforming the narrative in this way, you are no longer the ideological enemy, but a friend wanting to show them something interesting that enlightened your perspective, which used to be something like theirs in the past. Such linguistic choices, subtle yet affecting, can pave the way for resolution.

ALSO READ: A Christmas wish: Republican immigration policy worthy of Baby Jesus

Highlight areas of agreement, no matter how small. This creates a foundation from which you can both build. When Uncle Bob goes on about Hunter Biden and how he’s a criminal, acknowledge the truth of those statements. This will make them far more likely to concede to truths about Trump’s corruption.

Using open-ended questions that don't have a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer can help move someone into a more contemplative state. For instance, "What led you to that conclusion?" invites reflection and dialogue and fosters a System 2 state.

Lastly, know when to let go. Not every conversation needs to reach the shore of agreement. Sometimes, it's enough to sail alongside each other, even if your destinations differ. Accept that some political discussions, like oceans, are vast and deep, and it's okay to navigate them without seeking conquest.

Incorporating these strategies into your holiday interactions can help transform political discourse from a source of stress to an opportunity for growth. As you sit around the table this holiday season, remember that beneath the cacophony of clashing opinions lies the quiet hum of your shared humanity. With the right approach, discussing politics with your family, even about figures as divisive as Trump, can be a journey of connection rather than a voyage into the eye of the storm.

After all, isn't the holiday spirit about coming together? What could be better than the warmth of shared laughter, the rich tapestry of family history and the nuanced dance of a conversation that's both kind, candid and constructive.

After all, this is the season of miracles.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

According to recent 2024 presidential polls, Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden, meaning the former president could indeed become the president of the United States once again.

If that thought terrifies you, you are not alone. So, the question is, what can we do to stop the nation from racing toward an authoritarian regime ruled by a pathological narcissist? If we can understand the psychological factors underlying Trump’s enduring appeal, then we may be able to see a way to exploit that scientific knowledge.

Doing so is more than an academic exercise — the future of our nation may depend on it.

While the left often focuses on Trump’s right wing stances and xenophobic rhetoric, one of the main reasons he remains popular is that he is perceived to be the anti-establishment candidate. This phenomenon is a facet of a broader populist wave that has been gaining momentum worldwide — one that is not exclusive to any single nation or political ideology. In the United States, both Trump and left-wing figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders have tapped into a deep-seated frustration with what is perceived as a self-serving system composed of powerful corporations and politicians.

It is within this backdrop of disillusionment that fertile ground for conspiracy theories and authoritarian fantasies has emerged. The knowledge of corruption breeds speculation, giving rise to movements such as QAnon as manifestations of this anti-establishment sentiment.

The question then arises: What draws individuals toward this nexus of anti-establishment fervor and conspiratorial thinking? This article seeks to unravel this enigma through the lens of cognitive neuroscience. We will explore how our brains process the complexities of corruption and conspiracy, and why, in a time of uncertainty, the allure of political fiction and imagined enemies becomes increasingly potent.

The Bayesian Brain Hypothesis, the current leading neuroscientific theory of how the brain works, provides a compelling framework for this exploration, especially in the context of political discourse and the proliferation of conspiracy theories.

This hypothesis proposes that the human brain operates much like a scientist in a laboratory: it is a prediction machine that continuously generates, tests and updates theories about the world. These theories are part of a “world model” constructed by the mind – a rich, internal representation of reality, formed by a lifetime of learning. This model informs our understanding of how things are and predicts how they will be. It is a dynamic construct, continuously refined by the influx of new data coming in from the senses, much like a scientist revising a theory in light of new experimental data.

ALSO READ: George Santos’ potential replacement also has financial ethics issues

The process is “Bayesian” — named for English mathematician Thomas Bayes — meaning it is statistical at its heart. Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference that uses a mathematical formula, known as Bayes' theorem, to update the probability that a theory is true as more evidence or information becomes available. Neuroscientists now believe that the brain uses a very basic form of this general statistical method to calculate the likelihood of different possible outcomes. This allows the brain to make educated guesses about the future based on past experiences. The brain assesses the probability of an event by taking into account the prior evidence (what we know) and the new evidence (the incoming information).

When new information aligns with the brain's predictions, it reinforces the current “world model,” increasing a person’s confidence in their beliefs.

However, when incoming data contradicts the model's predictions, the brain experiences a mismatch, known as prediction error. It is at this juncture that cognitive dissonance arises – the mental discomfort experienced when holding two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas or values.

ALSO READ: Nazis bullied a conservative Tennessee town. Locals punched back. Trump should be worried.

When this happens, the brain has a choice: either revise one’s world model to accommodate the new information (thereby reducing the prediction error), or increase the model's resistance to change by discounting or ignoring the contradictory data.

This Bayesian Brain framework is particularly illuminating when considering the allure and persistence of conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories often arise in the context of events or information that starkly contradict a person's established narrative or world model.

When individuals encounter such anomalies, their brains are compelled to reduce the resulting prediction error either by assimilating the new facts (which may involve elaborate rationalizations) or by adopting a new model that accounts for these facts (which may involve turning to conspiracy theories).

If the existing, accepted narrative – be it from media, authorities or common wisdom – is perceived as unreliable or deceptive, the brain may lean towards alternative explanations to restore coherence to its worldview, even if those explanations previously seemed implausible. These alternative theories may take the form of conspiracy theories — veritable fuel for Trump’s political ambitions — especially if it offers an easy explanation of a perceived deception and aligns with one's underlying suspicions or mistrust of the establishment.

Take, for example, the case of the opioid crisis, caused in part by irresponsible practices of pharmaceutical companies. This crisis was not a mere corporate scandal; it represented a fundamental breach of public trust. The pharmaceutical industry, once regarded by most as a bastion of scientific advancement and health, was exposed for prioritizing profit over public well-being, leading to widespread addiction and loss of life.

The stark contrast between the pharmaceutical industry's professed commitment to health and the grim reality of the opioid crisis created a significant discrepancy in the public’s mental model of the healthcare sector, leaving a palpable dissonance in the public's perception of healthcare.

Amid this climate of distrust, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic presented a fresh wave of prediction errors for the global population's collective “world model.” The rapid spread of the deadly virus globally — something difficult to comprehend since we’ve never experienced it before in our lives — coupled with changing guidelines and advice from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, created a fertile environment for misinformation.

ALSO READ: Revealed: How South Carolina’s capital city accommodated Trump ‘patriots’

As the pharmaceutical industry raced to develop vaccines, many individuals, already disillusioned by the opioid crisis and similar revelations, viewed these efforts through a lens of suspicion. The lack of a cohesive and transparent response from health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry, especially in light of their historical silence on past misdeeds, did little to satisfy public concerns.

In the Bayesian brain's attempt to minimize prediction errors and make sense of the unfolding crisis, some segments of the population turned to alternative narratives that seemingly offered clarity and certainty. The brain's natural quest for coherence, combined with a deep-seated distrust in health institutions, led some Americans to find more sinister theories about the pandemic's origin and the vaccines' purpose — like the notion of an Illuminati-led population control plan — surprisingly believable.

All the while, Trump, as president, exploited the situation for his perceived political gain, personally and publicly contradicting his medical advisers and public health officials, and often just plain common sense.

ALSO READ: How Trump’s mouth is killing American exceptionalism

In this environment of skepticism, Bayesian reasoning leads some people to question mainstream sources and seek alternative explanations. However, the brain's tendency to "connect the dots" can lead to incorrect inferences. The brain's predictive model can become so skewed by distrust that even the most bizarre theories can seem plausible.

This phenomenon is not just about misinformation or lack of knowledge; it's about a crisis of meaning and trust. We live in what some have termed a “post-truth era,” where the traditional bastions of factual information — schools, mainstream media organizations and government experts — are doubted, and subjective belief often overrides objective evidence. While a certain amount of skepticism is absolutely necessary given the corruption and media bias that actually exists, doubting everything leads to a mindset that is more irrational than blindly believing everything.

In this landscape, outlandish theories — like those peddled by deceptive sources such as Q and Alex Jones — can gain traction. This is not necessarily because they are believed in their entirety, but because they offer a simpler narrative in a world where the “official story” is viewed with suspicion.

The rise of conspiracy theories in the context of Trump's presidency can be seen through this lens. Trump’s often confrontational and contradictory statements further muddled the waters of public discourse. He challenged established narratives and institutions with strongman confidence. For many, Trump’s bombastic rhetoric resonated not because it offered factual clarity or even approached something resembling truth. It resonated because it echoed their disillusionment with a system they perceived as fundamentally deceptive.

Of course, the existence of corruption in Washington is not a myth; instances of political scandals, lobbying influence and ethical breaches are well-documented and systemic. These realities, albeit often less dramatic than portrayed in conspiracy theories, provide the seeds from which such theories sprout. When these issues are not addressed transparently and proactively by political leaders and institutions, they leave room for speculation and exaggeration.

Taking the nation beyond the post-truth era — a post-post-truth era, if you will — requires more than debunking individual theories; it calls for a systematic approach to rebuild trust.

All political and corporate entities must recognize the role they play in either exacerbating or alleviating this crisis of trust. This involves not only future transparency from institutions but also acknowledgement of past deceptions. This has not happened so far — we have not seen a high-profile public apology from the pharmaceutical companies for their role in the opioid crisis, and government agencies such as the CDC have not acknowledged how poorly executed the response to COVID really was (even if Trump and his administration was to blame for much of it).

ALSO READ: Here's why taxpayers just paid another $1.3 million into an unused government fund

Admission of past wrongdoings or incompetency combined with promises of future transparency and open dialogue are necessary for rebuilding trust.

This, however, is only part of the solution. There must also be a concerted effort to educate the public on critical thinking and how our cognitive processes can lead us astray. Education in critical thinking and media literacy becomes paramount in empowering individuals to navigate this complex information landscape. By understanding the workings of our own minds, we can be better equipped to discern truth from fiction and make informed choices in our lives and in our politics.

The brain's attempt to make sense of a world full of contradictory information can lead to the acceptance of implausible theories, particularly in an environment where official narratives are viewed with skepticism. Addressing this challenge requires a multifaceted approach, including institutional transparency, educational initiatives in critical thinking, and a deeper public understanding of our cognitive processes.

Failure to address these issues risks a further descent into a world where unfounded speculation reigns and figures such as Trump, who will continue to exploit these divisions for as long as he’s in the public arena, can thrive.

If we don't confront these challenges, we risk spiraling further into a realm dominated by baseless conjecture and disinformation. In this environment, figures such as Trump, who hide authoritarian tendencies under an anti-establishment facade, are poised to succeed by exploiting these divisions as long as they remain in the public eye.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

It is rational to be deeply concerned at this moment in history. The divisive conflict between Israelis and Palestinians ultimately represents a battle between two of the world’s major religions.

At its worst, this war could pit the Judeo-Christian world against the Islamic world, bringing about a kind of global spiritual war. In fact, we are already seeing signs of that — the militant Islamic group Hezbollah in Lebanon is now launching airstrikes over Israel’s border, while U.S. and Iranian proxy forces are attacking each other inside Syria and Iraq. These events are quickly dividing the public, with most feeling like they have to choose one side or the other.

The highly interconnected nature of human civilization means that regional disputes are amplified through the global network of communications and alliances. This interconnectivity can transform localized strife into a series of international incidents, creating a domino effect that risks drawing multiple superpowers into a broader conflict.

ALSO READ: Nazis bullied a conservative Tennessee town. Locals punched back. Trump should be worried.

Beyond Israel and Gaza, Russia and Ukraine remain at war, while tensions between the United States and China over Taiwan’s autonomy remain high. It is unnerving to acknowledge, but War III is not just some fantasy in a movie script or post-apocalyptic novel. It’s a very real possibility.

Our fate, however, is hardly set in stone, thanks to our intelligence and ability to engage in reflective thinking. To prevent this nightmarish outcome, we must understand the biological, psychological and sociological forces at play, and we must use this knowledge to discover a solution. If we can see where we are headed as a world system of nations and cultures, then in theory we should be able to use our collective agency to steer civilization toward a more peaceful outcome.

Let’s begin our ambitious task by getting an understanding of why such conflicts emerge in the first place, from an evolutionary perspective.

The principle of competitive exclusion

The Principle of Competitive Exclusion is a well-established concept in ecology which says that two distinct species occupying the same niche and competing for the same resources cannot stably coexist. The ongoing conflict will eventually lead to one group’s extinction or removal from the niche.

This principle is an expression of the harsh reality of natural selection, and if the agents involved in such a conflict don’t have the ability to understand this dynamic, they will not be able to avoid falling into it.

The Principle of Competitive Exclusion can also be applied to hominids, the family of primates that includes modern humans, our ancestors and other human species, such as Neanderthals. Evidence from paleoanthropology suggests that this dynamic played a significant role in our own evolutionary history; the competition for niches is believed to have been a contributing factor to the extinction of other hominid species as Homo sapiens became more dominant.

Flash forward to the present day. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as a contemporary reflection of the Competitive Exclusion Principle, with two groups competing for resources and self-determination in a shared geographical space. The main difference between this example and the ones given in ecology is that the two groups are members of the same species. So why are these agents at war when they could be integrating into a diverse yet harmonious whole?

ALSO READ: Why Gaza cannot become a binary choice

In his 2002 book The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex, complexity theorist Harold Morowitz explained the reason for the conflict:

“In spite of the close biological affinity of all humans — according to mitochondrial DNA studies we all have a common ancestor within the last 200,000 years — humans constantly erect cultural barriers to interbreeding, where no biological barriers exist … In a number of contemporary societies two or more groups live in the same country and exist in almost complete reproductive isolation because of religion, race, language, ideology, or other nonbiological barriers. As a result an analog to sympatric species is artificially produced. We designate these noninterbreeding groups as pseudospecies.”

The concept of pseudospecies — socially and culturally defined groups that act as though separated by biological differences — allows us to understand the Principle of Competitive Exclusion within the human domain. When two groups of humans possess different worldviews, and those worldviews create a clear distinction between in-group and out-group members, those groups become akin to two distinct organisms locked in a competitive struggle.

Worldviews simultaneously unite and divide

Examples of worldviews include religions, political ideologies and national identities. These belief systems give us a sense of purpose and meaning, and attempt to make sense of a confusing and often chaotic reality.

In evolutionary terms, a worldview is a strategy for collective survival. That is, it provides a blueprint for a stable society, in much the same way that a genome encodes a blueprint for a stable organism, and a strategy for individual survival.

Worldviews are an important part of the evolutionary process because they facilitate the emergence of a society by aligning the interests of interacting agents and harmonizing their activities.

Religions, for example, gave humans a collective purpose and ethical system that produced social order from behavioral chaos. In this way, worldviews entrain groups of humans into a unified whole, bringing about the creation of a social organism — an intelligent organism made of many intelligent organisms. When a social organism forms, the members of that larger adaptive network gain an enhanced layer of defense against the unforgiving elements of the natural world, such as environmental dangers and threats from competitors.

Cultural worldviews serve as powerful social adhesives that bond the members of each group internally, fostering a strong collective identity. However, these same worldviews also act as dividers, erecting psychological and emotional barriers that separate us from those who do not share our perspective. Because the religions of the world are all different, to one degree or another, they have the effect of dividing us into tribes with conflicting visions about how the world is, and how it should be.

ALSO READ: Why Black Americans’ lives depend on backing Israel

Organisms with sufficiently different genomes will typically be in conflict unless they develop symbiotic or mutually beneficial relationships. Social organisms with different worldviews will often be at odds with one another — or even war — until they find a way to align interests. The "us versus them" mentality perpetuates a cycle of bias and conflict, mirroring the competition for survival seen in the animal world.

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we see two groups in conflict, each vying for the same niche, with no desire to co-exist peacefully.

The Hamas chant “from the river to the sea” makes that crystal clear, and Israel’s government has been trying to systematically push Palestinians out of the territory for most of a century, in accordance with a Zionist philosophy. The Principle of Competitive Exclusion is clearly at work in the human world thanks to rigid worldviews that create pseudospecies. Though maybe it’s more accurate to place the blame on the bureaucrats than the religions themselves, because it is the leaders and military bodies who choose to not come to a peaceful and fair solution, not the Israeli and Palestinian civilians, who are trapped in a cruel game they never agreed to play.

Fortunately, humanity's unique cognitive abilities offer a pathway beyond the seemingly inevitable conclusion of competitive exclusion. Humans possess a profound capacity for reflection, for conscious deliberation and for transcendence beyond instinctual reactions. This higher level of consciousness, a product of a more developed prefrontal cortex, allows us to recognize the artificial nature of these pseudospecies barriers and the shared lineage that unites us. It is this cognitive trait that offers a path beyond the zero-sum game of competitive exclusion, because it gives us the ability to alter our worldview when it becomes clear that it needs updating.

A unifying worldview: human civilization as a ‘superorganism’

To move forward as a single species, the relevant science suggests that we must consciously embrace a new universal worldview.

This worldview, inspired by evolutionary theory and an approach to problem solving called “systems thinking,” would recognize the interconnectedness of all human beings, not merely as a moral ideal, but as a practical reality. It would be rooted in the understanding that we are all part of an emerging global superorganism, an integrated network of lives and destinies that are inextricably linked.

We know that our civilization is now an interdependent system because if there is a crisis in one crucial region then the whole global network suffers. We saw how a local problem can quickly wreak global havoc with the 2008 financial collapse.

We endured an even more extreme version in 2020 with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This tells us that coming together to create a new level of global coordination despite our ideological differences is not a luxury, but a necessity. Our common existential challenges will require the full computational power of the “global brain” that is human civilization. That means we must cooperate and collaborate in a directed way to prevent calamities that could consume us all — WWIII, weaponized A.I., the spread of authoritarianism, income inequality, pandemics and climate change. These are things that threaten the entire human race, and in that way, they bind us together.

When we adopt this universal perspective, which is at once scientific and spiritual (in the sense that it unifies us under a larger purpose), we begin to see how the wellbeing of one is tied to the wellbeing of all. Envisioning humanity as a global superorganism allows for a reimagining of individual and collective identity. The suffering of any one part is a wound to the collective whole. The deaths of civilians in conflict zones becomes not just a local tragedy but a global one, necessitating a response from the collective human superorganism.

In this light, the Principle of Competitive Exclusion is transformed from a rule of conflict to a challenge of integration. It urges us to find ways to coexist not by eliminating the other but by expanding our sense of self to include the other. This is the essence of the superorganism worldview — one that sees not a battleground of competing tribes but a tapestry of human endeavor, rich with the potential for synthesis and harmony while preserving its unique variety of cultures and customs. It calls for a new kind of global cooperation, one that transcends tribalistic divisions and unites us in the common pursuit of a world that is sustainable, just and flourishing.

While the articulation of a unifying worldview is the first step, it is only through actionable solutions that such a vision can materialize.

A new global ethos

An ethos is the characteristic spirit of a culture, era or community as manifested in its beliefs and aspirations. The establishment of a new global ethos based on the human superorganism perspective requires a fundamental shift in how we envision international cooperation. Systems thinking is an analytical approach that views complex problems through the lens of the whole system rather than isolated parts. It focuses on designing resilient and adaptive systems capable of withstanding and evolving through challenges, with an understanding that changes in one part of a system can significantly impact the entire system.

Systems thinking naturally leads to thinking on a global scale. To build a global ethos of unity and peace, we need a more inclusive and participatory approach that values the contribution of all the individuals working to maintain a stable whole. Current global governance structures, like the United Nations, often rely on top-down mechanisms that may not fully represent or address grassroots concerns. The new approach should leverage local initiatives and voices, integrating them into the fabric of international policymaking and conflict resolution. The transformation of international organizations to reflect a more bottom-up approach would empower individuals and communities to participate in the global decision-making process.

In his 2022 book The Network State, Balaji Srinivasan offers a vision for connecting people around the globe by proposing a decentralized, internet-based state that leverages digital platforms to unite individuals with shared goals across borders. This model of a network state reimagines governance and community, where decentralized systems enable direct, global participation in decision-making, challenging the conventional boundaries of geopolitical entities. This is just one blueprint for global coordination without centralized powers calling all the shots.

The systems-thinking approach would encourage educational reform to instill a mindset of global citizenship, economic policies that promote equitable resource distribution and diplomatic efforts that prioritize peace and mutual reciprocity.

Of course, these are long-term solutions for a global restructuring of human civilization to be more robust and democratic. What solutions does this new paradigm propose for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

A solution for peace in the Middle East

In light of the insights gleaned from systems thinking and the unifying concept of humanity as a global superorganism, it's time to reexamine the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with fresh eyes. Of course, for decades world leaders have tried to bring a durable peace to the Middle East and failed. Hope for lasting harmony is not something in abundance. Although the road to peace is fraught with challenges and a history of deep-rooted resistance to compromise, applying a systems-oriented perspective illuminates potential paths to resolution that, while complex, are indeed attainable. First, it instantly eliminates solutions that would involve a competitive exclusion-style outcome, where one ethnic group pushes the other out of the region entirely. After these options are eliminated, we reconsider the remaining solutions that have been proposed, which would be updated with adaptive design principles and more evolved ethical considerations.

A “two-state solution” is the most widely supported international framework, and it envisions an independent State of Israel and an independent State of Palestine living side by side in peace and security. Some propose a confederation between Israel and Palestine, where two sovereign states are linked together with shared economic and security structures but retain their separate governments. The more economic interdependence the better, because then war becomes even more costly to both parties, incentivizing peace. Areas of significant contention, particularly Jerusalem, could be placed under international administration to guarantee equal access to holy sites and shared resources.

Even more integrative would be a “one-state solution” that doesn’t entail the dark consequences of the Competitive Exclusion Principle. This resolution would create a single state that includes Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, where all inhabitants have equal rights. It could be a “bi-national state,” a single democratic state in which Israelis and Palestinians have equal representation and protections under the law, maintaining their distinct national identities. Or, it could be a one-state solution where the state is secular, with no official religion or national identity, ensuring equal rights for all citizens regardless of ethnicity or religion.

Either option would be a giant step up from the current situation. While the two-state solution is more realistic, it could serve as a potential transition state to the more integrated single state in the not-too-distant future. Of course, the success of any plan would depend on the willingness of the populations to reconcile and live together in peace. For this, the unifying worldview of human civilization as a coherent superorganism is needed. Ideally, this unifying worldview — in the form of a precise scientific framework that offers systems-based solutions — would be presented alongside peace negotiations, and communicated to the global public by scientists, journalists, and educators.

In conclusion, while the Principle of Competitive Exclusion explains much of the biological world and our ancestral history, it need not dictate our future. By recognizing our shared identity and common goals, we can override the primitive instincts that drive us apart. We can choose to foster a world where cultural and ideological diversity enriches rather than divides, where cooperation and mutual understanding prevail. It is through this enlightened approach that humanity can move past the archaic boundaries of pseudospecies and toward a unified, peaceful coexistence.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.

Right now, there is an internal war raging inside the Republican Party that is an ideological battle for its heart and soul.

Progressives should be optimistic about this internal strife, and not just because it signifies a divided right-wing going into the coming presidential election. The failure of Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) — a man known as a “hardline conservative agitator” and a Trump loyalist — to claim the House speaker position was the result of a Republican resistance to Jordan’s MAGA philosophy. The moderate wing of the party took a principled stance that risked their careers, and they emerged victorious.

While swaths of the world from Ukraine to Israel and Gaza are in utter chaos, our legislative branch is completely dysfunctional. All that aside, this scenario does offer progressives a glimmer of hope, and also raises a question: Why the sudden backbone from these Republicans? What is the psychology underlying their defiance, and how can we capitalize on this effort to curb ring-wing extremism and limit Trump’s political influence?

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

The social psychology theory known as Terror Management Theory (TMT) has an answer to that. According to this theory, humans have an awareness of their own mortality that creates deep existential terror. We deal with this persistent fear by adopting cultural worldviews — religions, national identities, political ideologies — which infuse our lives with meaning and purpose. By becoming part of an idea and a movement that is larger than oneself, that will outlive the individual, we manage our existential terror.

If this is true, things that remind us of our mortality or create existential terror will cause people to cling more strongly to their cultural worldviews. When this happens, they will also tend to side with those who share their worldview and more fiercely oppose those that appear against it.

If we do indeed adopt cultural worldviews to curb a fear of death — as Terror Management Theory posits — then perceived threats to our worldview should also prompt us to strengthen faith in our worldviews and become more tribal.

An interesting experiment from 1998, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, illustrates this phenomenon. The experimenters asked participants to write about either their own death or a control topic and then presented them with a target person who either disparaged their political views or did not. Afterward, they gave them the opportunity to choose the amount of hot sauce the offender must consume. As predicted, participants who were made fearful by the writing exercise allocated significantly more hot sauce to the worldview-threatening target.

ALSO READ: Trump ‘stiffs law enforcement officers’: Nikki Haley

So, how does Terror Management Theory shed light on the resistance within the Republican party against figures such as Jordan and Trump?

The nomination of the previous House speaker, Republican Kevin McCarthy, who is known as more of a pragmatic legislator than an ideologue, showed where the majority stood. However, a rebellion led by hardline conservatives and Trump loyalists ousted McCarthy, seeking a more extreme replacement. With the headline, “McCarthy became the latest victim of Trump’s GOP revolution,” a CNN journalist wrote:

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media during a break in his civil fraud trial at New York State Supreme Court on October 24, 2023 in New York City. Spencer Platt/Getty Images

“A party that once defined conservatism as preserving a traditional sense of steadiness and strength has evolved over the last three decades into a haven for chaos agents, stunt politics and a perpetual ideological revolution that keeps driving it to new extremes.”

Jordan’s alignment with Trump and Trump’s 2020 election denial, as well as his hardline conservative stances and unwillingness to compromise, epitomizes the radical transformation of the Republican Party.

ALSO READ: GOP congressman — a retired Navy SEAL — uses foreign warship photo in salute to U.S. Navy

Veteran Republicans have long championed a distinct conservative worldview that emphasizes traditional American principles and practicality. For enough U.S. House members within the party, the politics and posturing of figures such as Trump and Jordan appeared to be a sharp departure from these deeply-held convictions, at least within the context of the House speaker’s saga. This opposition isn’t merely political or strategic — it's fundamentally about the preservation of the core values and principles that have been central to the Republican identity for decades.

The perceived existential threat to their traditional worldview posed by the radical movement, coupled with the very real threat to their political careers, triggered the worldview-defense response described by Terror Management Theory.

By opposing Jordan, these Republicans were reinforcing their worldview, their protective buffer against existential threats. When the worldview defense was triggered, the dynamics of group behavior and tribalism described by Terror Management Theory also emerged. Actions threatening a group’s core beliefs will prompt members of that group to bind together and remain true to their ideals.

ALSO READ: '100% pro-Trump' House candidate Bo Hines fined nearly $12,000

After voting against Jordan, the members of the resistance received threats from Jordan supporters, who were almost all certainly Trump supporters, which increased the intensity of the overall perceived threat, further strengthening the worldview-threat response. Articles report that these Republicans "dug in their heels" after facing aggression, as Terror Management Theory would predict.

So, the story of Jim Jordan’s failed bid for speaker of the House teaches us a lot about the psychological and neural factors that at certain times can drive individuals to put the more traditional principles of their party and personal convictions above personal gain. This intriguing dynamic of values against vested interests offers valuable insights into how extremist political movements emerge and are then countered by a wave of resistance that maintains a balanced equilibrium.

This war going on within the Republican Party may symbolize a change in direction of the party, but only time will tell. Nine new speaker candidates emerged last weekend, with only two of them having voted to certify the 2020 presidential election. House Minority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) tried to win the gavel first and flamed out before even standing for an official vote.

In the meantime, progressives should be reminded of the old adage "The enemy of your enemy is your friend." Maybe progressives can find common ground with moderate Republicans on shared values and principles, bridging divides that have polarized the nation and building a coalition against Trump for the 2024 election.

Bobby Azarian is a cognitive neuroscientist and the author of the book The Romance of Reality: How the Universe Organizes Itself to Create Life, Consciousness, and Cosmic Complexity. He is also a blogger for Psychology Today and the creator of the Substack Road to Omega. Follow him on X and Instagram @BobbyAzarian.