The same cognitive switch that lets us see humanity in animals can be inverted to ignore it in people. This 'evil twin,' dehumanization, makes it psychologically easier to harm others during conflict. Marketers and propagandists exploit both sides of this coin, using cute animals to build affinity and dehumanization to justify aggression.

Historically, murderous ideologies like those of Mao and Stalin gained traction by hiding behind benevolent promises ('free stuff'). This benign messaging makes them more deceptively dangerous than overtly aggressive ideologies like Nazism, which clearly signal their malevolence and are thus easier for the public to identify and reject.

The consistent pattern of men committing mass violence is rooted in biological evolution. Men are wired for aggression and physical confrontation, a trait historically selected for by women seeking protectors. This is a biological reality, not a surprising social anomaly.

Algorithms optimize for engagement, and outrage is highly engaging. This creates a vicious cycle where users are fed increasingly polarizing content, which makes them angrier and more engaged, further solidifying their radical views and deepening societal divides.

When a demographic feels perpetually attacked for an unchangeable trait, they are psychologically primed to unify around that identity. This dynamic explains the rise of controversial figures who capitalize on that reactive sentiment, becoming a predictable societal counter-reaction.

Violent acts are not random; they often represent the logical conclusion within a person's specific frame of reference. If an ideology convinces someone they are fighting a Hitler-like evil, then assassination becomes a moral duty, not a crime. The danger lies in these justifying belief systems.

In a study where people could self-stimulate emotions, they chose anger. This suggests anger is not just a reaction but a preferred state because it replaces fear and uncertainty with a clear sense of righteousness and a simple path to action, even if destructive.

People often agree on the facts of a political event but arrive at opposite conclusions because their internal 'threat monitors' are calibrated differently. One person's 'alarming authoritarian move' is another's 'necessary step for order,' leading to intractable debates.

In times of economic inequality, people are psychologically driven to vote for policies that punish a perceived enemy—like the wealthy or immigrants—rather than those that directly aid the poor. This powerful emotional desire for anger and a villain fuels populist leaders.