Viewing the conflict as two rational sides in a misunderstanding is flawed. Both sides see the other as an existential threat and are willing to use extreme violence to achieve their goals. This reframes the narrative from a political dispute to a primal, violent tribal conflict where both sides see themselves as righteous.
Related Insights
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.
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.
In global conflicts, a nation's power dictates its actions and outcomes, not moral righteousness. History shows powerful nations, like the U.S. using nuclear weapons, operate beyond conventional moral constraints, making an understanding of power dynamics more critical than moralizing.
The only historically effective method to resolve deep-rooted religious and ideological conflicts is to shift focus toward shared economic prosperity. Alliances like the Abraham Accords create tangible incentives for peace that ideology alone cannot, by making life demonstrably better for citizens.
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.
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.
Evaluate political ideologies based on their historical potential for large-scale harm ("amplitude"), not just a leader's current negative actions. A socialist path, historically leading to mass death, may pose a greater long-term threat than a leader's immediate, but less catastrophic, authoritarian tendencies.
Effective political propaganda isn't about outright lies; it's about controlling the frame of reference. By providing a simple, powerful lens through which to view a complex situation, leaders can dictate the terms of the debate and trap audiences within their desired narrative, limiting alternative interpretations.
The root of rising civil unrest and anti-immigrant sentiment is often economic insecurity, not just a clash of cultures. People convert financial anxiety into anger, which is then easily directed at visible, culturally different groups, creating flashpoints that can escalate into violence.
The psychological engine of populism is the zero-sum fallacy. It frames every issue—trade deficits, immigration, university admissions—as a win-lose scenario. This narrative, where one group's success must come at another's expense, fosters the protectionist and resentful attitudes that populist leaders exploit.