The tendency to blame a single entity for disparate negative events isn't about logic but about satisfying a deep psychological need for order and control. This "derangement syndrome" provides a simple, pre-made narrative that assigns blame and creates a sense of understanding, regardless of evidence.

We unconsciously frame abstract concepts like 'argument is war' or 'a relationship is a journey' using concrete metaphors. These are not just figures of speech but core cognitive frameworks that dictate our approach to negotiation, conflict, and collaboration. Recognizing them is the first step to changing your perspective and outcome.

Political arguments often stall because people use loaded terms like 'critical race theory' with entirely different meanings. Before debating, ask the other person to define the term. This simple step often reveals that the core disagreement is based on a misunderstanding, not a fundamental clash of values.

Humans crave control. When faced with uncertainty, the brain compensates by creating narratives and seeing patterns where none exist. This explains why a conspiracy theory about a planned event can feel more comforting than a random, chaotic one—the former offers an illusion of understandable order.

The tension between left and right political ideologies is not a flaw but a feature, analogous to a "swarm of AIs" with competing interests. This dynamic creates a natural balance and equilibrium, preventing any single, potentially destructive ideology from going "off the rails" and dominating society completely.

The human brain resists ambiguity and seeks closure. When a significant, factual event occurs but is followed by a lack of official information (often for legitimate investigative reasons), this creates an "open loop." People will naturally invent narratives to fill that void, giving rise to conspiracy theories.

When smart partners think the other is an idiot, it's often due to a 'base assumption collision.' Each person operates on a different fundamental, unspoken belief about reality ('the world is X'). Identifying and discussing these hidden assumptions is key to resolving otherwise intractable conflicts.

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.

When confronting seemingly false facts in a discussion, arguing with counter-facts is often futile. A better approach is to get curious about the background, context, and assumptions that underpin their belief, as most "facts" are more complex than they appear.