Show Notes
There is a stage of brain development that every child goes through. Before the age of eleven, the human brain processes the world in concrete terms. One cause. One villain. One answer. Good guys and bad guys. Simple rules that never bend. Most people grow out of this stage. Their brains develop the capacity for abstract thought. They learn to hold contradictions. They learn that most questions have complicated answers. They learn that the world is not divided into heroes and villains. But most people are not MAGA. What Luguri Found In 2012, psychologist Jamie Luguri at Yale University, along with his colleagues Jaime Napier and John Dovidio, published three studies applying construal level theory to political attitudes. Construal level theory, originally developed by psychologists Yaacov Trope and Nira Liberman, measures how the brain shifts between two modes of processing: abstract thinking and concrete thinking. Abstract thinking is high-level. It focuses on the big picture. It processes values, principles, and categories. It asks why something happens and what it means. Concrete thinking is low-level. It focuses on specifics. It processes surface details, immediate reactions, and individual cases. It asks what something looks like right now. Luguri wanted to know what happens when you measure people’s political attitudes at each level. And what happens when you shift them from one level to the other. What he found should have ended the debate about conservative intolerance permanently. When conservatives were thinking concretely, which is their default cognitive mode, they were significantly more intolerant than liberals. Specifically toward gay men, lesbians, Muslims, and atheists. Anyone who deviated from their Judeo-Christian worldview was a target. When researchers shifted those same conservatives into abstract thinking, the intolerance disappeared. Political orientation stopped predicting prejudice. Conservatives who were thinking abstractly were statistically indistinguishable from liberals in their tolerance of nonnormative groups. The prejudice was not a deeply held belief. It was not a value. It was not something they inherited from their faith or their family or their culture. It was a setting. And it only existed when their brain was operating at the concrete level.
The Fairness Finding Study 3 revealed something that deepens the finding even further. Luguri and his colleagues tested what was actually changing inside the conservative brain when it shifted to abstract thinking. They found that the reduction in prejudice was mediated by an increase in concerns about fairness. When conservatives were thinking concretely, fairness was not a priority. Their brain was processing the world in terms of in-group and out-group. Us and them. People like us and people not like us. That is concrete thinking. It sorts by surface-level category and assigns value based on belonging. When those same conservatives were shifted into abstract thinking, their concern for fairness increased. And that increase in fairness drove the decrease in prejudice. Their brain accessed a value it already held but could not reach from the concrete level. This means the problem is not that conservatives do not value fairness. It is that their default cognitive mode does not let them access it. The value is there. The wiring is there. But the operating system they run on by default cannot reach it.
The Child’s Brain The developmental framework for what Luguri found was established decades earlier by Jean Piaget. Piaget identified the stages of cognitive development that every child passes through. The concrete operational stage, roughly ages seven to eleven, is when a child can think logically but only about concrete, tangible things. They can sort, classify, and organize the physical world. But they cannot think hypothetically. They cannot consider abstract principles. They cannot hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously and evaluate them. Th
More from The Lucas Bean Show
There is a particular kind of man who shows up to political rallies in body armor he bought online, drives a truck that has never hauled anything, and screams about strength while falling apart the moment someone disagrees with him. He is not hard to spot. He is the loudest person in any room he enters. He is also, according to decades of research, the most frightened. The video that accompanies this piece covers sociologist Robb Willer’s research on masculine overcompensation: the finding that men whose masculinity is threatened respond with exaggerated displays of dominance, aggression, and toughness. The effect is consistent and measurable. It shows up in attitudes toward war, attitudes toward gay people, and even in what kind of car a man wants to buy. But the research goes much deeper than one study, and the implications stretch far beyond a rally.
There’s a familiar ritual that happens every time an authoritarian movement begins to collapse. The supporters disappear. Not physically. Psychologically. They scrub the evidence, rewrite the timeline, and emerge on the other side with a story they’ve rehearsed just enough to almost believe. “I never really supported him.” “I just voted against the Democrats.” “I don’t talk about politics anymore.” This is happening right now across America. The yard signs are coming down. The hats are going into drawers. The Facebook posts are being deleted. And millions of people who spent a decade loudly and publicly cheering for cruelty are quietly trying to exit the building before someone turns the lights on. The companion video to this piece says what needs to be said plainly: they’re not confused. They’re lying. They know what they did. They know what they defended. And they’re trying to erase the evidence before accountability arrives. This Substack examines why that matters, why it won’t work this time, and what history tells us about populations that try to pretend they were never part of the thing they spent years supporting.
Most political analysis starts with policy. Voters chose this candidate because of the economy, immigration, healthcare, taxes. And for most voters in most elections, that’s probably true. But Donald Trump is not most candidates. And the question that keeps surfacing isn’t why people agree with him. It’s why they love him more every time he does something cruel. The mockery. The insults. The attacks on disabled reporters, Gold Star families, and women. Behavior that would end any other political career has somehow become the foundation of his. In 2021, psychologist Matthew Yalch at Palo Alto University published a study in PLOS ONE titled “Dimensions of pathological narcissism and intention to vote for Donald Trump.” And what he found should make everyone uncomfortable, including the people it describes.
In February 2025, researchers at the University of Amsterdam published a study in Social Science & Medicine that should have rewritten every conversation about why people join the far right. They tracked over 40,000 people across nine countries, with data spanning fifteen years. They controlled for income, education, immigration attitudes, and political ideology. They wanted to know what actually predicts whether someone will support the populist radical right. The answer wasn’t immigration. It wasn’t economics. It wasn’t religion. It was loneliness. Lonelier individuals were consistently more likely to support radical right movements, with the association holding across all fifteen years of Dutch data and appearing across multiple European countries. The researchers noted that the effect sizes were comparable to the known health correlates of loneliness, meaning that the connection between loneliness and far-right support was statistically as meaningful as the connection between loneliness and heart disease, high blood pressure, and depression. A 2021 RAND Corporation study of former extremists and their families confirmed this from the other direction. Half of the former extremists surveyed said feelings of marginalization drove them toward radicalization, with most citing isolation and loneliness specifically. Individuals reported that the social benefits of joining extremist organizations, the friendship, the camaraderie, the sense of finally belonging somewhere, were among the most powerful forces keeping them in. These people didn’t join a movement because they were convinced by policy arguments. They joined because someone finally made them feel like they weren’t alone. And that tells us more about what MAGA actually is than any analysis of tariffs or border policy ever could.
A woman stood up at a political rally and asked a sitting congressman to create a federal law that would force her adult daughter to let her see her grandchildren. Not a therapy session. Not a family mediator. Not a phone call to her daughter asking what went wrong. A federal law. That single moment contains more psychology than most textbooks. Because what she revealed, in front of cameras and a cheering crowd, wasn’t a grandmother’s heartbreak. It was a narcissist’s playbook when someone finally tells them no. How a boundary becomes a theft. In 2002, psychologist Roy Baumeister at Case Western Reserve University published a theory that combined two existing psychological frameworks into something new. The first was narcissism, the personality structure built around an inflated self-image that requires constant validation. The second was psychological reactance, a concept developed by Jack Brehm at the University of Kansas in 1966, which describes the motivational state people enter when they perceive their freedom as restricted. Brehm found that when people believe a choice or behavior has been taken from them, they experience an intense drive to restore it, often wanting the restricted option more than they did before it was restricted. Baumeister’s insight was that narcissism supercharges reactance. When an ordinary person encounters a boundary, they may be disappointed, but they can process it. When a narcissist encounters a boundary, they don’t experience disappointment. They experience theft. The boundary isn’t perceived as another person’s valid choice. It’s perceived as something that belongs to them being taken away. And they feel entitled to take it back by whatever means necessary. Baumeister called it narcissistic reactance. This grandmother didn’t process her daughter’s boundary as a painful but legitimate decision by an autonomous adult. She processed it as her property being stolen. Those grandchildren aren’t people her daughter is protecting. In her mind, they are hers. Access to them is her right. And no one, not even their own mother, gets to take what’s hers.