Show Notes
There is a question that comes up every time you watch a Trump supporter defend something that is obviously, provably, measurably false. It is not why do they believe this. It is something more basic than that. How can a grown adult not see that this is nonsense? They believe vaccines cause autism. They believe the election was stolen. They believe a billionaire who has never done a single thing for a working person in his life is fighting for the working class. They believe climate change is a hoax, that January 6th was peaceful, that a man who bankrupted casinos is a business genius, and that a wall will fix immigration. None of it survives five minutes of checking. They do not check. And when you check for them and hand them the results, they call your evidence fake and keep going. The instinct is to call them brainwashed, or stubborn, or just liars who know better. But a peer reviewed study from 2015 offers an answer that is simpler and far worse than any of those. Some people physically cannot tell the difference between something that sounds true and something that is true. And the data on who those people are will not surprise you at all.
The Gibberish Test In 2015, a psychologist named Gordon Pennycook sat people down and showed them sentences that meant nothing. Not sentences that were wrong, or misleading, or biased. Sentences that contained no meaning at all. A computer had generated them by jamming buzzwords together at random. “Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty.” “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena.” Grammatically flawless. Structurally familiar. Completely, verifiably empty. Then he asked a simple question. Do these sentences mean anything? The results, published in the peer-reviewed journal Judgment and Decision Making, split the room clean in half. One group looked at the sentences and saw exactly what they were: noise dressed up in a nice outfit. The other group looked at the same sentences and rated them as profound, meaningful, even wise. They read words a machine had shuffled together like a deck of cards and walked away believing they had encountered a deep truth. Pennycook gave the phenomenon a name that does not soften what it describes. He called it b******t receptivity. The clinical inability to distinguish between something that sounds like it means something and something that actually does. Who Falls for It What came next was the part that should have made national news and never did. Pennycook measured who these people were. He tested their cognitive ability, their analytical thinking, their reasoning skills, and their belief systems. The pattern that emerged was not subtle and it was not ambiguous. The people who fell for the fake sentences scored lower on every measure of intelligence the study tested. Lower cognitive ability. Lower analytical thinking. Lower verbal reasoning. Higher faith in gut instinct over evidence. And they were significantly more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, the paranormal, and religion. Every marker pointed the same direction. The people who could not detect nonsense on a page were the same people who built their entire worldview on nonsense they encountered everywhere else. The study won an Ig Nobel Prize in 2016, which is an award given to real, published, peer-reviewed research that makes you laugh before it makes you think. But there is nothing funny about what happens when you scale the finding up from a psychology lab to a country of three hundred and thirty million people, because the pattern Pennycook identified in a controlled setting is the pattern that explains the last decade of American politics.
The Trump Frequency Consider how Donald Trump speaks. Not what he says, because what he says is almost never anything at all, but how the words are arranged. “We’re going to win so much you’re going to get tired of winning.” Parse it and there is nothing there. No policy, no plan, no mechanism, no promise that can be measured or he
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.