Show Notes
In 2009, neuroscientist Hidehiko Takahashi at the National Institute of Radiological Sciences in Chiba, Japan published a study in Science, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals in the world, that showed for the first time what happens inside the human brain when someone takes pleasure in another person’s suffering. Takahashi put 19 volunteers inside an fMRI scanner and told them stories about fictional people. Some of these fictional people had better jobs, more money, and more success than the volunteers. Others were described as average. Then Takahashi told the volunteers that these fictional people had experienced misfortune. They lost the job. The money disappeared. The success collapsed. Two things happened inside the brain. When the volunteers read about someone who was more successful than they were, the anterior cingulate cortex activated. That is the same brain region that processes physical pain. Envy, at the neurological level, is not a thought. It is a wound. The brain processes it the same way it processes being hit. Then, when the volunteers read about that same successful person losing everything, the ventral striatum activated. That is the brain’s reward center. The same region that lights up for food, sex, and drugs. Watching an envied person fail produced the same neurological signature as a reward. And the correlation was direct. The volunteers who showed the strongest envy response in phase one showed the strongest pleasure response in phase two. The deeper the wound of comparison, the greater the joy at watching the other person fall. The German word for this is schadenfreude. Pleasure derived from another person’s suffering. Takahashi’s study proved that schadenfreude is not a character flaw. It is a neurological event. The brain is processing real pain from social comparison and then processing real pleasure when that comparison is eliminated by the other person’s destruction. It is not metaphorical. It is measurable. It lights up on a scan.
Who Feels It the Most In 2011, psychologist Wilco van Dijk at Leiden University in the Netherlands ran two studies that answered the question Takahashi’s research left open. Takahashi showed that envy predicts schadenfreude. Van Dijk wanted to know what predicts the envy. The answer was self-esteem. Van Dijk found that people with low self-esteem experienced significantly more schadenfreude when watching a high achiever fail. The mechanism was straightforward. People with low self-esteem feel more threatened by someone who has accomplished more than they have. That threat is what produces the envy. And the envy is what produces the pleasure when the high achiever falls. Van Dijk tested this further by giving some participants a self-affirmation exercise before exposing them to the same scenarios. When people with low self-esteem were given an opportunity to affirm their own value first, the schadenfreude decreased. The pleasure at watching someone else fail was reduced because the underlying wound, the feeling that they were not enough, had been temporarily treated. This finding reframes the entire mechanism. Schadenfreude is not about hating successful people. It is about hating yourself. The envy is a symptom of inadequacy. The pleasure at someone else’s suffering is the only relief available to a person who cannot generate self-worth from their own life. Watching someone who has more lose it is, for a person with low self-esteem, the closest thing to winning they have ever experienced.
Why Envy Turns Political Takahashi was studying individuals. He was not studying political movements. But the mechanism he identified does not stop at the individual level. It scales. Consider what happens when millions of people share the same wound. Millions of people who feel like the world passed them by. Who expected more from their lives and did not get it. Who look at people with education, careers, mobility, and cultural influence and feel the anterior cingul
More from The Lucas Bean Show
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.
There is a specific kind of frustration that comes from watching something fall apart in exactly the way someone told you it would. Not vaguely. Not in broad metaphorical strokes. In order. Step by step. With the stages so clearly defined that anyone paying attention can call the next one before it happens. Plato had that frustration 2,400 years ago. He lived through it. He watched the Athenian democracy, the most advanced political experiment in the ancient world, turn on itself. He watched it execute Socrates, his teacher, arguably the sharpest mind in the city, for the crime of asking uncomfortable questions. And instead of moving on, Plato spent the rest of his life trying to explain how a society capable of producing genius could also be stupid enough to kill it. The result was The Republic. And while most of the book covers justice, education, and the nature of reality, Book Eight is something different entirely. Book Eight is a manual. It is Plato at his most concrete, walking through the specific sequence of events that takes a functioning democracy and turns it into a dictatorship. Not in abstract terms. In stages. With causes, mechanisms, and outcomes laid out in an order that has repeated across civilizations for two millennia.