The Psychological Architecture of Post-Truth Propagation: A Concentric Model

[Elliott]

Ya, I don't believe Republicans will do a gass chamber, but they've already proven they want to jail political opponents and rig elections, that's fascism. And this isn't new, the 2000 election was corrupted by Republican Supreme Court halting votes being re-counted in Florida. Democrats tried to pass a nationwide anti-gerrymandering bill and EVERY republican voted against it.

[Inliytened1]

14 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Ya, I don't believe Republicans will do a gass chamber, but they've already proven they want to jail political opponents and rig elections, that's fascism. And this isn't new, the 2000 election was corrupted by Republican Supreme Court halting votes being re-counted in Florida. Democrats tried to pass a nationwide anti-gerrymandering bill and EVERY republican voted against it.

But you can make the corruption argument from both sides.  There have been corrupt democrats and stuff they have covered up too.  

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

But you can make the corruption argument from both sides.  There have been corrupt democrats and stuff they have covered up too.  

What does that have to do with this conversation, sincerely?

The fact democrats are not perfect does not mean Republican corruption is acceptable or comparable.

[Inliytened1]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

I'm not so sure Trump and Elon are comparable here. 

Trump is not an ideologue who cares about conservatism or capitalism. He cares about his power. And he cares so much about it that he would undermine and uproot democracy to keep it, just as he did in 2020 when he sent fake slates of electors to try to rig the election. Clearly. 

Bro what do you think Capitalism is? It's power. We have a vote in the next election don't we? So I say democracy is intact

 

[Joshe]

3 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Bro what do you think Capitalism is? It's power. We have a vote in the next election don't we? So I say democracy is intact

🤦‍♂️You are a deflection machine!!! lol, but it's all good. 

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Joshe said:

🤦‍♂️You are a deflection machine!!! lol, but it's all good. 

I"m just saying it's gonna get like the Russia thing pretty soon.  All these Fascist attacks and how Trump is an idealogue.

 

[Jodistrict]

I was watching an interesting documentary on Mussolini.  He said that the crowd is like a woman.  The crowd loves strong men.  The crowd is like a woman waiting to be violated.  The similarity to Trump’s attitude is striking – how Trump treated women in the past and his relationship to Epstein.  It shows that at a deeper psychological level, Trump really has the fascist leader mindset.  Trump is no joke.  Delving into this deep psychology is complex and the best psychologists and philosophers in the world tried to address it after World War II.  But here we are repeating history.   

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

I was watching an interesting documentary on Mussolini.  He said that the crowd is like a woman.  The crowd loves strong men.  The crowd is like a woman waiting to be violated.  The similarity to Trump’s attitude is striking – how Trump treated women in the past and his relationship to Epstein.  It shows that at a deeper psychological level, Trump really has the fascist leader mindset.  Trump is no joke.  Delving into this deep psychology is complex and the best psychologists and philosophers in the world tried to address it after World War II.  But here we are repeating history.   

Don't spend too much time studying Trump. He won't accomplish enough.  Other than increasing inflation.   In the end I will never juxtapose him with great leaders.  He will not be remembered.

Edited Tuesday at 07:24 AM by Inliytened1

[DocWatts]

Turned the Concentric Model into a Google Doc, for easier sharing:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19csNP9Nv1fP2nDL3KAEa9F8mClg_8hbCOTbkIuAcRoQ/edit?usp=sharing

[Elliott]

 

[Bjorn K Holmstrom]

@Joshe This is an interesting model/analysis!

Some thoughts (the first from Claude, the second from DeepSeek and me):
- How do you avoid the risk of pathologizing political disagreement while still acknowledging the emotional and psychological dimensions of belief formation?
- Your model focuses on individual/group psychology. How might it integrate with larger systemic factors like technological acceleration, economic precarity, ecological anxiety, or even deeper currents of spiritual disconnection and meaning crisis that create the conditions where these psychological defenses become widespread survival strategies?

I feel somewhat tempted to use your model in my project Global Governance Frameworks, would that be ok with you? With attribution to this thread?
The part it could be included in is the Synoptic Protocol; a framework for building healthier information ecosystems. Your insights about trauma and shame as drivers could inform the GGF approach to trauma-informed media literacy (recognizing how information can trigger defensive responses) and facilitated dialogue design.

[Joshe]

Thanks @Bjorn K Holmstrom! 
 

8 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

How do you avoid the risk of pathologizing political disagreement while still acknowledging the emotional and psychological dimensions of belief formation?

In my view, this contagion is pathological, so I don’t see how to avoid that. I see it as an unconscious rejection of truth rather than political disagreement or a difference in opinion. We could easily collect 100 consequential falsehoods MAGA folk believe are true where there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. These truth rejections led to a guy who tried to overthrow our democracy getting elected again, so I think this is pathological. 

Should we avoid the truth? Maybe reframe it at the risk of gaslighting those not caught up in post-truth? Maybe just keep it to ourselves? I don’t really know what is best. My intuition says blasting it out would be less harmful than what we’re experiencing. 

How do we go about helping people accept the truth? I’d say we need to spread courage and education of the psychological mechanisms that make us susceptible. David Hawkins talked about how the level of courage is the threshold between truth and falsehood, which tracks well with my ideas, because without courage to accept reality and your own fallibility, you will likely double down into falsehood. 

What are your thoughts on this? Are you trying to figure out how one might use this information such that it wouldn’t offend?

 

8 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

Your model focuses on individual/group psychology. How might it integrate with larger systemic factors like technological acceleration, economic precarity, ecological anxiety, or even deeper currents of spiritual disconnection and meaning crisis that create the conditions where these psychological defenses become widespread survival strategies?

I attempted to include these but it cluttered things up and distracted from the psychological mechanisms, which were most important to me. It would be interesting to see them integrated. 
 

8 hours ago, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

I feel somewhat tempted to use your model in my project Global Governance Frameworks, would that be ok with you? With attribution to this thread?
The part it could be included in is the Synoptic Protocol; a framework for building healthier information ecosystems. Your insights about trauma and shame as drivers could inform the GGF approach to trauma-informed media literacy (recognizing how information can trigger defensive responses) and facilitated dialogue design.

Hell yeah man, take any or all of it and modify it however you’d like - no attribution necessary. I’m no intellectual or anything - just a perplexed observer. Lol. I’d be interested to see how you adapt it into your work. If you feel the need to link back to it (which isn’t necessary) the Google Doc @DocWatts posted above is probably more accessible than the forum. 

Do you have a link or more info on your GGF? Sounds interesting. 

Edited Thursday at 04:10 AM by Joshe

[Joshe]

9 hours ago, Elliott said:

 

 Nice vid. Lots of overlap with the core of the model. 

[Elliott]

On 9/24/2025 at 11:54 PM, Joshe said:

 Nice vid. Lots of overlap with the core of the model. 

Something that the video doesn't go over, it says 'build relationships, being non-judgmental,...' but that only works for people you have a relationship with, build a relationship with. But this could be misleading, this does not extend to strangers, mocking and belittling trolls is actually effective. Just as the video suggests, this is all centered around fear, but they can be scared out of it, they will always choose the apparent over-dog and never choose the under-dog 'side'.

The reason they side with the right is the false impression of strength, that's it, being respectful and open to these cowards is not going to persuade them, they only respect what they fear; violence and shame/ being a minority.

[Joshe]

7 hours ago, Elliott said:

The reason they side with the right is the false impression of strength,

That’s just one of the reasons. Symbolic Dominance Transfer, for lack of a better term. 

[Inliytened1]

On 9/24/2025 at 2:34 PM, Bjorn K Holmstrom said:

@Joshe This is an interesting model/analysis!

Some thoughts (the first from Claude, the second from DeepSeek and me):
- How do you avoid the risk of pathologizing political disagreement while still acknowledging the emotional and psychological dimensions of belief formation?
- Your model focuses on individual/group psychology. How might it integrate with larger systemic factors like technological acceleration, economic precarity, ecological anxiety, or even deeper currents of spiritual disconnection and meaning crisis that create the conditions where these psychological defenses become widespread survival strategies?

I feel somewhat tempted to use your model in my project Global Governance Frameworks, would that be ok with you? With attribution to this thread?
The part it could be included in is the Synoptic Protocol; a framework for building healthier information ecosystems. Your insights about trauma and shame as drivers could inform the GGF approach to trauma-informed media literacy (recognizing how information can trigger defensive responses) and facilitated dialogue design.

The problem is this isn't just limited to politics this more of a psychological phenomenon that applies to all people, beliefs and views.   From religion to politics and it affects all sides of the political aisle and all religions.   

Edited 10 hours ago by Inliytened1