Do You Really Mean It ?

Honesty is a cornerstone of human communication and interpersonal trust. The statement, “When you ask me a question, if I can’t give you an honest answer that you don’t want to hear, then you can’t trust me to honestly answer a question by telling you what you do want to hear,” highlights the paradox of selective truth-telling. Let’s consider the psychological and ethical implications of honesty in communication, emphasizing how withholding unwelcome truths undermines trust and distorts authentic relationships.

Trust is built upon consistent honesty, even when the truth is uncomfortable. According to Rotenberg (2019), interpersonal trust depends on the expectation that others will act with reliability, emotional support, and honesty. When individuals choose to conceal or distort information to avoid discomfort, they compromise this expectation. Research in communication studies shows that deception—even when intended to protect feelings—erodes relational trust over time (Levine, 2014).

Moreover, honesty is not merely about factual accuracy but about transparency in intent. If one only provides answers that align with what the listener wants to hear, communication becomes manipulative rather than authentic. This aligns with Bok’s (1999) ethical framework, which argues that lying—even benevolent lying—creates a slippery slope that weakens moral responsibility and interpersonal credibility.

Psychological research suggests that people often avoid delivering unwelcome truths due to fear of conflict or rejection (Vrij, 2008). However, studies on authenticity demonstrate that individuals who communicate openly, even when uncomfortable, foster stronger and more resilient relationships (Kernis & Goldman, 2006). The willingness to share difficult truths signals respect for the other person’s capacity to handle reality, thereby reinforcing mutual trust.

Furthermore, selective honesty can create cognitive dissonance. Festinger’s (1957) theory explains that when individuals act inconsistently with their values—such as valuing honesty but practicing selective truth-telling—they experience psychological discomfort. Over time, this dissonance can erode self-concept and relational integrity.

Thus, as I repeatedly have emphasized in my blog posts and books (e.g., McCusker, 2025), context is critical. Delivering truths that others may not want to hear requires careful consideration of the proper time, place, and person. As Knapp, Vangelisti, and Caughlin (2014) note, interpersonal communication is most effective when it accounts for situational appropriateness and relational dynamics. 

To maximize the chances of supportive and constructive dialogue, several strategies can be applied—First, timing: Choose a moment when the listener is most receptive, avoiding times of heightened stress or distraction. Research on conflict resolution emphasizes that poorly timed disclosures often escalate tension rather than resolve it (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2011). Second, setting: Select a private and safe environment, particularly when the truth may be emotionally difficult. Public settings can amplify embarrassment or defensiveness, reducing the likelihood of constructive engagement. Third, audience: Consider whether you are the right person to deliver the truth. In clinical or educational contexts, trusted professionals or mentors may be better positioned to communicate sensitive information (Rogers, 1957). Fourth, wording: Frame the truth in language that is clear but compassionate. Using “I” statements and avoiding accusatory phrasing reduces defensiveness and promotes understanding (Gordon, 2000). Fifth, prosody and nonverbal cues: Tone of voice, pacing, and facial expressions significantly influence how messages are received. Supportive prosody conveys empathy and respect, increasing the likelihood of effective communication (Burgoon, Guerrero, & Floyd, 2016). Finally, follow-up support: Difficult truths should be accompanied by reassurance, resources, or constructive next steps. This transforms honesty from a blunt disclosure into a supportive act of care. By integrating these strategies, honesty becomes not only a moral imperative but also a skillful practice that strengthens trust while minimizing harm.

The ethical dimension of honesty in communication is critical. Trust cannot be compartmentalized into “truths we want to hear” and “truths we do not want to hear.” As Habermas (1984) argued in his theory of communicative action, genuine dialogue requires openness and sincerity. Without these, communication can degrade into strategic manipulation rather than mutual understanding. In short, the statement under consideration underscores a profound truth: honesty must be consistent to be trustworthy. If one cannot be relied upon to deliver unwelcome truths, then their willingness to provide welcome truths becomes suspect. 

Psychological research confirms that honesty, even when uncomfortable, strengthens trust, authenticity, and ethical responsibility in communication. Yet, context remains vital—choosing the right time, place, person, and manner of delivery ensures that honesty is not only truthful but also supportive. Ultimately, the integrity of dialogue depends not on selective truth-telling but on the courage to speak honestly in all circumstances, with sensitivity to context.

References

Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. Vintage.

Burgoon, J. K., Guerrero, L. K., & Floyd, K. (2016). Nonverbal communication. Routledge.

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Gordon, T. (2000). Parent effectiveness training: The proven program for raising responsible children. Three Rivers Press.

Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.

Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Advances and directions in self research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9

Knapp, M. L., Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Interpersonal communication and human relationships (7th ed.). Pearson.

Levine, T. R. (2014). Truth-default theory (TDT): A theory of human deception and deception detection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14535916

McCusker, P. J. (2025). Weaponized Communication: Improvised Explosive Devices. New York: Amazon.

Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045357

Rotenberg, K. J. (2019). The psychology of trust. Routledge.

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities. Wiley.

 

 

More Important Than Sweet Potatoes: Reactance Motivation

No, this blog is not really about sweet potatoes. It just begins with a sweet potato story. 

I attended a Philadelphia Catholic elementary school, and like many students there, had lunch in the cafeteria. In approximately second grade, I remember queuing up to be served. A nun stood behind the line, monitoring what went on the trays. When I passed without getting sweet potatoes, she stopped the line and told the server to plop a blob of canned cold sweet potatoes on my tray. I did not eat them, and stood to go to the school playground for recess. However, the nun pushed me back down in my seat and told me to finish eating. I replied, "But sister, I don't like sweet potatoes". Undeterred, she stood there behind me until the school bell signaled that it was time to return to class. I never did eat the sweet potatoes, and she was not happy about that. So, what does that have to do with anybody? It’s all about reactance motivation.

Psychological reactance theory was first introduced by Jack Brehm (1966) to explain why individuals resist when they perceive their freedom of choice is being threatened. Reactance is defined as an unpleasant motivational arousal that occurs when people feel their autonomy is restricted (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2025). In the cafeteria story, the nun’s insistence that I eat the sweet potatoes represented a direct threat to my freedom to choose what I consumed. The stronger the pressure, the stronger the reactance response became. Rather than complying, I resisted—even though the cost was missing recess.

Reactance is not simply stubbornness; it is a psychological mechanism designed to protect perceived freedoms. When individuals feel coerced, they often respond by asserting their autonomy, sometimes by doing the opposite of what is demanded (Steindl et al., 2015). In this case, the nun’s authority amplified the sense of restriction, which intensified my motivation to resist. The sweet potatoes became symbolic of lost freedom rather than just food.

This phenomenon has broader implications. Reactance motivation explains why people resist persuasion in family settings, health campaigns, political messaging, or even everyday interpersonal interactions. For example, when individuals are told they “must” adopt a certain behavior, they may reject the message outright, even if the behavior is beneficial (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2025). The cafeteria incident illustrates how coercion can backfire, producing resistance rather than compliance.

Understanding reactance is crucial for families, educators, leaders, and advocates. Strategies that emphasize choice, autonomy, and collaboration are more effective than those that rely on force or pressure. In the family and in the classroom, offering individuals options rather than mandates can reduce resistance. In public health, framing recommendations as empowering rather than restrictive can increase acceptance.

The sweet potato story is thus more than a childhood memory; it is a vivid example of how psychological reactance operates in everyday life. When freedom is threatened, even in small ways, people are motivated to restore it. The lesson is clear: persuasion works best when it respects autonomy.

Some might legitimately assert that elementary school-aged Peter merely was being disobedient. After all, sweet potatoes are nutritious, and children should be taught respect for authority. So, I feel compelled to end by briefly addressing how families can maintain authority while supporting healthy identity development.

Excessive coercion fosters not only psychological reactance but also, in the extreme, negative identity formation. The latter is an identity formed in opposition to unfair societal expectations. For example, when continually forced to try to achieve standards that they truly cannot attain, they might seek success in antisocial behavior.  Less extreme—but more common—than negative identity formation is the adoption of negative ideation and negative communication.  There, it’s not so much negative behavior, but obstreperous and negative talk. Families can mitigate these risks by enforcing rules through clarity, collaboration, and respect. Such strategies not only reduce resistance but also empower people to internalize positive identities rooted in autonomy and responsibility. Ultimately, effective rule enforcement requires balancing authority with empathy, ensuring that boundaries guide rather than suffocate identity development.

References

Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2025). Psychological reactance theory: An introduction and overview. Motivation Science, 11(2), 133–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000376

Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance: New developments and findings. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 223(4), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000223

Guiding Conversations Based on Internal Questions

In my Questioning & Answering book ( McCusker, 2023), I emphasized that effective communication is not simply about exchanging words.  It is about fostering understanding, building relationships, and promoting well-being. Communication research emphasizes that individuals can guide their conversations by asking themselves three internal questions. These questions serve as cognitive-emotional anchors that help structure dialogue, ensuring that communication is purposeful and impactful.

The first internal question—“What?”—focuses on identifying the subject matter of the conversation. Research in communication highlights that clarity of content is essential for knowledge exchange and audience engagement (Warwick University, n.d.). By asking “What?” individuals ensure that they are addressing the topic directly, reducing ambiguity and enhancing comprehension. This step is particularly important in educational and professional contexts, where precise information sharing supports learning and productivity.

The second  internal question—“Why?”—encourages reflection on the purpose and significance of the topic of conversation. Communication scholars note that understanding motivations and underlying reasons fosters empathy and relational depth (Social Science Research Council, 2024). Asking “Why?” helps individuals connect ideas to broader contexts, whether in personal relationships or organizational settings. This reflective practice strengthens social bonds by validating perspectives and encouraging mutual respect.

Finally, the internal question “What to do now?” directs communication toward actionable outcomes. Research shows that conversations that conclude with clear next steps are more effective in promoting behavioral change and problem-solving (Lee, 2025). This forward-looking orientation transforms dialogue from abstract discussion into practical guidance, supporting both personal growth and collective decision-making.

Applying these internal questions has broad benefits.  In the knowledge realm, asking “What?” ensures accurate information exchange, while “Why?” deepens understanding by linking facts to meaning.  And regarding social relationships, “Why?” fosters empathy and trust, strengthening interpersonal connections. Physical and mental health benefits accrue because structured communication reduces stress and uncertainty.  The “What to do now?” question helps us by promoting proactive coping strategies that support well-being.

Communication research underscores that internal questions transforms conversations into tools for empowerment. By guiding dialogue with What, Why, and What to do now, individuals can cultivate clarity, empathy, and action—qualities that enhance both personal and collective flourishing.

How about some practical examples?  

Think about workplace collaboration: You’re in a team meeting about a project deadline. First internally query, What is the issue here?  Then aloud you ask, “So, the main challenge is that our data analysis is behind schedule, right?”  Your next internal query is, Why is this important?  That is followed by stating aloud, “If we don’t finish by Friday, the client presentation will be incomplete. That’s why this matters.”  The last internal question is What’s the next step? Then out loud you advise, “Let’s assign two people to focus on the analysis today so we can catch up.”  The outcome ideally is that the conversation stays focused, clarifies urgency, and ends with a concrete plan.

Next, imagine a personal relationship in which a friend seems upset during dinner. Your what is: What is happening here?  Your aloud, “I notice you’re quieter than usual tonight. Is something bothering you?”  Your why, Why might this matter to them?  Your aloud, “Is  work stress  weighing on you—it’s been a busy season.” Your What is the next step is the question:  “Do you want to talk it through, or would you prefer a distraction tonight?”  This strategy demonstrates your awareness, empathy, and offers agency, strengthening the relationship.

Now, questions pertaining to having heard a doctor’s just-delivered advice to promote lifestyle changes and health. What is the key message?  Aloud, “So the main recommendation is to increase physical activity, correct?” Internal Why is this important for me?  Out loud, “That’s because regular exercise lowers blood pressure and improves heart health, right?” Internal “What to do now?” Out loud: “Would starting with 20 minutes of walking three times a week be a good first step?” Outcome: You clarify the advice, connect it to health benefits, and leave with a doable plan.

In all three examples, the strategy is obvious.  Knowledge: “What?” ensures you understand the facts.  Relationships: “Why?” builds empathy and shared meaning.  Health: “What to do now?” reduces uncertainty and stress by creating actionable steps.

 

References

Lee, S. (2025, May 25). Research impact in communication: Methods and strategies. Number Analytics. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/research-impact-in-communication-methods-and-strategies

McCusker, P. J.  (2023). Questioning & Answering: How, Who, When, & Where. New York: Amazon.

Social Science Research Council. (2024, June 9). Seven tips from experts on communicating your research. The Mercury Project. https://www.ssrc.org/mercury-project/2024/06/09/seven-tips-from-experts-on-communicating-your-research/

Warwick University. (n.d.). Quick guide to research communications. https://warwick.ac.uk/research/priorities/productivity/media/documents/research_communications_guide_pdf_1.pdf

 

Where the Tribe Ends & the Individual Begins

The role of the advocatus diaboli (Latin for “Devil’s Advocate”) was formally established in the Catholic Church during the canonization process (Delaney, 1980). The intention was to ensure rigorous scrutiny of candidates for sainthood by appointing someone to argue against canonization, highlighting flaws, inconsistencies, or potential exaggerations of virtue. This institutionalized skepticism was meant to safeguard against hasty or biased judgments.

Yet, even with such a moderator, groups could descend into adversarial argumentation. The Devil’s Advocate often reinforced a combative dynamic, where the goal was to win rather than to understand.

Instead of perpetuating adversarial debate, a more constructive position might be envisioned: the Angelic Inquirer. This figure would not argue for or against but would facilitate objective, Socratic questioning. The Angelic Inquirer’s task would be to guide participants toward clarity, encouraging dialogue that seeks truth, not merely self-serving victory. The “angel” would facilitate objectivity, introduce and facilitate questions that illuminate assumptions. The model would require and moderate the Socratic method, encouraging participants to articulate reasoning and confront contradictions. And, finally, insofar as possible, the angel would ensure a constructive tone that demands inquiry that does not descend into hostility.  in short, the angelic process would reframe discourse from adversarial combat to collaborative exploration.

One of the angel’s greatest challenges in dialogue is disentangling tribal identity—political, religious, or cultural—from personal identity. When individuals conflate group membership with selfhood, disagreement feels like a personal attack (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).  Considered in the light of identity, Socratic dialogue offers a pathway to disassociation. First, assumptions are questioned, asking why one holds a belief and whether it is contingent on group identity. Second, alternatives are explored by considering perspectives outside one’s tribe without immediate rejection. Third, reflective distancing is reinforced by indicating that identity is multifaceted and not reducible to group affiliation. By practicing these steps, individuals can cultivate resilience against polarization and rediscover their authentic selves beyond tribal boundaries.

To conclude, the Devil’s Advocate was designed to safeguard truth through opposition, but adversarial roles can entrench division. An Angelic Inquirer, by contrast, facilitates objective questioning by nurturing Socratic dialogue. In doing so, individuals can learn to disassociate tribal identity from personal identity, fostering a culture of inquiry that strengthens democracy and human flourishing. However, such learning is just as critical— perhaps more critical—an issue for our dysfunctional governmental officials. The recent and longest government shutdown in American history is attributable to our legislators’ total unwillingness to accept the reality of their situations and limitations of their power. They sought personal political advantage over the welfare of the nation. Perhaps, at minimum, we need an objective angelic advocate citizen to be present at every government session that addresses substantial issues.  The advocate would publish on the Internet a full report, quoting not only what was said, but also,  who said what, and when.

References

Delaney, J. J. (1980). Dictionary of saints. Doubleday.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton University Press.

Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies. Routledge.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

 

 

Defusing Our Uncivil House of Dynamite

Since war is the absolute antithesis of civility, consider that within the past week millions of Americans—and millions more around the world—watched Kathryn Bigelow’s A House of Dynamite, a film  dramatizing the tense 18 minutes after a missile is detected heading toward the United States. Also, factor in the 2024  Annie Jacobsen book Nuclear War: A Scenario that became a bestseller and was shortlisted for the Baillie Gifford Prize for nonfiction, vividly describing how a single nuclear strike could escalate into global catastrophe. Finally, recall that in 1983, President Ronald Reagan watched The Day After, a chilling portrayal of nuclear war’s aftermath. According to his memoirs and contemporaneous accounts, the film deeply affected him, reinforcing his urgency to collaborate with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. They met and that meeting led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a landmark agreement that reduced nuclear arsenals and eased Cold War tensions.

Regan could confidently negotiate with Gorbachev, because he had a 73 percent approval rating.  That reflected the fact that Americans were fully united behind him and our national priorities. Citizens did not always agree with all national policies, but—more often than not— they were willing to communicate rationally about policies rather than personalities.

As I said in my previous Kimmel, Kirk and Us  blog post, our adversaries—China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran—are not just monitoring our military posture. They are watching our politics, our media, and our culture. They are measuring whether we are a nation capable of rational debate. When we descend into ridicule and polarization, we project weakness. We show ourselves as distracted, fractured, and vulnerable to intimidation. Adversaries then are emboldened, less likely to negotiate in good faith, and more likely to threaten war, even nuclear war, as Russia and North Korea recently have.  In short, American division is an invitation to catastrophe. .

All this means that rational discourse is our existential responsibility.  When speech is weaponized for political or monetary profit or division, it exacts profound costs by eroding democracy, safety, and civility.  Jimmie Kimmel and his allies parlayed punishment into profit, teaching millions how to divide and destroy America for entertainment. I again restate and emphasize that our children, along with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, are watching and learning.

By contrast, civil disagreement minimizes national threats.  It deters aggression by demonstrating resilience in disagreement. It signals strength. Respectful debate shows that we can govern ourselves without collapsing into chaos. You may feel powerless in the face of nuclear weapons, but you are not powerless in shaping the climate that influences whether conflict escalates or is contained. You can model civility. Even in disagreement, speak with respect, reject division-for-profit by refusing to reward those who monetize outrage, and by being mindful of the audience, our adversaries, and our children.

The lesson of House of Dynamite, Nuclear War: A Scenario, and The Day After is stark: in a nuclear age, our margin for error is vanishingly small. If we cannot govern our speech and disagreements with discipline, we risk undermining our individual and collective freedom.  One more historical memory is instructive: on June 16, 1858, during his famous speech at the Illinois Republican convention in Springfield, Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." America is a house imperiled. Let’s defuse what now has become a political House of Dynamite.

Continuation of the Attention, Identity, and Emotion Blog post

Once attention is captured, emotion continues to shape how people think. Emotions act as cognitive frames, influencing interpretation and judgment. Research shows that anger often leads to overconfidence and polarized thinking, fear promotes risk-aversion, and sadness encourages deeper reflection and more systematic analysis (Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, & Kassam, 2015). In short, emotions bias not only what we notice but also how we reason about it.

Consider the example of a political debate. A viewer who feels anger may quickly categorize one side as entirely right and the other as entirely wrong. Another viewer, experiencing sadness over societal problems, might adopt a more nuanced perspective and weigh competing arguments carefully. Thus, emotions operate like mental filters that tilt the balance of thought processes, often outside awareness.

Identity is an interpretive lens. If emotion frames cognition in terms of feeling, identity frames it in terms of meaning. People are motivated to interpret information in ways that protect and affirm their identities, a process psychologists call motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990). For instance, partisans often interpret ambiguous political events in ways that favor their party’s position. Similarly, religious or cultural identities can influence how individuals make sense of moral dilemmas or scientific evidence.

This identity-based filtering gives life coherence but also introduces bias. When people’s sense of self is tightly bound to a group or ideology, they may discount or reject information that threatens that identity. This dynamic helps explain why debates about politics, religion, or social values often feel intractable: they are not merely exchanges of evidence but defenses of selfhood.

Emotions are not just mental states; they are embodied responses that prepare people for action. William James (1884/1994) famously argued that emotions are essentially perceptions of bodily changes. Fear involves a racing heart and a readiness to flee; anger involves muscle tension and a readiness to fight. Modern neuroscience confirms that emotions prime the body for specific action tendencies (Damasio, 1994).  This means that when people act, they are often following emotional momentum rather than deliberate choice. Someone who feels insulted may lash out before thinking, while someone who feels compassion may help a stranger without calculating costs. Emotions provide an immediacy and urgency to behavior that pure rationality rarely matches.

While emotions push people into action, identity often keeps them acting in consistent ways over time. Self-verification theory suggests that individuals are motivated to behave in ways that confirm their self-concept, even if that concept is negative (Swann, 1983). Similarly, identity-based motivation theory argues that when actions are tied to one’s identity, they feel more compelling and necessary (Oyserman, 2009).  For example, someone who identifies as “a dependable friend” will continue showing up for others even when exhausted. A person who sees themselves as “a loyal employee” may stay late at work regardless of personal cost. Such consistency provides stability and predictability, but it can also lead to rigidity when identities no longer align with changing circumstances.

Together, emotion and identity not only influence moment-to-moment decisions but also shape the situations in which people remain. Emotional attachments and identity commitments can create powerful forms of situational entrapment. People may stay in toxic relationships because love and identity as a partner override rational awareness of harm. Employees may remain in unfulfilling careers because leaving would threaten their identity as successful professionals. Citizens may cling to political movements that no longer reflect their values because group identity and emotional loyalty keep them bound.  This dynamic often unfolds mindlessly. Once entrenched, emotions reinforce identities, and identities reinforce emotions. Breaking free requires conscious reflection—a willingness to question both how one feels and who one believes oneself to be.

So, emotion and identity are silent architects of life, and awareness is the tool that allows people to remodel the structures they create. Mindfulness practices, for example, help individuals notice emotional states without immediately acting on them (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). Similarly, critical thinking and Socratic questioning can expose the ways identity shapes reasoning, allowing for greater intellectual flexibility. Identity itself can also be made more fluid: people can adopt multiple, overlapping self-concepts rather than clinging to a single rigid role.

By cultivating such awareness, individuals can reclaim a measure of freedom from the automatic guidance of emotion and identity. Rather than being passively shaped by these forces, they can engage them consciously, using their power to build lives that are both meaningful and intentional.

To conclude, although people like to imagine themselves as rational actors, emotion and identity guide much of what they notice, how they think, and what they do. These forces not only determine the flow of attention and the framing of thought but also drive action and entrench individuals in particular life situations. While they provide coherence, belonging, and motivation, they also risk narrowing perception and limiting freedom. To live with awareness and flexibility requires recognizing how deeply emotion and identity structure human experience. Only then can individuals move from mindless persistence to mindful choice.

References

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Putnam.

James, W. (1994). The physical basis of emotion (Originally published 1884). In M. G. Johnson (Ed.), The philosophy of William James (pp. 323–335). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Delacorte.

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 799–823. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(2), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63

Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.05.008

Pessoa, L. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive control? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.006

Swann, W. B. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. Psychological Perspectives on the Self, 2, 33–66.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Emotion and Identity: Silent Architects of Attention, Thought, and Action

When people are asked why they made a particular decision, they often describe it in terms of logic and reasoning. Yet research across psychology, neuroscience, and sociology consistently shows that much of what guides human behavior lies outside deliberate rationality. Two of the most powerful but subtle forces are emotion and identity. These factors determine what we notice in our environment, how we interpret it, and how we respond. Even more profoundly, they shape the situations in which we find ourselves and often keep us trapped in them, sometimes long after reason would suggest leaving.

The human brain processes far more sensory information than it can ever consciously attend to. Psychologists often describe attention as a spotlight: it illuminates a small portion of the environment while leaving the rest in shadow. What determines where this spotlight lands is often emotional salience. Research shows that emotionally charged stimuli—such as threatening faces, symbols of danger, or even images linked with reward—are noticed more quickly and remembered more vividly than neutral stimuli (Pessoa, 2009).

This tendency has clear evolutionary roots. Early humans who rapidly noticed the snake in the grass or the angry glare of a rival were more likely to survive than those who overlooked such cues. But in modern life, this same attentional bias means that our emotional states can dramatically skew what we perceive. Someone feeling anxious may notice only the risks in a situation, while someone feeling joyful may see possibilities that others overlook. In this way, emotion is not just a passing experience but a force that shapes perception at its most basic level.

If emotion determines what feels urgent, identity determines what feels relevant. Identity is the collection of roles, values, and group memberships through which people define themselves. Social identity theory demonstrates that individuals pay heightened attention to information related to their in-groups, because such cues are tied to self-esteem and belonging (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Similarly, self-schema research shows that people are more likely to notice and remember information that is consistent with their self-concept (Markus, 1977). For example, someone who strongly identifies as a parent will quickly notice environmental cues related to children’s safety, while someone who defines themselves as a professional athlete may immediately spot opportunities for competition or training. Identity, in this way, organizes attention around the themes that make life feel coherent and meaningful. But it can also narrow focus, making people blind to information outside their roles.

 Once attention is captured, emotion continues to shape how people think. Emotions act as cognitive frames, influencing interpretation and judgment. Research shows that anger often leads to overconfidence and polarized thinking, fear promotes risk-aversion, and sadness encourages deeper reflection and more systematic analysis (Lerner, Li, Valdesolo, & Kassam, 2015). In short, emotions bias not only what we notice but also how we reason about it.

Consider the example of a political debate. A viewer who feels anger may quickly categorize one side as entirely right and the other as entirely wrong. Another viewer, experiencing sadness over societal problems, might adopt a more nuanced perspective and weigh competing arguments carefully. Thus, emotions operate like mental filters that tilt the balance of thought processes, often outside awareness.

If emotion frames cognition in terms of feeling, identity frames it in terms of meaning. People are motivated to interpret information in ways that protect and affirm their identities, a process psychologists call motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990). For instance, partisans often interpret ambiguous political events in ways that favor their party’s position. Similarly, religious or cultural identities can influence how individuals make sense of moral dilemmas or scientific evidence.

This identity-based filtering gives life coherence but also introduces bias. When people’s sense of self is tightly bound to a group or ideology, they may discount or reject information that threatens that identity. This dynamic helps explain why debates about politics, religion, or social values often feel intractable: they are not merely exchanges of evidence but defenses of selfhood.

EMOTION CONTINUED IN NEXT BLOG POSTING

Kimmel, Kirk, and Us

As almost everyone knows by now, Jimmy Kimmel had been “indefinitely suspended” by ABC on September 17, 2025 following his comments about the fatal shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.  A precise quote of his primary false offensive comment is, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”  

Let’s deconstruct Jimmy Kimmel’s assassin-related comments and then educate him.

First, Kimmel referred to Tyler Robinson as a “kid” despite his being over 22 years old; so, Kimmel needs to learn the following facts:

• Primary elections: 21 states and Washington, D.C. allow 17-year-olds who will turn 18 by the general election to vote in the preceding primary election.
• Local elections: Some towns and cities allow citizens younger than 18 to vote in local elections. Examples include several cities in Maryland where the voting age has been lowered to 16 for municipal contests

• Voter preregistration: Most states, along with Washington, D.C., allow young people to preregister to vote before they are 18. The preregistration age varies by state, but can be as young as 16.
• An American can join the armed forces without parental approval at age 18. If a person is 17 years old, they need the written consent of a parent or legal guardian to enlist. 
• Approximately 61% of the Americans killed during the Vietnam War were 21 years old or younger.

Accordingly, Tyler Robinson was no kid, despite Jimmy Kimmel’s desire to find an excuse for the assassin.

Second, Robinson was in no way MAGA.  In fact, he was virulently, hatefully anti- MAGA. Moreover, Robinson was totally, delusionally opposed to democracy and free speech.  For instance, he justified murdering Charlie Kirk by saying, "There is too much evil and the guy [Charlie Kirk] spreads too much hate." So, an evil, hateful assassin projects his evil, hateful personality characteristics onto his target. And that targeted person was a staunch advocate for democracy and free speech.

Now let’s return to Jimmy Kimmel. On September 23^rd, a mere six days after being put on indefinite suspension, he was almost fully back on the air.  And by September 26, he was fully back. Anyone with two intact cerebral hemispheres is not surprised to know that Kimmel’s television ratings profited enormously from his hateful speech.  Here is a chart showing his audience ratings before and after Kimmel’s slandering Kirk:

Comparative Ratings Table: "Jimmy Kimmel Live!" Before and After Controversy

Period	Total Viewers	18-49 year-olds	Notes
1st qtr 2025	1.77 million	0.48 rating	Pre-controversy baseline
8/1/25	1.1 million	0.35 rating	Summer low
9/15/25	1.1 million	0.13 rating	Day of controversial monologue
9/23/25	6.26 million	0.87 rating	Reinstated with 4X baseline increase

That 400% audience rating increase over baseline is precisely what rewards and keeps the influencer hate going. But perhaps you would argue that free speech is precisely what Charlie Kirk was advocating and that is true.  You,  I, and the people next door should be able to say whatever we want, because what we say will not promote widespread violence or severe retribution. We simply don’t have the platform to distribute our biases across the nation. My professional opinion—for what it’s worth—is described below in a more academic-like style.

The Power of the Microphone: Free Speech in the Age of Influence

In democratic societies, free speech is a cornerstone of liberty—a right enshrined in constitutions, protected by courts, and celebrated in public discourse. But as the digital age has redefined who holds a microphone, the consequences of speech have grown exponentially. There’s a critical difference between a private citizen expressing an opinion and a public figure with millions of followers making irresponsible, derogatory, or violent political statements.

Influence Amplifies Impact

A private citizen might vent frustrations at a dinner table or post a controversial opinion online, reaching a handful of people. But when someone with an enormous platform—be it a celebrity, politician, or elite influencer of any kind—uses their voice to spread inflammatory rhetoric, the stakes change. Their words can ripple across society, shaping public sentiment, fueling division, and even inciting violence.

Free Speech vs. Public Safety

The First Amendment protects speech from government censorship—but it doesn’t shield speakers from accountability. Courts have long held that speech inciting imminent lawless action is not protected (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969). The challenge today is that “imminence” is harder to define when viral posts can reach millions in seconds, and when coded language or dog whistles can mobilize groups without explicit calls to violence.

Social media companies have grappled with this dilemma. Platforms like Twitter (now X), Facebook, and YouTube have suspended or banned accounts of high-profile individuals for violating policies on hate speech and incitement. These decisions often spark debates about censorship, bias, and the boundaries of free expression.

Responsibility Comes with Reach

With great reach comes great responsibility. Public figures—especially those in politics or media—must recognize that their words carry weight. A single tweet or soundbite can validate extremist views, undermine democratic institutions, or provoke unrest. The difference between a private citizen and a public figure isn’t just scale—it’s influence. And influence, when wielded recklessly, can be dangerous.

Navigating the Future

As society continues to wrestle with the balance between free speech and public safety, one principle remains clear: speech is not just a right—it’s a responsibility. The louder the microphone, the greater the duty to use it wisely.  Free speech promulgated and disseminated by biased, controlling elites is not free; it exacts profound costs by destroying democracy, safety, and civility. Jimmie Kimmel successfully parlayed punishment into profit.  He no doubt now has taught millions of others to do the same—a master class in how to divide and destroy America. Our children, China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are watching and learning !

 

Assassinating Free Speech

To set this blog’s context, consider a 2025  pupil study from the non-partisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).   As it does each year, the foundation surveyed 68,000+ students from250+ colleges. And their report was as follows:

Acceptance of Violence =  34%  of students say using violence to stop someone from speaking on campus is acceptable.

Acceptance of Shouting Down Speakers = 72% of students say shouting down a speaker on campus is acceptable.

Self-Censoring with Fellow Students on Campus = 24% of students say they often self-censor with other students on campus.

Self-Censoring in Classroom Discussions = 28% of students say they often self-censor during classroom discussions.

Low Trust in School Administration = 27% of students say it is very or extremely likely their school administration would defend a speaker's rights to express their views.

Mental health professionals, anthropologists, and biologists suggest that it is language that separates human beings most definitively from animals.  When animals experience fear, they attack, freeze, or flee. Some American universities are passively allowing their students to do the same. Thus, in a sense,  universities are reducing students to the level of animals. To me, that’s the biggest lesson from the recent university assassination of Charlie Kirk.

As almost all Americans have heard, Charlie Kirk was fatally shot during a public event at Utah Valley University on September 10, around 12:10 p.m. MDT. He was hosting a "Prove Me Wrong" segment as part of his American Comeback Tour when the attack occurred. A bullet struck him in the neck, leading to his death later that day.  Kirk was assassinated while speaking to an audience and was encouraging them to step to the microphone to comment and question.  Thus, he was living and promoting freedom of speech and expression at the very moment that he was murdered.

If you or someone  you know hear about Charlie Kirk's assassination and immediately think or say, "Yes, but what about the Democrats who have been shot or killed, I have a few questions:  "Where is your humanity??  Is life in America your political game of win or lose?  Have you no empathy for his wife and children?  Is your mental processing so constrained and impoverished that you are unwilling and/or incapable of thinking about long-term consequences for America, for you, and for those whom you love?

Regardless of your politics, you might accept the following likely realities regarding Kirk’s death:

The Loss of a Brilliant, Energetic Young Leader

At just 31 years old, Charlie Kirk epitomized charisma, drive, and youthful energy. As the founder of Turning Point USA, he skillfully mobilized a generation to engage with conservative principles. His death represents not just personal loss, but the abrupt silencing of a once-bright voice in political youth activism. WHAT DOES SILENCING FREE SPEECH DO TO AMERICA?

Devastation for Family and Loved Ones

The emotional toll on his wife, Erika, and their two children is crushing. Beyond the political impact, the family has lost a husband and father—his passing a personal tragedy beyond public perception. The ripple extends to friends, colleagues, and supporters who mourn both the man and his family’s loss.  WHAT WILL THE MURDER DO TO OUR SOCIAL/POLITICAL CLIMATE?

Chilling Effect on Student Gatherings

The violent targeting of a speaker on campus could push some organizers and attendees toward caution, even fear. Upcoming gatherings—especially large events or rallies—might now contend with heightened security concerns and hesitancy, potentially curbing in-person engagement. GIVEN KIRK’S UNPRECEDENTED SUCCESS REGARDING CONSERVATIVE YOUTH, WILL MORE  DERANGED CONSERVATIVE HATERS BE ENCOURAGED TO CONSIDER ASSASSINATION TO ACHIEVE THEIR ENDS?

Suppression of Bold Voices

Charlie Kirk was unapologetically outspoken. His death may lead others with similar boldness to reconsider stepping into the public arena. The fear is that the political arena will grow more timid, less open to outspoken individuals challenging prevailing narratives. WILL THE ASSASSINATION SUCCEED IN DISSUADING YOUNG CONSERVATIVES FROM SPEAKING OUT?

Loss of a Communicator to Youth

Few reached young conservatives as directly as Kirk did. His ability to connect—via campus events, podcasts, social media, and media appearances—created a bridge between political messaging and youth culture. His absence leaves a void in channels that blend youthful energy with political persuasion. WILL THE ASSASSINATION FURTHER PREVENT RATIONAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN YOUNG CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES?

Discouragement of Fearless Expression

In classrooms or campuses, the notion that dissenting or non-mainstream conservative voices might be heard is now marred by tragedy. Students may feel discouraged from speaking against dominant campus opinions, fearing repercussions—whether subtle or stark. WILL CAMPUSES BECOME EVEN MORE BALKANIZED THAN THEY ALREADY ARE?

Reflection on the Political Atmosphere

While it's crucial not to equate cause and effect simplistically, the incident does underscore the toxicity of polarizing rhetoric in American political discourse. Some observers may ask whether the current climate—full of extreme labels, conspiracies, and demonization—facilitates tragedies like this. Voices from across the spectrum have warned about the need to reject political violence.

Deepening Anxiety Among Teens and College Students

Youth—especially college students—now face more than academic concerns: they’re confronting the possibility that expressing political ideas is dangerous. The psychological weight of that reality could inhibit open debate and intellectual risk-taking on campuses, shifting the atmosphere from one of engagement to one of caution and conformity.

Unfortunately. Charlie Kirk was courageous to a fault. His final days were marked by growing danger. According to Pastor Rob McCoy, a close friend and spiritual mentor, Kirk had been receiving death threats regularly—hundreds, McCoy claimed. Yet Kirk never flinched. “Every day he faced death threats from evil,” McCoy said, “and he was never afraid of that.”

Are you and I courageous enough to take a stand against the partisan,  violent malignancy infecting our youth and ourselves?

Is Your Intelligence Becoming Artificial?

You probably have heard that our brains make up only about 2% of the body’s total weight, yet consume roughly 20% of our energy (Raichle & Gusnard, 2002). That disproportionate energy demand hints at the immense processing power locked inside the human mind—and why our species has always been strategic in managing mental and physical effort. I emphasized those strategies in my Don’t Rest in Peace book (McCusker, 2016).

From an evolutionary perspective, early humans were constantly , unconsciously calculating efficiency.  Accordingly, anthropologists and evolutionary biologists argue that our ancestors often sought foods and resources that offered the greatest nutritional return for the least effort (Kaplan et al., 2000). That logic of minimizing effort while maximizing reward didn’t end with the Stone Age. Modern humans extended it into the way we manage our time, as well as energy.

Enter artificial intelligence. Many of us embrace AI because it saves time, reduces mental strain, and increases efficiency. Just as our ancestors preferred calorie-rich foods to fuel their bodies and brains, we are now drawn to digital tools that fuel productivity with minimal effort. Yet this evolutionary impulse raises an important question: when should we rely on AI, and when should we rely on our own cognition?

The answer may lie in a cost-benefit analysis. Using AI comes with obvious gains: speed, convenience, and access to information. But there are also hidden costs. If we allow AI to handle too much of our mental workload, we may weaken our memory, problem-solving skills, and even creativity over time (Mitchum & Kelley, 2023). On the other hand, strategic use of AI—such as delegating repetitive or low-level tasks—can free us to focus on higher-order thinking and creative work.

The gains versus costs issue was empirically studied by Nataliya Kosmyna, et al.(2025) at MIT’s Media Lab, with collaborators from Wellesley College and Massachusetts College of Art and Design. The research deserves our careful attention.  

Let’s begin with the methodology: 54 participants were asked to write SAT-style essays under three different conditions: Brain-only: Write without any external aid; Search engine: Use Google to assist; and LLM (ChatGPT): Use ChatGPT to assist.  This setup obtained across three sessions. In a fourth session, participants switched: those who had used AI changed to writing unaided (LLM-to-Brain), and vice versa (Brain-to-LLM).   

Measurements were as follows: Participants wore EEG headsets to monitor brain activity (cognitive neural connectivity across alpha, beta, theta bands, etc.). Researchers also analyzed the writing for originality, linguistic patterns, and had humans and AI evaluate the essays. Post-task interviews assessed recall and ownership.

Neural engagement assessment found that the brain-only group showed the highest and most widespread neural connectivity, indicating deep cognitive engagement. The search engine group fell in the middle—more engaged than the AI group, but less than brain-only. And The LLM (AI) group had the weakest neural engagement, suggesting cognitive offloading and diminished mental processing. 

Regarding memory and ownership, over 83% of the AI users (LLM group) couldn't quote their own essays, versus only 11% in the other groups. AI user essays appeared more formulaic and less original, and they reported feeling less ownership of the content.

The most surprising research finding was the persistence of  the cognitive effects.  For instance, in the final session, participants who had initially used AI and switched to writing unaided did not recover their earlier neural engagement—they remained under-engaged. By contrast, those who began writing unaided and then used AI (Brain-to-LLM) showed increased neural connectivity, almost matching the search engine group. The researchers coined “cognitive debt” to describe the long-term cost of over-relying on AI.  Thus, while AI could ease immediate effort, it appeared to erode critical thinking, creativity, memory retention, and essay ownership.

I must underscore something obvious: The MIT study involved only 54 subjects. That is hardly a ringing endorsement to its reliability and validity.  Its findings may or may not be replicated in the future. Most important is that the study found exactly what I expected it to find.  Maybe this is just one example of my confirmation bias.  

Regardless, for me, the best way forward is not to use AI as a replacement for human effort, but as a partner. Just as the body regulates how much energy goes to the brain and other systems, we can regulate how much work we give to AI versus how much we keep for ourselves. The challenge is to strike a balance: gaining the efficiency AI provides without losing the unique cognitive strengths that make us human. In this sense, using AI should not merely be an evolutionary continuation of our search for maximum return on minimal effort. We must mindfully balance  not only calories, but our time, attention, and intellectual engagement.

References

Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A theory of human life history evolution: Diet, intelligence, and longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 9(4), 156–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6505(2000)9:4<156::AID-EVAN5>3.0.CO;2-7

Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of cognitive debt when using an AI assistant for essay writing task. MIT Media Lab. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 

McCusker, P. J. (2016). Don't Rest in Peace: Activity-Oriented, Integrated Physical and Mental Health (New York: Amazon).

Mitchum, A. L., & Kelley, C. M. (2023). The “Google effect” in the age of artificial intelligence: How reliance on external memory systems may impact learning and cognition. Memory & Cognition, 51(6), 1249–1264. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-023-01485-9

Raichle, M. E., & Gusnard, D. A. (2002). Appraising the brain’s energy budget. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(16), 10237–10239. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.172399499