Something that a lot of people in America are struggling to understand right now is the MAGA mindset, and while I do not claim to know the definitive reasons for everyone (because rarely is there ever a universal definitive reason behind any human behavior, people present with particular views of the world for varying reasons), this post will focus on one that I have been able to identify. As a psychotherapist who practices in a very red state, the MAGA mindset is something that I see inside and outside of the therapy session on a regular basis; and one of my passions is conceptualizing human behavior through psychanalysis.
Through my work with clients, my education, and my training, I have sought out to understand the MAGA mindset in hopes that analysis could help me understand my clients and see their devotion to this movement in a way that would create less judgement within me. As a person who values personal autonomy, critical thinking, progress, adaptability, universal freedom, equality, inclusion, and the belief in a shared humanity, their ideology and loyalty to it are puzzling.
I have however, identified a personality profile that many MAGA have in common with each other, that leans more towards grandiosity; followers who project their own wounded pride, illusions of superiority, and delusions of needing a “savior,” onto a leader, who mirrors it back to them. Not all MAGA followers have these traits, some have more subtle traits that makes them more susceptible to the influence of the MAGA movement for other reasons. Not all of these personality traits are negative, as there is a light and dark side to everything, but it is clear that a combination of these traits and the right upbringing, can create in a person the recipe for a individual who gravitates towards strong ideology, nationalism, and dogmatic religion.
Low Empathy
Empathy refers to the capacity to understand, feel, and share another person’s emotions. It involves recognizing another individual’s emotional state (cognitive empathy) and responding with appropriate emotion or concern (emotional empathy). This concept can be described as “putting oneself in another person’s shoes.” Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, which is understanding what another person is thinking or feeling; emotional empathy, which is experiencing the emotions someone else is going through; and compassionate empathy, which entails understanding and feeling another person’s emotions, along with a motivation to assist them.
As many are aware, a great deal of MAGA supporters identify as Christians. There’s a deep and often unsettling irony in the relationship between low empathy and expressions of fundamentalist or evangelical Christianity, especially when viewed through a psychological or ethical lens. But even those who are not Christian often display a lack of empathy and emotional maturity.
However, in the Bible, Jesus’ message was about love, mercy, empathy, and compassion. He often delivered sermons and messages about helping the poor, the sick, the prisoner, and the elderly. Some commonly known Bible scriptures include, “Love your neighbor,” (Matthew 22:39), “Do unto others as you would have done unto you,” (Luke 6:3), and “Whatever you did for the least of these you did for me,” (Matthew 25:40).
Many evangelical or fundamentalist churches preach that being LGBTQ+ is sinful, and some go further by promoting conversion therapy (which has been discredited and is deeply traumatizing). They also work to exclude LGBTQ+ people from leadership, membership, or even basic participation. They have protested same sex marriage and have worked at the legislative level to try to overturn laws that protect same sex marriage rights. They also encouraging parents to disown queer children unless they “repent.”
Then there is the irony of rejecting and criminalizing immigrants. Many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians who support harsh treatment of immigrants reveal a deep hypocrisy at the core of their faith, because Jesus himself was an immigrant. The Gospel of Matthew (2:13–15) recounts that Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape violence under King Herod. Aside from this, the land that we refer to as the United States was stolen from natives by way of bloodshed, cultural appropriation, and genocide, yet they claim that immigrants who came here to work picking crops and cleaning hotels are stealing their jobs, killing their citizens, and “changing their way of life.” How ironic.
While many fundamental and Evangelical churches claim to be followers of Jesus, these same churches support policies that criminalize asylum seekers and separate families. Their advocacy for these policies are in stark contrast to Jesus’ teachings which emphasized acceptance and love for outsiders and care for “the least of these” (Matthew 25:40).
Cognitive Closure
The concept of cognitive closure was developed by Arie W. Kruglanski, a social psychologist recognized for his work on motivation, decision-making, and belief formation. He introduced the idea in the early 1990s to explain why some individuals are motivated to arrive at quick, firm conclusions and avoid ambiguity, also referred to has cognitive shortcuts. Cognitive short cuts are often preferred by MAGA; they want quick answers to complicated solutions. One immigrant committed a crime, so all immigrants are bad; If you’re not a patriot, you’re a traitor. It was better back in the “good old days.”
Cognitive closure is a psychological concept referring to the desire or need for a definite answer to a question and the avoidance of ambiguity or uncertainty. Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure tend to prefer clear, definite information over ambiguity and might experience discomfort with open-ended or unresolved situations. A low need for cognitive closure indicates a person’s comfort with uncertainty, openness to new ideas, and willingness to delay judgment, which is often associated with higher levels of openness to experience and tolerance for ambiguity.
Kruglanski’s Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC) theory states that individuals vary in their desire for certainty and tolerance of uncertainty. He identified “seizing” as quickly accepting firm answers and “freezing” as solidifying those answers while resisting contradictory information. These processes explain the preference for fast, definitive judgments and discomfort with ambiguity.
People with a strong NFCC often seek definitive answers. When this need is unhealthy, they favor models that offer clear solutions and avoid ambiguity. MAGA provides this for them; MAGA tells you who the enemies are (immigrants and liberals, ironically, not foreign dictators who kill and steal children), that way they instantly know who is good and who is bad. They often struggle to distinguish real problems from perceived ego threats, which leads to cognitive dissonance.
The theory of cognitive dissonance was developed by Leon Festinger, a social psychologist, in 1957. Festinger introduced the concept to describe the psychological discomfort people experience when they hold two or more conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors. This discomfort, called dissonance, creates a motivational drive to reduce the inconsistency and restore mental harmony. This feeling motivates the individual to reduce or eliminate the inconsistency. Festinger’s theory emphasized that internal consistency matters deeply to human beings, leading them to align their thoughts and actions. The theory has since been applied widely in areas such as decision-making, attitude change, consumer behavior, and therapy.
Christians in Fundamental or Evangelical circles and MAGA as well, require its participants to live in a permanent state of cognitive dissonance. They are taught to believe that this dissonance is normal, and in the case of Christianity, “holy.” To achieve this the brain must filter out any information that would be contradictory to the belief system. For example, you must believe that “God is Love,” and accept that God created “hell,” which is not only a horrific place, but a system of “torture,” for those who don’t believe in God. Another example is the belief that “God gave us free will,” but then he also knows who will be “saved,” and who won’t be, and he knows it before you are born. “Trump is about law and order, but allowed a mob to attack the Capitol on January 6th.” “We are guided by Christian values, but our leader has been married many times, had affairs on his wife, cheated people out of money, lied on loan paperwork, and is a felon.”
Some ways that Fundamentalist Christian and MAGA groups try to deal with the dissonance is to make statements like, “The Lord works in mysterious ways,” or “His ways are higher than your ways.” “It was a ploy by the left to discredit Trump.” These types of sayings are preferred because they are “thought stoppers,” and help followers avoid the uncomfortable feeling of cognitive dissonance. In church, it is also a way to appeal to the mystery of God, by suggesting that God’s ways are above human understanding, just a Trumps ways are above most of our understanding with his 4D chess. This helps to protect the ego and avoid any anxiety associated with cognitive dissonance.
When MAGA; is faced with cognitive dissonance, they will also use thought stoppers like, “Fake News,” “Witch Hunt,” “America First,” “If you don’t like it, leave,” and my personal favorite, “What about her emails?” These statements often elicit emotion in others, which is frustrating, and they are used repeatedly, and require more than a thought stopping statement to refute. What would likely work better would be to counteract their thought stopping statements with other thoughts stopping statements or counter-statements that would point out the hypocrisy in theirs. When they say, “If you don’t like it leave,” counter it with, “criticizing your country is how you make it better.”
Conscientiousness
The next personality trait of is one used on The Big Five Model, conscientiousness. The Big Five Model is a framework used in psychology to understand human personality, breaking the human personality down into five core traits. It was developed over decades through the work of multiple researchers. There has been much work and research over the years to solidify the model’s scientific validity.
High conscientiousness is a preference for structure, tradition, and rule following. Individuals whom score high in the conscientiousness category prioritize self-discipline, organization, goal orientation, dependability, cautiousness and work ethic. People who score high on conscientiousness tend to gravitate towards models that emphasize moral codes and can become rigid and perfectionistic. They also display a high attention to detail.
People can display a high degree of consciousness in certain areas of life, and not necessarily in every aspect of their life. People can focus their high conscientiousness on areas of work, academics, or fitness, but then in other areas of life be more flexible or show low conscientiousness in things like housework, finances, or parenting. This is sometimes referred to domain specific conscientiousness. The factors that determine this specificity include what motivates them or how much they value or ascribe meaning to certain topics.
People will often apply more effort to where they achieve feelings related to a sense of purpose, identity, or pressure. A person who is disorganized or laze-faire in one area can learn to transfer consciousness from one area to another. For example, if someone is more conscientious in the areas of academics, they can transfer that same ability to the area of finance with intention.
When it comes to placing high meaning or value on topics such as religion, nationalism, and strong ideology, problems can occur. Due to these topics usually being associated with a person’s identity, sense of purpose, or a feeling of pressure, outcomes can lead to unhealthy thoughts and actions. They may be critical of others who are more flexible. They are prone to overworking or burning out. They are strictly adherent to rule bound behavior that favors obedience over empathy. They prefer structure over flexibility and are punitive enforcers of norms, with an obsessive adherence to religious laws or national codes. This type of unhealthy conscientiousness makes a person ripe for authoritarianism. Authoritarian leadership places a lot of value on obedience, conformity, and loyalty to a group or leader. They strongly align with in-group loyalty, tradition, and fear of outsiders.
Low Openness to Experience
Another big Five Model trait, low openness to experience refers to a preference for what feels familiar as well as tradition, and certainty. People who score low on open to experience tend to be people who have a preference towards things that preserve the past. The past represents something “known and tested.” The future, change, and reform feel uncertain. They are more likely to believe that past customs and values have enduring wisdom, despite numerous valid scientific studies that have stated otherwise. Any change to this is seen as disruptive.
They prefer practical, literal thinking over abstract or imaginative thought. Literal thinking encompasses information that deals with facts, specifics, and direct meaning. This gives them a somewhat false sense or feeling of reliability. Abstract thinking such as metaphors. symbology, or irony, feels uncomfortable because it leaves room for interpretation based on individual perceptions. A preference of concrete operational thinking through the lens of a trauma therapist suggests that the person is stuck within that developmental age of concrete operational thinking, which is ages seven to eleven, according to Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Children of this age can think logically, but only about concrete and tangible things. They can understand things like, what is five plus eight, but struggle with “what if,” questions.
Individuals with low openness to experience tend to favor convergent thinking, which involves focusing on one correct answer. This contrasts with divergent thinkers, who brainstorm and consider multiple possible answers.
Aside from trauma, individuals can also become consistent thinkers in this stage due to other factors such as developmental delays, learning differences (also known as learning disabilities), educational deficits, or lack of cognitive stimulation. People may also only prefer this way of thinking within certain areas of their life too, like in the subjects of math or English, or the areas of relationships or spirituality. This stage develops gradually starting at the age of twelve.
Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development outlines four stages that describe how children’s thinking evolves over time. In the sensorimotor stage (birth to 2 years), infants learn through sensory experiences and develop object permanence. The preoperational stage (ages 2 to 7) involves symbolic thinking and language development, but children at this stage are egocentric and have difficulty with logical reasoning. During the concrete operational stage (ages 7 to 11), children begin to think more logically about concrete events and understand concepts like conservation and reversibility. Finally, in the formal operational stage (ages 12 and up), individuals gain the ability to think abstractly, reason hypothetically, and engage in complex problem-solving.
These stages show the progression from basic physical interaction to advanced abstract thinking. It’s not unusual to think some adults are stuck in these stages. Individuals who score low in openness to experience, a personality trait associated with curiosity, creativity, and a willingness to consider new ideas, may exhibit thinking patterns comparable to those in Piaget’s concrete operational stage of cognitive development. Piaget originally proposed that cognitive development progresses naturally with age; however, some individuals may plateau in their cognitive style, particularly when their personality reinforces a preference for structure, predictability, and concrete thinking. These individuals may excel at logical reasoning related to tangible facts and familiar routines but may find abstract thought, hypothetical reasoning, or perspective-taking more challenging, which are characteristics of the formal operational stage. For example, they may find it difficult to imagine alternative viewpoints, deal with ambiguity, or consider novel ideas that do not align with their current framework. This can impact problem-solving flexibility and adaptability in a changing environment. In therapeutic or educational settings, gradually introducing unfamiliar ideas and helping individuals manage cognitive dissonance can support the development of more abstract and flexible thinking.
People who score low on open to experience and struggle with a genuine sense of identity view history as a “fixed guidebook,” on how things should be; insert bible or MAGA ideology. Studies have shown that people who gravitate towards a lower openness to experience tend towards professions in law enforcement, manual trades, military roles, and accounting.
Social Dominance Orientation
The next trait that people who gravitate towards religion, nationalism and MAGA’s strong ideology tend to exhibit is something called Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). SDO is the belief that some groups should dominate others. They have a strict hierarchal world view. That means that they hold a perspective that organizes individuals, groups, or concepts into levels or strata based on certain criteria such as power, status, authority, or importance. This concept implies that certain entities are more superior or valuable to others. An example would be a belief that a government should favor or support values or laws that are in alignment with their religious beliefs because of the importance that individual places on their religion.
SDO maintains that people at higher levels must have more authority, influence, or resources than lower levels. This can shape cultural norms and have social implications that reinforce existing world views such as inequality, power imbalance, discrimination, oppression, and lack of representation.
They are in opposition to equality and tend to oppose policies that are aimed at reducing inequality such as affirmative action, Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion Act, or multi-cultural education. They rationalize their aversion to inclusion in different ways. Some of these manifests in meritocracy, or the mindset that if you work hard, you’ll succeed, or natural order of evolutionary thinking, which is the belief that some groups are just smarter, stronger, or more capable.
Some will use moral justification for this type of thinking which includes a framework that supports the idea that equality is destabilizing, or dangerous. They have the mindset that inequality is a necessary price for salvation, peace, or security. Some flat out deny that inequality is in the past and doesn’t exist anymore, with thoughts such as, “discrimination doesn’t exist,” or “racism doesn’t exist anymore,” and they believe that disadvantage groups receive special treatment. This can then lead into reverse victimhood where people perceive movements towards equality for one group as a threat to their groups status or equality.
Religions will rationalize this thought process with, “that’s just how it works,” or its ideology is sacred or divinely inspired, quoting religious doctrine. “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” 2 Corinthians 6:14 ESV.
People with an SDO worldview could interpret this scripture to mean that they should not engage at all with anyone whose ideology is different than theirs for moral reasons. Due to the nature of high conscientiousness and a high need for cognitive closure, they likely see morals differing from theirs as inferior. This causes them to rationalize excluding other people with differing world views.
This verse from the bible has been wildly misused and misinterpreted to justify the discrimination and rejection of interfaith relationships and interracial marriage. This goes back to interpreting the scripture literally. Because people with low openness to experience prefer literal interpretations over metaphorical ones, the true interpretation of this verse is missing. The actual meaning of this verse is more complex.
The version listed above comes from the English Standard Version of the bible, whose aim is to take the King James Version (KJV) Bible Interpretation and make it more literal. Before the KJV version were many other versions, the first known English version dating back to The Wycliffe Bible (1382-1395). Before that there was the Latin Vulgate (382-405 AD), which was translated from Hebrew to Greek. What’s interesting is that at the time of the translation, it was common knowledge that Hebrew authors frequently write in metaphors and used symbolism and poetic language. The original writings were never meant to be interpreted literally. Ancient Hebrew is known for using abstract ideas. For example, “God casts sins into the sea” (Micha 7:19). God does not literally cast sins into the sea, this is meant to convey the idea that God is forgiving.
In the time that the letters to the Corinthians were written, yoke was a tool, or wooden harness, that was used to bind together two oxen while they worked in the field. To get the work completed most efficiently, it would be wise to have two oxen of the same strength and capabilities working together. The yoke implies two beings that can move together in the same direction. The author calls for balance, or a partnership with people on your spiritual path who can work with you, not against you. There is no superiority. To be successful on the spiritual path, you need partners who align with your values and intentions. When you do this, you honor yourself and others by not forcing an alignment, thus fostering principles like mutual respect and relational integrity. It also shows honor and respect for the spiritual journey, and the divine.
The ESV (and other modern versions) is preferred by Evangelical scholars, pastors, and churches due to their preference or perceived immediate need for control and clarity in a way that creates clear rules, boundaries, rankings, (who is right and who is wrong, who is saved and who is unsaved), and gets rid of ambiguity. It is in alignment with tribalism or nationalism, and in-group loyalty and justifies punishment. This gives those who teach from this version the authority to judge right and wrong, and a moral license to exclude or include others. A more symbolic reading of the scriptures would point more towards inclusion, justice, and forgiveness.
Stay tuned for part 2!
Leave a comment