The Age of Magical Overthinking: Notes on Modern Irrationality

Modern humans admire and sometimes nearly worship celebrities, with devoted fans being deemed “stans,” a term coined by Eminem in his song “Stan” (2000), which is about a stalker. Some stans’ aggressiveness has resulted in critics censoring themselves, fearful of the backlash, which includes getting “canceled” or receiving death threats. Celebrities can also suffer as a result of their fans, such as when Taylor Swift stopped engaging with fans through her Tumblr account following backlash for her sociopolitical tweets.

Montell attributes extreme fandom to the halo effect, a cognitive bias that occurs when people make overly positive generalizations of individuals based on one favorable trait—“Someone good-looking is presumed to be outgoing and confident” (12). The halo effect has survival benefits, as it is beneficial to collaborate with stronger individuals.

Montell argues that, historically, the halo effect emerges in parent-child relationships. To exemplify, she shares her experiences with idolizing her mother, Dr. Denise Montell, who researched cancer treatments while undergoing chemotherapy herself. However, Montell posits that modern young people idolize celebrities instead of their parents.

Celebrity fandom started to increase in the 1960s after celebrities became more politically outspoken and Americans became more skeptical of institutional authority figures. With the advent of social media, fandom grew into extremism, as social platforms resulted in a manufactured sense of intimacy between fans and idols. Some fandom is beneficial, driving critical thought, but “dogmatic” fandom is detrimental and associated with issues including depression, compulsive spending, stalking, and addiction. The halo effect also causes fans to deify celebrities to the point of dehumanization. Among the examples of halo effect consequences include Taylor Swift, Beyonce, and Charli XCX.

Montell argues that extreme fandom is “connected to mothering” (22), citing multiple studies that have found correlations between weak parental relationships and fandom. The relationship between Taylor Swift and her fans, “Swifties,” exemplifies this concept, with Swift standing as a surrogate mother to her stans. Such behavior psychologically harms both the fan and the idol, with female idols facing more severe consequences, particularly among gay male audiences, Montell states.

Returning to her mother, Montell describes how Denise became more vulnerable with her through a series of emails. In a later conversation with a novelist, Montrell was introduced to the idea of a “good enough” mother. The idea dates to 1953, when Dr. Donald Winnicott found that children benefit from mothers’ occasional failures. Montell concludes by likening the halo effect to matriphagy, when mother animals, like the crab spider, are eaten by their young.

Montell focuses on proportionality bias, which is the tendency for individuals to overestimate “cause-and-effect” relationships, sometimes resulting in conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific beliefs. She points to The Manifestation Doctor, a “pseudo-therapist” with a substantial online following. A previously licensed psychologist, The Manifestation Doctor offers holistic mental health advice to her followers on social media. Following The Manifestation Doctor from a fake Instagram account, Montell has tracked the influencer’s popularity, which expanded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Montell criticizes The Manifestation Doctor for using absolutist verbiage—something the influencer shares with conspiracy theorists. The Manifestation Doctor purports that medication and traditional therapy are harmful but that one can heal themselves: “You just have to learn how to make the universe bend in your favor” (31). The Manifestation Doctor is not unique in her perspective, which surged in popularity in the early 2020s in parallel with increased psychological distress and disorientation. Mistrustful of institutions like the health care system, people became increasingly drawn to such relatable online personas offering simple solutions to challenging questions surrounding mental health.

Montell equates pseudoscientific mental health proponents to conspiracy theorists, defining a conspiracy theory as “a sense-making narrative that offers a satisfying explanation for some confounding turn of events” (34). She suggests that evolution favored paranoia but that, when taken too far, it becomes harmful. The concept of mental health manifestation is “insidious,” as it suggests that individuals have more control than they do, resulting in obsessive self-blame.

Proponents of manifestation are also responsible for spreading disinformation, such as vaccine conspiracy theories, which contributes to extremism. Montell cites an example: A woman named Heather suggested that her father follow The Manifestation Doctor, and shortly after, he became involved with QAnon, a baseless far-right extremist conspiracy theory movement. Paranoia in the United States has been rising since the 9/11 attacks and was exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Human’s attraction toward novelty contributes to paranoia, as false news tends to be more novel. Montell questions the ethics of “social media therapists” (45), even those practicing responsibly, arguing that it is unethical to advertise medical services, as has been written into the Code of Ethics of the American Medical Association since 1847. Alternative mental health advice is further complicated by the fact that much of it is correct, so it appears misleadingly trustworthy.

Montell asserts that alternative mental health practices often capitalize on the proportionality bias, encouraging individuals to incorrectly identify or exaggerate cause-and-effect relationships. The concept of manifestation also uses confirmation bias and frequency bias, or the tendency for repetition to result in belief or trust. She concludes by suggesting that the universe is indifferent.