I live in the West, and the past week has been a strange dream-like demonstration of the collective fabricated mind at work. The reactions to recent political events, particularly the renewed focus on a Trump return, showcase an emotional climate ripe for analysis—not only in a Buddhist sense but also through human psychology frameworks. I did not vote for Trump, and there are many qualities of the man’s countenance that are manifestly unskillful. I’ve included the man in my Metta practice for several years; not to ‘pray’ for the man, but to open my heart something required of us in Buddhism.

All of this got me to thinking quite a bit about compassion, and the operationalized function of compassion – from a Buddhist view. In Buddhism, compassion doesn’t allow for rigid group boundaries; instead, it calls us to see all beings as interconnected, transcending superficial group identities. When we act out of compassion, we consciously step away from reinforcing social divisions. By practicing non-attachment to identities, we disrupt the cycle of conflict and reduce samsara’s hold on us. In the Vasettha Sutta (SN 3.9), the Buddha explains to the Brahmin youths Vasettha and Bharadvaja that what makes someone noble is not their caste or lineage but their actions, particularly living in accordance with the Dhamma (Warnasuriya, 2004). This sutta directly critiques the Brahmanical caste system, rejecting the idea that one's worth is determined by birth or group identity.

“Not by matted hair,

by clan, or by birth,

is one a brahman.

What’s the use of your matted hair,

you dullard?

What’s the use of your deerskin cloak?

The tangle’s inside you.

You comb the outside” (Bhikkhu, 2011, p. 93).

This radical perspective from the Buddha not only dismantles hierarchical systems but also exposes a fundamental psychological truth: people often cling to inherited identities and social constructs as a means of seeking security and validation. In the wake of Trump’s election victory, this psychological truth is playing out in media outlets in striking ways. The clinging to group identity—whether defined by political affiliation, social values, or cultural narratives—has led to widespread emotional and irrational responses. In Buddhism, this clinging is understood as the ‘fabricated mind’, the mental constructions we create to protect our sense of self and belonging. When these constructs are threatened—such as when an election outcome contradicts deeply held expectations—it triggers discomfort that can manifest as outrage, blame, and even hateful speech. Understanding the psychological frameworks at play helps illuminate why this happens and why it often leads to what might be considered unskillful, irrational, or outright ‘stupid’ responses (yes, there’s your clickbait). Cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, and social identity theory all shed light on these reactions.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Justifying Emotions
and Beliefs

Developed by Leon Festinger in 1957, Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) proposes that people experience discomfort when holding contradictory beliefs or engaging in behaviors that conflict with their values (Festinger, 1962). With the 2024 election and ongoing commentary around Trump, many are struggling between feeling compassion and experiencing anger or resentment. This internal conflict, especially for Buddhist practitioners, can prompt people to justify their emotions by assigning blame to the ‘other’ or validating their position as ‘correct’. The dissonance between a left-leaning individual’s worldview and Trump’s victory creates an emotional need to resolve this conflict, often by lashing out or doubling down on group ideologies. This behavior blinds people to opportunities for self-reflection, ethical action, and meaningful dialogue—precisely the kinds of practices that could bridge divides and foster greater understanding.

From a Buddhist lens, the path forward involves letting go of rigid attachments to identity, embracing discomfort, and cultivating skillful responses rooted in mindfulness and compassion. The alternative—clinging to the fabricated mind and perpetuating division—only deepens the suffering we seek to alleviate, for ourselves and others.

Understanding Confirmation Bias Through Buddhist and Psychological Lenses

Confirmation bias—the tendency to seek, prioritize, and interpret information that affirms our pre-existing beliefs—reveals much about how we construct and cling to our sense of self. From a psychological standpoint, it operates as a cognitive shortcut, reducing mental effort by filtering out dissonant information (Peters, 2020). While efficient, this mechanism often distorts our perception of reality, particularly in emotionally charged contexts like politics. During polarizing events, such as Trump’s recent election win, confirmation bias fuels division by reinforcing entrenched beliefs and heightening antagonism toward opposing viewpoints. Social media algorithms exacerbate this bias, creating echo chambers where people engage primarily with affirming content, while the discomfort of cognitive dissonance drives many to dismiss conflicting evidence or vilify those with opposing views. This cycle not only impedes critical thinking but also deepens societal polarization by hardening the boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

Buddhism offers profound insights into the roots of confirmation bias and its consequences. In Buddhist terms, this tendency arises from moha (delusion), tanha (craving), and upadana (clinging), particularly the craving for stability and validation of the self. When individuals tie their identity to a political ideology or group, they strengthen the illusion of a fixed self and reinforce dualistic thinking. This attachment feeds dukkha (suffering) by perpetuating separation and conflict. The Buddha’s teachings encourage us to recognize the impermanent and constructed nature of all identities, including political affiliations, and to cultivate sati (mindfulness) and upekkha (equanimity) to navigate these mental traps. Mindfulness allows us to observe our reactions to information—whether affirming or dissonant—without immediately clinging to it or rejecting it, while equanimity helps us maintain balance and openness in the face of conflicting perspectives. By addressing confirmation bias both psychologically and practically, we can move beyond reactive patterns, fostering greater understanding, compassion, and ultimately, liberation from the suffering it causes.

Social Identity Theory: The ‘Us vs. Them’ Trap

Social Identity Theory (SIT), proposed by Tajfel and Turner (1979), explains that people derive their self-worth from group membership. When aligned with a political identity, we start viewing out-groups as threats, often leading to antagonism. During polarizing events like elections, the media can emphasize this divide, deepening people’s investment in either supporting or opposing figures like Trump. From a Buddhist perspective, SIT reflects the deep human tendency to cling to self-concepts, which is central to the teachings on anatta (non-self) and upadana (clinging). When individuals derive their self-worth from group membership, as SIT suggests, they are reinforcing the illusion of a fixed self through attachment to an identity. This clinging fosters separation and antagonism, particularly when the self-concept is defined in opposition to others—what Buddhism might describe as dualistic thinking.

During polarizing events like elections, this clinging to group identity becomes more intense, as the mind seeks stability and validation in the face of uncertainty. The media, by amplifying narratives of us-versus-them, serves as a powerful external reinforcement of these mental constructs, feeding the cycle of attachment and aversion. In Buddhist terms, this process is rooted in moha (delusion), lobha (greed for affirmation of one's group), and dosa (hatred toward out-groups).

Compassion in Buddhism: Moving Beyond Reactive Patterns

Each framework offers insight into how compassion operates beyond instinctive reactions. Social Identity Theory challenges us to dissolve ‘us versus them’ thinking, Cognitive Dissonance Theory calls for acceptance of our own contradictions without seeking validation, and Confirmation Bias reminds us how readily we look for validation supporting our views. In Buddhist terms, real compassion is not passive, nor does it condone harm; rather, it is a radical, active stance of love that recognizes suffering and chooses not to reinforce it.

Considering these psychological insights, Buddhist compassion challenges us to question whether our responses fuel samsara or serve to diminish it. True compassion refrains from engaging in divisive reactions, holds space for all beings without judgment, and prioritizes non-attachment over righteousness. This path is not easy but offers a true liberation from the cycle of suffering—for us and for others.

I hope this serves as a grounding reflection for all of us practicing in these turbulent times. May we act with compassion, clarity, and the courage to meet samsara with friendliness and genuine curiosity – so that we might greet others with the same.

References:

Bhikkhu, T. (2011). The Dhammapada: A translation (2nd ed.). Metta Forest Monastery. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/dhammapada.pdf

Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Peters, U. (2020). What is the function of confirmation bias? Erkenntnis, 87(3), 1351–1376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-020-00252-1

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). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-01466-005

Warnasuriya, K. S. (2004). Buddhist humanism in the Vasettha Sutta. Hsi Lai Journal of Humanistic Buddhism, 5, 270–273. https://ir.uwest.edu/s/index/item/547