Fingers crossed for a favourable Wireton Willy prediction. Alas, nobody puts a contract out on the rodent when he’s wrong. A shrug and it’s done — six more week of winter. I’m guessing Harold Camping’s (Harold who??) end of the world predictions have been off the mark a dozen times or more — so often in fact that most of us have never packed a single bag in anticipation of same. Prediction, prophecy, far from shaping our day to day plans, is seen more often as a curiosity, the province of some fringe group or other with an esoteric axe to grind or bizarre belief in alien rescues for the select few. More the fodder of sci-fi novels and TV series . . . than anything over which we should really get unduly exercised. 

Nevertheless, when the end days expectation failed to materialize on December 21, 1954, ringing down the curtain on all but the chosen ones (The Seekers), the most enduring legacy was not that of yet another weird cult’s demise. It ushered onto the stage one of my favourite psychological dynamics: cognitive dissonance.

The concept has been around for some six decades or so, happily living in the wings and not likely finding its way into everyday language — until recently. Not that we don’t all experience it and find under the radar ways of containing it — we just didn’t know that it was operating in background, skewing our rationalizations and contorting our behaviour, our choices, our beliefs. The sole contribution of Seekers and Co. then, was to put Leon Festinger into full plain clothes, infiltration mode. Allowing him to study how this sad wee collection of rapturists, standing, bereft on the empty saucer pad, waiting for liftoff, would deal with profound disappointment. No tickee, no washee, no space ship boarding pass, another Christmas dinner spent with earth-bound, boring relatives. The result: When Prophecy Fails, Festinger’s definitive opus on how we hold two, conflicting beliefs in mind . . . at the same time. 

And so with the proviso that prophecy is not precisely conspiracy, we trace another infiltration: the insinuation of ‘cognitive dissonance’ into quotidian, political language and the sine qua non of the GOP. The Josh Hawley’s (he, of the op ed detailing why the Big Beautiful Bill was a travesty —then voting for it), the Marjorie Taylor Green’s (she, of the Jewish space laser villainy in forest fire causality), the Laura Loomer’s, the Steven Miller’s, the RFK jr.’s, and on . . . and on — have refined and taken the concept to lofty new levels. Going north and south at the same moment — and fuelling yet another news cycle with dropped jaws and expressions of ‘they did what’s?’ and ‘but. . . they said’s’. 

That would be until Jeffrey Epstein did his Lazarus act. So the content that saw the orange TACO elected to a second term and a whole house full (literally) of sycophants dutifully conforming to the party line (again literally), now has hit a wall. That wall being the relentlessly hyped fairy tale that all would be revealed . . . until it wasn’t. (‘Nothing to see here. . .’) Willingly forgiving, turning a blind eye to, and rabidly cheering any and all outrageous, self-contradictory ‘promises’: all the bad guys will be deported, universal peace will be restored, and the world will become affordable again — the base paused and took a reflective breath. Finally, finally the swamp was going to be drained. The curtain pulled back on all the pedophilic wizards, the cabal that has been driving the deep state, named and shamed for all time by Sir Changealot. . . Oopsie, sorry, the guy just hung himself (Jeff, literally; the other guy, ‘out to dry‘), the binder is empty. 

And so the base is attempting to come to grips with the raison d’être for its unwavering support of DJT. A scramble to reconcile a core belief — maybe the only core belief — with a null set, a flattened soufflé, no aliens (or pedophiles here — well not the predicted ones anyway). . . a betrayal!

So a word of advice from Leon:

 The most direct way to resolve dissonance is to change the behaviour that is causing the conflict.

But then where would be the entertainment in that?? Maybe just have a look at the current iteration of the ‘X-Files’ — formerly known as . . .

Steven Pinker, a Canadian psychologist and longtime faculty member at Harvard, reflected this week in a NYT op-ed on what he is terming ‘Harvard Derangement Syndrome’. The university, one of many lightening rods for the Trump administration, has drawn multiple ‘strikes’ — first for refusing to take a knee to the ‘modest proposal’ that they cede administrative oversight, admission policies, nominal presidency, DEI mandates, and a whole truck load of other demands. . . by the current Whitehouse autocrat. After the dictum was withdrawn (oopsie, must have been sent in error!), Harvard’s tax exempt status was to be removed, again on executive instruction to the IRS — don’t get Elizabeth Warren started on that one! And now an attempt to block all international student attendance, which, if it hadn’t been stayed, would have gone a good way toward gutting fiscal viability and academic excellence at the institution. 

After detailing Harvard’s manifest ‘warts and all’, Pinker goes on to plead his case for a ‘sense of proportionality’ and temperance when dealing not with just institutions, but all the other targets of ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ (as the current catch phrase goes!) — aka, DOGE’s slash and burn approach to implementing the administration’s whim. 

Early in his piece, Pinker makes reference to a symptom, oh so familiar to mental health practitioners, that resonated with this one in particular: ‘splitting’. Anyone with even a passing brush with CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy), will recognize what has for nigh on 75 years been viewed as ‘black or white’ ‘all or none’ views of the world. In Pinker’s words, a world populated by ‘exalted angels’ or ‘odious evildoers’. In those of CBT’s patriarch, Albert Ellis, irrational thought.

I was (once again) reminded of a collection of essays published shortly after the beginning of Trump’s first term, called The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. Contributions from academics and clinicians, psychologists and psychiatrists — all very careful to avoid ‘diagnosing’ the new president; but offering up thoughts on what various and sundry disorders, syndromes might be descriptive — were he to be assessed and diagnosed. The twenty plus articles float narcissism, dementia, antisocial personality, sociopathy, or just flat ‘crazy’ as considerations. 

I’ve been asked too many times to count, variations on the same question: ‘So. . . what is he?’ I typically ‘plead the 5th’ — but can’t resist the temptation to speculate. . .even if only privately! Pinker’s piece raised another question: Is there a dysfunctional, administrative style underpinning not just Trump. . . but Project 2025 as a game plan? Is there an institutional personality? One that so informs its governance and so reflects the characteristics of its chief, that it goes far beyond a ‘split view of the world’ all the way to borderline behaviour? 

So with the proviso that this is not a diagnosis. . . but only a ‘compare and contrast’ exercise between traits and styles associated with borderline behaviour and the parallels with administrative proclivities. . .

Borderline Style Trait	Possible Parallel in Administration Behavior
Emotional volatility	Frequent policy reversals or erratic messaging
Shifting positions on foreign alliances or domestic priorities within days or weeks.
Black-and-white thinking	Depicting issues as good vs. evil, loyalty vs. betrayal
Allies are idealized until disagreement arises, then they are vilified. Abrupt firings or denunciations of former supporters.
Fear of abandonment	Overreactions to criticism or loss of support from key allies
Obsessive focus on poll numbers, loyalty pledges, or crowds. Fragile coalition-building based on personal allegiance, not shared values.
Impulsivity	Sudden executive actions without clear strategy (e.g., tweets, executive orders)
Policy by reaction: responding to media coverage or personal affronts rather than strategy. Use of social media as a knee-jerk policy tool.
Relationship instability	Frequent cabinet turnover or shifting alliances
Identity disturbance	Inconsistent messaging about national priorities or values
Shifting narratives about national identity or leadership vision. Victimhood rhetoric: “We are always under attack,” often directed at media, academia, or political opposition.
Chronic victimization	Rhetoric centered on being persecuted or misunderstood
Disproportionate anger	Public outbursts, aggressive rhetoric toward perceived enemies

 

Just sayin’. . . to riff on OJ — if the glove fits.

‘So what’s on top today?’ One of multiple ‘openers’ to appointments that I’ve test-driven over the years. All, in one way or another, attempts at cutting to the chase, skipping over the usual ice breakers of weather, the most recent episode of ________ (fill in the blank, depending on decade), news headlines. . . etc. After a thoughtful pause, the responses are often a variation on ‘been a tough week’. ‘Could you say a bit more about. . .’ an effort at putting a bit more flesh on these bones. As frequently as not, this summons up a statement of general malaise — aka, unhappiness.

With the release of the 2025 World Happiness report in recent weeks, I wasn’t surprised to see a number of op eds focussed on the topic. Now, without looking, of the 147 countries tapped, who would you expect to top the polls? Yep, once again from the 2024 data, those bastions of ice, snow, and reduced hours of daily sunlight, occupy 5 of the top 10 spots. Finland (darkest of all??) bumps that perennial home to the smiley face emoji (Denmark) down to number 2 — but hot on its heels (as it were) were Iceland, Sweden, and Norway. 

Recognizing that happiness is both an ephemeral and complex concept, the Report uses a deceptively simple strategy (Cantril’s Ladder):

• • Imagine a ladder with 10 rungs
  • The top rung represents the best possible life for you; the bottom step, the worst possible life
  • On which step of the ladder would you say your personally feel stand at this time

From the 150,000 or so annual responses and over its dozen years of study, the Report has generated six determinants of happiness that account for most (75%) of the variance — which is just an (overly complicated) way of saying: Here’s what matters most!

• • Having someone to count on
  • GDP per capita 
  • Healthy Life Expectancy
  • Freedom to make life choices
  • Generosity
  • Freedom from corruption

Ipso facto, our Nordic quintette ticks many of these underpinning boxes. 

This year’s Report has spotlighted a particular obsession of mine (and not just because of the title!): Connection. E.M. Forster’s classic, Howard’s End has as the book’s epithet Only Connect. Whether an imperative, life-advice, or just a friendly suggestion to Henry Wilcox to ‘chill’, this appears to be high up on the list of happiness correlates. Vivek Murthy, Obama’s Surgeon General, made, as a key element in his term, addressing loneliness and isolation. His book, Together made the point in it’s subtitle: ‘The Healing Power of Human Connection in a Sometimes Lonely World’. 

The Report’s chapter titles pretty much capture it all:

Caring and sharing: Global analysis	Sharing meals with others (social connection)
Living with others (family bonds)	Connecting with others
Supporting others	Trusting others
Giving to others

Closer to the psychological barn, Martin Seligman proposes the following as the ‘happiness equation’ (in Authentic Happiness)

H = S + C + V

where H (enduring happiness) depends on:

• • factors out of our control (S) — about 50% of the result

• • external circumstances (C) — contributing about 10-15%
    • • living in a democracy vs. a dictatorship / autocracy
      • being married or in a stable relationship
      • having a robust social network
      • avoiding negative events / emotions
      • having a religious connection

• • voluntary, controllable factors (V) — about 40%
    • positive emotions about the past (satisfaction, contentment, fulfillment, serenity)
    • positive emotions about the future (optimism, hope, faith, trust)
    • positive emotions about the present (calm, pleasure, flow).

So in a polarized, partisan, pugnacious culture, it may make some sense to focus on the C’s (best we can) and the V’s — or, at least, sitting in a sauna with a happy Finn.