The Age of Magical Overthinking: Notes on Modern Irrationality

“We’re living in what they call the ‘Information Age,’ but life only seems to be making less sense.”

Montell employs irony by highlighting the paradox of the “Information Age,” where despite an abundance of information, life feels increasingly nonsensical. This speaks to a central theme in the book, The Challenge of Maintaining Rationality in an Era of Overwhelming Information and Connectivity. This direct, to-the-point quote encourages readers to immediately resonate with her perspective, subtly guiding them to question the supposed clarity that information should bring. As a linguist, Montell uses such concise, impactful language to draw readers into her critical examination of modernity.

“No one was speaking out loud, but the world felt like one big shriek, an eight-billion-piece orchestra tuning and tuning ad infinitum.”

Here, Montell uses sensory language to convey the overwhelming intensity of living in a world obsessed with celebrity culture. Describing the world as “one big shriek” and “an eight-billion-piece-orchestra” evokes a sense of constant, chaotic noise that mirrors the relentless attention and fervor surrounding celebrities. This auditory image contributes to Montell’s description of the suffocating atmosphere created by extremist fans.

“In the age of magical oversharing, platforms like Tumblr, TikTok, Instagram, and Patreon offer fans exponentially more access to personal information about their heroes, bridging the parasocial gap to make them feel evermore connected.”

Montell introduces the theme of The Psychological Effects of Social Media by highlighting how social media platforms have intensified the connection between fans and celebrities. By referring to this era as the “age of magical oversharing,” she emphasizes how social media blurs the lines between reality and illusion, allowing fans to feel an exaggerated sense of intimacy and connection with their idols, which can deepen their emotional investment and lead to extreme behaviors.

“Sick? Poor? Not living your best life? Don’t blame your mean boss or abusive ex. That’s what victims do. Don’t blame the blood-drinking elites, that’s what actual conspiracy theorists do. Instead, blame your unresolved childhood trauma. And then, for $26 a month, enlist in this ‘self-empowerment circle,’ where you’ll learn how to manifest the life you deserve for a fraction of the cost of traditional therapy.”

These lines incorporate heavy sarcasm to underscore Montell’s criticism of The Manifestation Doctor’s simplistic and exploitative approach to mental health. By mocking the idea that unresolved childhood trauma is the root of all problems and presenting the $26 self-empowerment circle as a laughable alternative to therapy, Montell highlights the absurdity and danger of such pseudoscientific claims. The sarcasm effectively reveals how these practices prey on vulnerable individuals by offering false hope packaged as empowerment.

“What if the universe isn’t for or against us? What if it’s not that serious? What if the bakery just made too many eclairs, and I only got one free so it wouldn’t go to waste? The chocolate ganache tastes like magic either way.”

Montell uses rhetorical questions in this quote to prompt readers to self-reflect on the randomness of life, challenging the notion that every event has a deeper, cosmic significance. By suggesting that the universe’s indifference can be liberating, she encourages readers to find peace in accepting life’s simple pleasures—like a free éclair—without attributing them to some grand, mystical plan. The underlying message is that freedom comes from embracing the unpredictability of life rather than obsessively seeking meaning in every occurrence.

“At the time, I was too starry-eyed to notice the red flags, like the way he spoke about his ex-girlfriends as if they were all malicious traitors (I can’t become just another ex, I told myself); or when he warned me on our first trip together in 2010, a dwindling bottle of Jack Daniel’s in hand, that he was a ‘very moody person’ and I should prepare for the next down-swing; or the rare visit he paid me in New York my sophomore year, when he stayed in my dorm room to save money and got so furious about having to sign in and out at the security desk whenever he went out for a smoke that he punched the elevator wall next to me until his fist bled.”

Montell uses a series of snapshots to reveal the toxic dynamics of her relationship with Mr. Backpack, effectively characterizing both him and the nature of their partnership. Each detail she provides paints a picture of a controlling and emotionally unstable partner. These moments highlight Mr. Backpack’s manipulative and volatile behavior while also illustrating the gradual erosion of Montell’s self-awareness as she became increasingly invested in the relationship. By stringing together these specific, unsettling memories, Montell underscores how the sunk cost fallacy played a role in her staying with him, as each red flag was dismissed or rationalized in the hope that her continued investment would eventually pay off.

“To appear socially valuable, we’re all incentivized to seem as though we know what we want and always have, that we’re adept at evaluating risks in life and making good calls along the way.”

Through this remark, Montell highlights the evolutionary benefits of cognitive biases by suggesting that they help us appear socially valuable and decisive. She points out that in a social context, there is a strong incentive to project an image of certainty and sound judgment, as these traits are often associated with competence and reliability. By framing cognitive biases as tools that enhance our social desirability, Montell acknowledges that these biases, despite leading to irrational decisions, have evolved because they offer advantages in navigating complex social environments.

“So here’s me saying it, maybe to the void, maybe to you: Whether you’re under the spell of a lover or a leader, it’s never too late to cut your losses. At any time, you can unload the heavy pack from your shoulders, leave it on the mountain, and turn back, because the view you were promised isn’t actually up there, and it’s not worth the climb anymore. It’s okay to forgive yourself (after all, everyone has their baggage) and to build a life that’s so full, and so yours, that you never really sunk any costs at all.”

By speaking to the reader as if she’s offering support to a friend, Montell creates a trusting, nonjudgmental tone that makes her guidance feel more accessible and sincere. This approach allows Montell to connect deeply with her audience, reassuring them that it’s okay to let go of past mistakes and move forward without shame, thus reinforcing her role as a supportive and understanding guide.

“Whenever someone profits from an exchange, we tend to assume that the other guy must have gotten ripped off, even though that’s the opposite of how trade actually works, or else no one would do it.”

This remark highlights the natural human tendency toward zero-sum bias, where we irrationally assume that if one party benefits, the other must lose. Montell uses this idea to emphasize that irrationality is deeply ingrained in human cognition, challenging the notion that we are inherently rational beings. This inherent bias contributes to the broader theme of The Challenge of Maintaining Rationality in an Era of Overwhelming Information and Connectivity, as our brains are wired to think in ways that often defy logical reasoning.

“I could have lived a hundred lifetimes and never guessed that Prince paid a passing thought to Michael Jackson between churning out his countless bangers, or that Tom Hanks spent his days doing anything other than basking in the glow of being America’s Dad.”

Montell uses examples of well-known celebrities to illustrate that even those who are considered wildly successful are not exempt from the irrational thinking driven by zero-sum bias. By revealing that these icons may have harbored insecurities or compared themselves to others, Montell underscores the pervasive nature of this cognitive bias, showing that irrationality is a universal human trait.

“I think some viewers want to think that I survived because I was a positive person, maybe so that they could follow in my footsteps if they ever got sick themselves.”

Racheli suggests that survivorship bias gives people a sense of control over their own fate by implying that survival is linked to having a positive attitude. By believing that they can “follow in her footsteps” and achieve the same outcome, viewers find comfort in the idea that they can influence their chances of survival. This reveals how survivorship bias can create a misleading narrative that oversimplifies complex realities.

“You never see the shoddy crafts of bored fifteenth-century teenagers or amateur painters, because they either weren’t sturdy or special enough to last. Gawking at an exquisite six-hundred-year-old storybook that belonged to a king, I wondered what itchy wool cloaks and out-of-tune gemshorn flutes my own great-great-great-great-great grandparents might have made.”

Survivorship bias skews our perspectives by causing us to only see and value the most extraordinary and durable artifacts from the past while dismissing or overlooking the mundane and imperfect creations that didn’t survive. This selective visibility leads to a disconnection from the full scope of human experience, fostering flawed perspectives and unrealistic expectations that something is less worthy if it isn’t exceptionally strong or long-lasting. By romanticizing what endures, we may undervalue the ordinary and transient aspects of life, mistakenly believing that only the extraordinary is worth preserving or aspiring to.

“Amid the global pandemic, the ever-escalating climate crisis, and famines the world over, there was already so much to pay attention to. Too many Armageddons for our sweet Stone Age amygdalas to process.”

In this excerpt, Montell uses a mix of humor and seriousness to highlight how overwhelming modern crises have become. By referencing our “Stone Age amygdalas,” she underscores how our brains, evolved for simpler dangers, are ill-equipped to process the multiple global threats we face today. This playful yet critical tone emphasizes the sheer volume and magnitude of crises that demand our attention, contributing to modern irrationality by making it impossible to adequately focus on any one issue.

“In a news cycle that sheds and regrows its skin every hour, our attention is perpetually straying from events that have lost their flashiness in order to accommodate the latest potential disaster, even if the new one is objectively less salient than the threat that came before it.”

Montell criticizes how the news industry capitalizes on the recency illusion by constantly cycling through new, flashy stories to capture attention, regardless of their actual significance. This relentless focus on the “latest potential disaster” highlights The Impact of Digital Culture on Perception and Decision-Making, as a digital culture encourages people to prioritize what’s most recent over what’s most important. As a result, individuals are left with a fragmented understanding of events, overwhelmed by the flood of information that digital media perpetually generates.

“Like a macabre rehearsal, the more murder and war documentaries we consume, the more secure we hope to feel in our hypothetical ability to survive such horrors if we had to.”

This remark highlights how overconfidence bias creates the illusion of control, as people consume documentaries about murder and war to feel better prepared for hypothetical dangers. By overestimating their ability to handle extreme situations, individuals gain a false sense of security, believing that they can survive similar horrors if they ever arise. This bias offers psychological comfort, allowing people to feel more in control of unpredictable events, even though such confidence is often misplaced.

“It’s quite nice, I am learning, just to wonder indefinitely. To never have certain answers. To sit down, be humble, and not even dare to know.”

Montel implicitly encourages the reader to embrace humility by sharing her own personal experience of learning to live without certainty. Rather than directly instructing the reader to practice humility, she describes how allowing herself to “wonder indefinitely” and accept not knowing has brought her peace. By framing this shift as something that she is learning for herself, Montell invites the reader to reflect on the benefits of humility without imposing it as a directive.

“For instance, ‘The early bird gets the worm’ and ‘Strike while the iron is hot’ are inverses to ‘Better late than never’ and ‘Good things come to those who wait.’ ‘Actions speak louder than words’ contrasts ‘The pen is mightier than the sword.’ I grew up hearing both ‘Teamwork makes the dream work’ and ‘Haters are my motivators.’”

Montell highlights how the inconsistencies in common sayings contribute to the illusory truth effect and reinforce irrational thinking. These widely repeated phrases offer conflicting advice, yet their constant repetition makes them seem universally applicable, even though they cannot be true in every situation. This contrast shows how people can be swayed by the familiarity of statements rather than their actual validity, leading to irrational and magical thinking.

“When a politician or pundit starts to sound more like a commercial jingle or broken record than a scholar, that’s a cue to listen more closely—to bear in mind that knowledge isn’t always meant to go down like a nursery rhyme.”

Montell critiques the way public figures often oversimplify complex issues using repetitive catchy phrases that resemble “commercial jingles” rather than thoughtful, nuanced discourse. By comparing such rhetoric to a “broken record” or “nursery rhyme,” she emphasizes how such language is designed to be easily digestible and emotionally persuasive rather than intellectually rigorous. This sociopolitical criticism highlights the dangers of reducing serious discussions to simplistic slogans, encouraging the reader to approach these messages with skepticism and critical thought.

“Dinosaurs kept this house pristine, and now we’re trashing it, soaking the furniture in cheap beer, shattering ceramic keepsakes, and puking in the pool.”

Montell uses a creative and ironic comparison to critique the environmental destruction that humans have caused. By contrasting humanity’s reckless behavior with the dinosaurs—often depicted as monstrous and destructive—Montell flips expectations. One would assume that giant, toothy dinosaurs would be more destructive, yet she presents them as the ones who “kept this house pristine,” while humans, supposedly more evolved and civilized, are the ones wreaking havoc. This irony not only emphasizes the severity of human impact on the planet but also highlights the absurdity of how we view ourselves as superior.

“‘We’ve lost consensual reality, and I don’t know how we get that back. It’s like a menu now—choose your own reality,’ said Mandel.”

Montell strengthens her argument by including a perspective from Emily St. John Mandel, author of Station Eleven, which lends credibility to her views on the fractured state of modern reality. Mandel’s observation that “we’ve lost consensual reality” reinforces Montell’s concerns about confirmation bias, as it suggests that people now choose the version of reality that best fits their beliefs, further entrenching social division. The inclusion of this quote illustrates that Montell’s critique is not isolated but shared by others who recognize the dangers of living in a world where facts are subjective. By framing reality as a “menu” to choose from, Mandel emphasizes the troubling nothing that truth itself has become flexible, a concept that fits seamlessly into Montell’s exploration of how biases distort perception and decision-making.

“I’ve watched tradwives on Instagram hand-dyeing nineteenth-century-style prairie dresses in front of anamorphic iPhone lenses.”

This remark uses juxtaposition to highlight the irrationality of nostalgia and declinism by contrasting the traditional practice of hand-dyeing dresses with the modern technology of iPhone cameras and Instagram. The image of “tradwives” engaging in an antiquated activity while being recorded on advanced smartphones underscores the absurdity of romanticizing the past while living fully in the present. Through this juxtaposition, Montell critiques how nostalgia can distort reality, making it seem as though returning to the past could resolve modern issues when, in fact, it overlooks the complexities of both eras.

“Sometimes it seems like people almost want the end of the world to show up already, like addicts who pray to hit rock bottom so at least they know it can’t get worse.”

Montell taps into the modern preoccupation with doomsday scenarios and the popularity of dystopian and apocalyptic narratives, suggesting that some people almost crave the end of the world as a form of catharsis. By likening this desire to people with addictions wanting to hit rock bottom, she emphasizes how modern culture, driven by anxiety and pessimism, can romanticize the collapse of civilization, offering a sense of closure or control amidst uncertainty. Much like survivorship bias, doomsday thinking can provide a misguided sense of agency, as if by anticipating disaster, one can somehow prepare for it or endure it.

“I recognize that a woman publicly admitting her lack of domesticity is still taboo, or at least unflattering, like someone confessing they don’t like dogs.”

By comparing her own admission of not being domestic to the taboo of disliking dogs, Montell highlights how women are still judged by traditional gender roles that associate femininity with homemaking skills. Her remark reflects the broader feminist critique of how women are socially conditioned to feel ashamed if they do not conform to these outdated norms. Through this statement, Montell challenges the reader to reflect on how these expectations continue to shape modern irrational perceptions of femininity.