PDF Summary:The Parasitic Mind, by Gad Saad

According to psychologist Gad Saad, society is sick. In The Parasitic Mind, he argues that a small group of activists are threatening the foundational principles of Western society—free speech and rational thought. Over the past decade or so, he explains, activists have challenged—or outright rejected—these principles on the grounds of social justice. Saad compares these critiques to infectious diseases, suggesting that they’re spreading throughout society and threatening to completely destabilize the Western world.

Our guide to The Parasitic Mind covers Saad’s theory of what makes Western society great, the dangerous ideas he argues threaten this greatness, and how to stop them. Through our commentary, we’ll examine other perspectives on modern progressive ideas and methods, and we’ll provide the scientific and historical context behind Saad’s ideas.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: Some people may see victimhood as a virtue because they equate greater effort with greater intrinsic value. If the odds are stacked against people belonging to oppressed groups, they likely have to work harder to succeed—so they may seem more admirable than people who had it easier. This may help explain the popularity of figures like Nelson Mandela (Long Walk to Freedom) and JD Vance (Hillbilly Elegy). Both overcame systemic disadvantages—apartheid in Mandela’s case and the economic neglect of Appalachia in Vance’s—to achieve remarkable success.)

Further, Saad argues, the progressive left perceives oppressed groups to have a type of special knowledge about oppression because of their experiences, and it believes their arguments should therefore carry more weight than those who have suffered less oppression. For example, a straight person who treats victimhood as a virtue might assume that LGBT people know more about all matters related to sexuality—thus, they’d defer to LGBT people on those topics.(Shortform note: The idea that oppressed people have special knowledge about oppression comes from standpoint theory. Feminist philosophers popularized this theory in the late 20th century, when they argued that people from marginalized groups can have a clearer view of social power structures because they experience them from the underside. To understand standpoint theory, imagine standing below a bridge while a friend stands on top of it. You can see cracks and weaknesses in the structure that your friend, walking comfortably above, doesn’t notice. In the same way, standpoint theorists argue, those in marginalized positions may have insight into societal problems that others overlook.)

Manufactured Victimhood

Saad argues that people who believe victimhood is virtuous often create narratives that emphasize their victimhood. These narratives may not accurately reflect reality; they serve to make the victim feel and appear more virtuous. For example, a person of color might assume that a white cashier’s rudeness toward them is racially motivated, even if it has nothing to do with their race. By telling the story through the lens of racism, they emphasize their victimhood and therefore their virtue.

(Shortform note: Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay (Cynical Theories) connect manufactured victimhood to the core of modern social justice ideology: postmodernism. This intellectual movement posits that power is exercised on every level of society through mainstream cultural understandings of the world. According to this perspective, Pluckrose and Lindsay say, every aspect of society is hierarchical, and so is every social interaction: There’s always someone on the top (oppressors) and someone on the bottom (victims). If social justice advocates want to feel virtuous, as Saad suggests, they may assume they’re always on the bottom, which could lead them to interpret innocuous experiences as proof of their victimhood.)

Idea #3: Unpleasant Evidence Can Be Dismissed

The third dangerous idea of the progressive left is a refusal to accept evidence that contradicts their cause. Saad says leftists feel very strongly about their beliefs and don’t want to be wrong; as a result, they deny or ignore scientific data and logical arguments that go against them. This, he argues, is a form of self-deception and cognitive bias.

(Shortform note: The denial of evidence Saad describes here is known as “motivated reasoning,” a psychological phenomenon where people favor evidence that supports their existing beliefs and dismiss evidence that contradicts them. In Thinking in Bets, author and professional poker player Annie Duke explains that a group of people can witness the same event and interpret it in entirely different ways based on their existing beliefs. This forms a feedback loop: People look for evidence that supports their beliefs, use that evidence to reinforce those beliefs, and then have an even more skewed perception.)

For example, Saad notes how progressives deny the effectiveness of religious, racial, or ethnic profiling for law enforcement. He explains that profiling is based on statistical realities—if one specific group is statistically more likely to commit crimes, then logically, law enforcement should be particularly vigilant when it comes to that group. Even so,progressives argue that profiling is racist and discriminatory and deny its usefulness.

Is Ethnic Profiling Rational?

Saad suggests that ethnic profiling makes sense because statistics justify increased vigilance toward some groups. However, philosopher Jessie Munton says this reasoning overlooks important questions about the projectability of those statistics. When statistics are projectable, you can reliably apply them to new individuals or different contexts. But if the statistics depend on context-specific factors, they may not hold true beyond the original situation.

For example, suppose you hear that people from a certain city have a higher rate of car accidents. It wouldn’t be fair to assume that any individual from that city is a bad driver, because factors like road conditions, traffic laws, or the weather may explain the statistics in question.

This logic can apply to ethnic profiling: Munton points out that Black Americans are more likely to be convicted of homicide than white Americans, but experts say factors like poverty, childhood abuse, and substance use are better predictors of violent crime than race. Thus, they argue, law enforcement officers who rely heavily on race to identify suspects are making a cognitive error: They ignore more salient factors that better explain criminal behavior and risk unfairly targeting innocent people based on group membership rather than actual threat. Mathematicians say this makes racial profiling ineffective because it leads to wrongful incarceration, letting crimes go unsolved while communities suffer.

Part 3: Social Consequences

After describing the progressive left’s dangerous ideas, Saad elaborates on how these ideas spread far enough to pose a threat to enlightened society. He also discusses how to fight back against them.

How Dangerous Ideas Spread

Saad explains that the progressive left’s ideas spread like illnesses, starting from small groups of dedicated activists and then branching out exponentially. Because these ideas rely heavily on emotion and personal experience, they offer compelling narratives that appeal to people’s irrational sides—a story about being oppressed is more likely to move someone than an analysis of data on oppression, for example. As a result, these ideas spread quickly.

(Shortform note: Marketing experts have long recognized how effective emotions are for spreading ideas. Jonah Berger (Contagious) explains that the best emotions for spreading ideas are anger, anxiety, awe, amusement, and excitement. These emotions generate high physiological arousal—a state of physical readiness for action—which inspires people to share the idea that prompted it. As Saad notes throughout the book, progressive activists often share stories about injustice and oppression to inspire anger and anxiety. These high-arousal emotions then motivate people to spread those stories even further. Studies suggest right-wing activists may use similar storytelling techniques to promote their ideas.)

Once these dangerous ideas become widespread, others buy into them simply because they’re mainstream. It’s easier and more socially rewarding to go along with the crowd than to risk isolation or backlash by dissenting. Specifically, Saad suggests that young men adopt progressive ideas as an evolutionary mating strategy. By taking on the beliefs of their female peers, they engage in a form of mimicry to attract more women—a behavior seen in many different species.

How We Develop Our Political Beliefs

Saad suggests that people support leftist ideas because they’re mainstream, and dissent risks backlash or isolation. Experts agree that social conformity plays a powerful role in shaping beliefs, explaining that humans evolved to seek approval from others. This may help explain why our peers, parents, teachers, and religious groups have such a big impact on whether we turn out conservative or liberal. But whether leftist ideas are “mainstream” is complicated, given that Americans are split evenly among conservative, moderate, and liberal camps. It may be more accurate to say that people are more likely to adopt leftist beliefs when they’re surrounded by others who hold those beliefs.

Saad also suggests that young men adopt progressive ideas to gain acceptance from their female peers, but recent studies show that this is becoming rarer over time. Polls indicate that in the US, the political gap between young men and young women is widening, with men leaning more conservative on a large number of issues. Experts say this negatively impacts the dating scene, as people on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to date someone whose political values differ sharply from their own.

This may lend credence to Saad’s idea that men’s mating success improves when they adopt progressive ideas. But if evolutionary advantage drives political leanings, it’s unclear why women wouldn’t also shift rightward to increase their dating pool—instead, they appear to be doubling down on progressive values, even as it narrows their romantic options.

Why the Progressive Left’s Ideas Are Dangerous

Saad explains that once they’ve spread and become mainstream, the ideas of the progressive left attack free speech and rational inquiry. Since these are the foundations of an enlightened society, this threatens to halt social and scientific progress while also making society less free and open.

(Shortform note: In American Marxism, Mark Levin explains why, in his view, the progressive left attacks free speech and rational inquiry. He says leftists believe American society is inherently unjust and evil, and that the only solution is to enforce egalitarianism through Marxism. In other words, they want to overthrow American society and replace it with a totalitarian regime resembling the former Soviet Union. To convince Americans to go along with this plan, Levin says, leftists seek to indoctrinate them by controlling the flow of ideas through schools, media, and broader culture. They promote leftist ideas and shut down dissent, since open debate and critical inquiry could expose flaws in their ideology.)

Dangers to Free Speech

Saad says the progressive left’s ideas threaten free speech by forcefully shutting down any dissent. He provides many examples of progressive leftists using “cancel culture” to punish people who disagree with them—by harassing them online, insulting them, and even getting them fired. This incentivizes people to self-censor any dissent that might otherwise convince people to abandon the progressive left and their dangerous ideas.

Saad explains that self-censorship and punishment for dissent disrupt the natural selection of ideas—since many ideas are no longer up for discussion, people have an incomplete picture when choosing which theories are best.

Cancel Culture and the Natural Selection of Ideas

At first glance, Saad’s claim that dangerous ideas are mainstream seems to conflict with his theory of the natural selection of ideas. According to this theory, only the best ideas should spread while inferior ones fall into obscurity. This happens because good ideas have merit—they’re strong, logically sound, and backed by evidence. So, they rise to the top of what Ray Dalio (Principles) calls the “idea meritocracy,” becoming widespread and influential.

If that’s the case, how could dangerous ideas become prominent? Dalio suggests that idea meritocracies are fragile—if external factors, like institutional pressures and people’s egos, interfere with open debate, then weaker ideas can dominate. Similarly, Saad says that cancel culture distorts the natural selection of ideas. Since cancel culture creates social pressure to agree with leftist ideas, they flourish even if they’re irrational or harmful.

In contrast with Saad, some see cancel culture as part of the natural selection process. About half of Americans think “cancelling” someone is about holding them accountable for promoting bad ideas. From this perspective, public backlash isn’t about punishment; it’s an informal check on ideas that lack merit. For example, when someone is cancelled for expressing racist views, it signals that society doesn’t agree with racist ideas. The same thing happens when people correct misinformation about, say, how sunscreen works, online. By discrediting these ideas and the people who promote them, society helps ensure they don’t become more popular—which may be the natural selection of ideas at work.

Dangers to Rational Inquiry

Saad notes that by deemphasizing reason and logic in favor of emotions and personal experiences, dangerous ideas run contrary to rational inquiry. Emotions and personal experiences don’t provide an objective standard people can use to obtain knowledge. Instead, they offer individual, subjective truths that might not reflect reality. When everyone goes by their own subjective truths, communication breaks down, and obtaining new knowledge becomes impossible.

(Shortform note: Saad suggests dangerous ideas are popular because rational inquiry is declining—and some argue that social media algorithms are partly to blame. These algorithms create “echo chambers” that only show users ideas that confirm their subjective beliefs. As a result, people with different views have little to no shared ground on which to have a conversation. Instead, they have entirely different perspectives on what is true or established fact. Further, as Yuval Noah Harari argues in Nexus, these algorithms are designed to maximize engagement—so they promote emotionally charged stories instead of factual content. As Saad argues, this makes objective truths harder to identify, talk about, and understand.)

Fighting Dangerous Ideas

After explaining the risks posed by the progressive left, Saad concludes with advice on how to fight their dangerous ideas. He suggests actions you can take personally as well as broader social changes to accomplish this.

Personal Action: Challenge Dangerous Ideas

Saad’s main advice for fighting dangerous ideas is to publicly and frequently argue against them. The dangerous ideas of the progressive left become prominent in part because people self-censor or hide their beliefs. Speaking up for yourself and your views helps disrupt this cycle by inspiring others to think rationally and speak up, too. Saad says that people may turn against you for arguing against dangerous ideas—but if they do, they aren’t worth spending time with anyway.

(Shortform note: While Saad focuses on the social importance of standing up for what you believe in, other authors suggest it’ll make you happier as well. In The Subtle Art of Not Giving A F∗ck, author Mark Manson emphasizes the importance of sticking to your values over seeking popularity and approval. He says that this makes life more meaningful and less stressful because it keeps you focused on what you really care about in life, instead of worrying about things you can’t control—in this case, others’ opinions.)

Social Change: Fix Universities

Saad also suggests fixing the source of many dangerous ideas—university campuses. He argues that leftist professors are one of the main forces popularizing these ideas, and that they create environments where students can’t push back against them. At the same time, leftist students stage protests demanding that their schools demonstrate progressive values. These students also demand that their studies be made easier; they don’t want to engage with ideas that make them uncomfortable or work hard for their education. Universities capitulate to these demands because they rely on tuition dollars, so students never learn to think rationally, and universities churn out graduates who blindly accept and promote dangerous ideas.

(Shortform note: Studies support Saad’s idea that universities may promote leftism—the more education someone has, the more likely they are to lean left. But experts disagree as to how this happens. Some argue, as Saad does, that left-leaning professors and campus cultures suppress conservative views and coddle students who are uncomfortable with opposing ideas. Others suggest the connection is indirect: College students tend to become more liberal, but so do most Americans between the ages of 18-24—which means aging may be a bigger factor than education. Research also indicates that people who already lean left may simply be more likely to pursue higher education in the first place.)

To solve the problems he describes, Saad argues that universities must rededicate themselves to high standards and academic freedom. Higher academic standards require students to develop their rational faculties, making them more likely to reject irrational, dangerous ideas. Supporting academic freedom (rather than bowing to progressive protests and intolerant leftist professors) creates an environment where students and faculty feel free to engage in the natural selection of ideas, pursuing any theory that has merit.

Are “Dangerous” Ideas Losing?

Since Saad published The Parasitic Mind in 2020, many countries in the Western world seem to have shifted away from progressive, left-wing governments and ideas. In particular, Donald Trump has made targeting progressive ideology a priority in his second term, going after progressive programs in the government and private sector. Trump seems to be aligned with Saad’s recommendation to reshape American universities, using federal funding as leverage to pressure them into changing their policies. For example, he withheld 175 million dollars in federal funding from the University of Pennsylvania over its policy allowing transgender athletes to compete in sex-segregated school sports.

Whether this is temporary or part of a broader movement remains to be seen. For his part, Saad continues to call out and challenge dangerous ideas through social media posts, podcast appearances, and lectures.