If there was a moment of levity during the student takeover of Columbia University’s Hamilton Hall last year, it came unwittingly, when Johannah King-Slutzky, a doctoral candidate and representative for the People’s University protest group, issued an ultimatum at a press conference. “Do you want students to die of dehydration and starvation or get severely ill, even if they disagree with you?” she asked. “If the answer is no, then you should allow basic — I mean, it’s crazy to say because we’re on an Ivy League campus, but this is basic humanitarian aid we’re asking for. Like, could people please have a glass of water?”
To observe the campus protest movement last year was to hear multiple variations of this: outspoken students making bizarre, outlandish, or self-defeating claims in service of their cause. How did this come to be? A dive into the psychological forces that drive young people toward activism — and how those forces can shape their perception of reality — offers an answer.
In Man’s Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl’s 1946 book on psychotherapy and his survival in Nazi concentration camps, the Viennese psychologist references a Johns Hopkins survey of thousands of college students. “Asked what they considered ‘very important’ to them now,” he recounts, only “16 percent of the students checked ‘making a lot of money’; 78 percent said their first goal was ‘finding a purpose and meaning to my life.’”
Psychological research in the decades since has confirmed that pursuing meaning, particularly at this stage of life, is key to developing one’s identity. Young adults often channel this drive into activism, which presents a structured way to explore values, develop agency, and build social roles. When done correctly, activism fosters purpose, empowerment, and connection.
Activism appeals to young adults because it helps them assert independence and set themselves apart from their childhood experiences. A few years after Frankl released his book, the child psychoanalyst Erik Erikson put forward his influential theory of psychosocial development, in which adolescence and early adulthood are critical for forming identities. Young people crave purpose, autonomy, and belonging — all of which can be found in activist movements.
For some, however, activism becomes an identity. Rather than being a mechanism for maturing, it extends adolescence. Research in positive psychology posits that long-term activism can lock in moral absolutism and social rebellion. When activism becomes one’s identity, the person stops engaging with issues critically and becomes ideologically static, hindering personal growth rather than nurturing it.
And for many young people, identifying purpose can often be accompanied by incoherence. Studies show that young adults’ political and social views often contain contradictions and cognitive dissonance. A 2023 Harvard Youth Poll found that while most young Americans support expanding government programs, many of them are also concerned about government overreach. Similarly, surveys indicate that young activists who want to restrict harmful speech also strongly support free expression.
These inconsistencies stem from absorbing information rapidly and reaching judgments without fully developed critical reasoning or life experience. Fast-moving digital activism allows little time for reflection or synthesis. Sets of ideas solidify quickly, despite their internal contradictions, leading the young activist to hold conflicting beliefs simultaneously. Emotional reactions replace analysis; ideological rigidity replaces complexity.
There is a certain ecstasy in joining others to fight for something you believe puts you on “the right side of history.” Neurologically, this is because black-and-white thinking activates the brain’s reward system, particularly dopamine pathways. Positive sensation reinforces belief: It feels good to be on this side of history.
This is where the distortion of reality sets in. The real world is too complex to be reduced to this binary matrix. But if one’s brain has become addicted to the sensation of certainty, it will concoct descriptions and narratives of reality in ways that fit the binary to maintain the sensation of certainty. This is essentially what ideological fervor is: a commitment to a version of reality that fits one’s mental preference. And it often manifests in the repeating and spreading of narratives and the search for facts that can be slotted into those narratives without complicating them.
While all people can fall for false narratives, some are more vulnerable than others. Research on cognitive biases and social influence suggests that emotionally dysregulated individuals — those who feel alienated or who lack a strong internal sense of identity — are more attracted to movements offering moral clarity. The brain’s craving for certainty is heightened during periods of stress, when we hunger for a sense of control and purpose. Peer validation, social-media approval, and a heightened sense of belonging within the movement further compound these sensations.
What happens when a young adult, whose prefrontal cortex is still developing, becomes enveloped in a movement promoting distorted justice and scapegoating? Needing to improve the world, she enters an echo chamber that consistently confirms bias. This keeps the dopamine flowing.
Add more free time, energy, few responsibilities, and media messaging that frames systematic change as an urgent personal responsibility. What emerges is a cycle of chronic stress, anxiety, paranoia, and burnout, resolved only by repeatedly intensifying one’s commitment to the movement.
The psychological pull of student activism grows even greater when young adults engage in increasingly aggressive or harmful actions without facing meaningful consequences. The well-established concept of “operant conditioning” explains how behaviors that are not punished or subtly rewarded become reinforced over time. If students disrupt classes, forcibly take over buildings, or harass others with few repercussions, their brains take this as approval to escalate further. The lack of consequences removes deterrents and serves as positive reinforcement, making students feel emboldened, righteous, and untouchable.
The course of radicalism at Columbia illustrates this process. When policy violations went largely unpunished, activists continued to push boundaries, culminating in incidents such as the Hamilton Hall takeover and the violent Barnard College demonstration of February 2025. During the protest, a Barnard employee was physically assaulted to the point that he required hospitalization.
Perhaps the most perverse psychological achievement of recent anti-Israel activism has been its application of techniques from cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) in order to manipulate emotions and suppress critical thinking.
These tools, designed to build resilience and self-awareness, have been systematically repurposed for indoctrination. Their methods allow individuals to justify actions that under normal circumstances would violate their ethical or moral standards — especially when targeting already dehumanized or demonized groups.
- Take, for example, thought-stopping, a CBT technique initially designed to help individuals manage intrusive thoughts. The technique involves getting the patient to disrupt the intrusive thought with a verbal or physical cue. Focus on the cue distracts the brain from the intrusive thought, lessening the distress of the intrusion. In an activism context, this cue is the repetition of certain slogans and chants, which serve to shut down cognitive dissonance before it can take hold.
Suppose an activist starts to question her beliefs or she experiences dissonance with the movement’s actions. In that case, she is conditioned to suppress those intrusive thoughts by reciting phrases like “From the river to the sea” or “No justice, no peace” — mantras that override deeper reflection and reinforce a sense of moral urgency. Reflexive responses replace doubt with automatic reaffirmations. - Another example, central to indoctrination, is cognitive reframing: actively managing one’s interpretation of situations, events, and experiences. This technique, which helps a patient replace pessimistic or catastrophizing thinking with more realistic frameworks, has been weaponized to justify moral
disengagement from the excesses of a movement. For example, harm against a perceived oppressor can be reframed as justice, eliminating ethical concerns. - Radical acceptance, a core component of DBT originally designed to help individuals acknowledge reality without unnecessary suffering, is exploited to encourage blind adherence to ideological narratives. Individuals are told they must “accept” certain historical or political claims as indisputable facts, with skepticism framed as failure, complicity, or betrayal. By discouraging doubt, this technique solidifies an unquestioning commitment to the movement’s objectives.
- Distress-tolerance skills, another DBT-based intervention, are also co-opted to sustain ideological rigidity. Normally, these skills help individuals endure emotional discomfort without reacting impulsively. In an indoctrination context, distress tolerance is reframed as a call to “push through” any cognitive or emotional discomfort caused by contradictions within the movement. Rather than questioning or reflecting, individuals are encouraged to suppress unease by doubling down on activism, reframing moral concerns as distractions from the “greater cause.”
- Yet another technique is exposure desensitization, similar to exposure therapy’s use to reduce fear responses to stimuli, such as sending someone who has a fear of dogs on a walk with a dog. The person gradually learns that his fear is an emotional reaction even in the absence of actual danger. This is helpful for acclimating students to criminal acts that have no serious repercussions.
What might have initially seemed extreme and improper acts, such as tearing down posters of kidnapped civilians or verbally attacking perceived opponents, become normalized as individuals are slowly exposed to them within the movement. The severity of the actions increases to the point that once-unthinkable behaviors are framed as routine, necessary, virtuous.
Combining these psychological techniques, anti-Israel activism suppresses critical thinking, deepens ideological commitment, and erodes moral boundaries. Individuals are conditioned to silence internal doubt, physically synchronize with the group, and desensitize to extreme actions.
Eventually, they no longer feel the weight of their actions — only the rush of collective validation and the illusion of absolute moral certainty.
Needless to say, this can happen on either side of the protest when it is pursued to an extreme, especially when all the ingredients are manifested. Some personality traits and life circumstances, however, predispose individuals to ideological indoctrination:
- High agreeableness
- Strong need for belonging
- Profound dissatisfaction
- Lack of purpose
- Histories of abuse (leaving individuals seeking validation and structure)
- Certain personality disorders
- The autism spectrum (i.e., the person may have challenges with empathy or understanding others’ perspectives and social dynamics)
Over time, prolonged exposure to these dynamics can rewire the brain, physiologically reducing the capacity for critical thinking and emotional regulation while heightening sensations of urgency.
Admitting that there might be a touch of antisemitism in Ilhan Omar’s comment that pro-Israel policies are “all about the Benjamins” would prompt the uncomfortable reality of having participated in or endorsed prejudice disguised as social justice. It would require confronting one’s cognitive dissonance, challenging ideological frameworks that have provided a sense of moral clarity, and potentially withdrawing from familiar social and activist circles.
For many, the psychological cost is too high, so they double down on justifications, reframe antisemitism as mere “anti-Zionism,” or dismiss Jewish concerns altogether to preserve their self-image as righteous advocates for justice.
When confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs — such as historical facts, Jewish experiences, or the violent actions of groups they support — they experience psychological discomfort. This discomfort is clinically referred to as cognitive dissonance.
To resolve the dissonance, individuals disengage morally, reframing their actions as justified resistance rather than prejudice. This often manifests in:
- Victim-blaming (e.g., “Zionists brought this upon themselves”)
- Selective outrage (ignoring atrocities committed by other groups while obsessively condemning Israel)
- Moral inversion (portraying terrorists as freedom fighters while demonizing Jews defending themselves)
By restructuring their right-and-wrong perception, they reduce internal conflict and insulate themselves from self-reflection, making it easier to justify dehumanization and violence.
Pro-Israel college activists can also experience cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement when navigating the intense ideological climate on campus. Facing constant hostility, they may cope by downplaying or dismissing the severity of the attacks on them, convincing themselves that remaining silent is safest.
Some may rationalize disengagement by telling themselves, “It’s just rhetoric, it’s not real violence,” or “If I speak up, I’ll only make things worse for myself.” Others may lean into an us-versus-them mentality, where every critic and protester is viewed as an enemy, reinforcing an emotional rather than strategic response.
In both cases, the overwhelming social pressure compels students to reduce internal conflict between, on one hand, their commitment to standing up for themselves and Israel in a way that acknowledges the humanity of all and, on the other, the real difficulty of doing so. The psychological need for self-preservation and belonging often overrides open engagement with complexity, replacing it with silence, justification, or rigid ideological entrenchment.
Since October 7, 2023, Jewish communities have grappled with an acute sense of vulnerability marked by collective symptoms of active trauma, leaving communities trapped in heightened emotional distress and creating a mental health crisis not seen in a generation.
Part of the solution can be the techniques of psychological therapy — properly deployed. The Jewish community needs to play a leading role in proactively addressing the psychological roots of the extremism we are witnessing before rigid belief systems take hold. Simply arguing facts is not enough: People must be equipped to assess narratives critically, recognize manipulation, and resist cognitive distortions.
First, students need a robust psychological education, the most effective preventative tool. Schools and universities must prioritize media literacy, propaganda analysis, and training in psychological resilience. Students should be taught how cognitive biases shape perception, how movements use thought-stopping techniques to suppress doubt, and how moral disengagement enables harmful behaviors. And instead of reinforcing ideological conformity, institutions need to protect open discourse, encouraging students to question and engage critically without fear of ostracization.
Second, in the middle of conflict, trauma-informed processing sessions provide a structured, nonconfrontational way to help individuals reassess their beliefs without feeling attacked. The process begins by validating the individual’s emotional experience, then gradually introduces gentle questioning to help him recognize inconsistencies in his thinking. Rather than confrontation, trained facilitators use Socratic dialogue to encourage self-reflection, so that realizations emerge organically. As with therapy, the person needs to be invested in the process and the outcome as well.
Mental health interventions may sometimes be necessary to break the ideological reinforcement cycle. The difficulty of any mental health intervention is that it requires breaking the patient’s mental pattern, which exists entirely inside the mind. Such interventions must therefore eliminate psychological “escape hatches” that let individuals avoid uncomfortable realizations. This includes breaking the reward cycle of groupthink by encouraging one-on-one engagement rather than large-group reinforcement, introducing complexity gradually to avoid overwhelming the individual, and promoting personal accountability over collective identity. Additionally, resilience-training — e.g., mindfulness, emotional regulation, and stress management — can help individuals recognize manipulation and confidently disengage.
While prevention is most effective, structured debriefing and other mental health interventions offer those already immersed in ideological extremism a critical path back to independent thought. Those open to this process can begin rebuilding an identity rooted in self-reflection and empowerment.
The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks taught us that “the most important lesson is that our circumstances do not define us”; what truly matters is “how we respond to them.” This is the foundational principle of psychotherapy, and it applies equally to what the Jewish community is experiencing both inside our minds and on the streets today. Another of psychotherapy’s foundational principles: We have the power to respond in a healthy and productive way.
