But is there grief in contexts other than dealing with death or serious illness as Kübler-Ross originally described it? Is it a form of grief to change a belief because what was once valued in some way was abandoned and replaced with something new, especially if what was abandoned was psychologically important? I asked Pxy about how a demagogue would use this tactic. It used djt's stolen 2020 election lie as an example. That's a long Q&A so I put it in footnote 1 for people who want to see how it works. Then I asked how universal and broad this 5-stage phenomenon is.
Long answer short: the phenomenon appears to be universal among humans and changing one's mind can be seen as something that often or usually leads to a form of grief or at least some cognitive dissonance.
Q4: Is this a matter of a demagogue using grief as a weapon, or is there a common or universal mental process where five stages reflect a human cognitive trait when there is reluctance to change a belief from one thing to another? This phenomenon seems to be broader than just dealing with grief. Or, is the initially reluctant changing of a belief a form of grief at what was lost when the old belief was abandoned?
The First Amendment’s neutrality toward intent allows manipulators to exploit grief-like stages provided they avoid (1) defamation, false statements made with “actual malice” against public figures, and (2) incitement or provocation of imminent violence.
A4: The interplay between grief stages and belief revision represents a fundamental cognitive process rooted in human psychology, observable across contexts ranging from personal loss to ideological shifts. While demagogues may weaponize these stages to manipulate populations, the underlying mechanism reflects a universal mental adaptation to cognitive dissonance and identity disruption. This phenomenon transcends grief over death, extending to any significant cognitive or behavioral change that challenges core assumptions about self and world.
THE QUESTION OF MORALITY
The other thing this touches on is the distinction between moral persuasion and immoral manipulation.
In business and commerce: In commerce, there is a legal distinction between ethical persuasion and unethical manipulation. Some laws target overtly deceptive sales practices. False advertising is illegal, but usually hard or impossible to prove in court. The inherently subjective nature of persuasive vs manipulative intent and the constitutional protections surrounding free expression significantly limit regulation of manipulation.
In politics: Here, the situation is a lot worse. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the USSC established that political speech retains protection unless it directly incites “imminent lawless action”. This creates legal equivalence between ethical and unethical uses of persuasion tactics. Ethical persuasion includes a candidate using the five-stage model to guide voters from climate change denial to acceptance through factual arguments (depression phase: “Coastal communities face displacement”) is protected. Similarly, an example of unethical but legal manipulation is a demagogue weaponizing the same model to fabricate crises (e.g., “immigrant invasions”) and shepherd supporters toward authoritarian acceptance remains protected, provided no explicit call for violence occurs.
Qs: If the law can touch on persuasive intent in commerce, e.g., false advertising laws, why not make at least a minimal law that does the same, e.g., by penalizing a politician who makes a provably, empirically false statement and then refuses to retract and correct the false statement? Would such a law in politics impose some form of tyranny?
Footnote:
1. For the wonks. Example of a demagogue using the 5 stages against us:
Q3: Describe an example of how a demagogue might use this tactic to manipulate people and lead them to a false belief.A3: The Demagogic Manipulation of Collective Grief: A Case Study in Weaponizing the Kübler-Ross Model
The Kübler-Ross model’s stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—have been co-opted by demagogues to engineer false beliefs in populations, particularly during periods of social upheaval or perceived crisis. This process exploits cognitive vulnerabilities by mimicking the natural progression of grief while substituting factual reality with manufactured narratives. A stark example emerges in the politicization of election fraud claims, where demagogues guide supporters through these stages to foster acceptance of baseless conspiracy theories.Stage 1: Denial – Seeding Doubt Through Manufactured Crisis
Demagogues first create or amplify a false premise that contradicts verifiable reality. For instance, a leader might claim an election was “stolen” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary 9. This mirrors the denial phase, where supporters initially resist the demagogue’s narrative. However, through repetition and appeals to tribal identity (“Only we see the truth”), the demagogue frames skepticism as righteous vigilance.
“They’re lying to you. The results are fake, but we’ll prove it.”
By invoking existential threats (“Our democracy is at risk”), the demagogue positions themselves as the sole arbiter of truth, leveraging the same projection tactics observed in clinical denial 2. Followers begin questioning objective evidence, priming them for emotional escalation 4.
Stage 2: Anger – Channeling Frustration Toward Scapegoats
Once denial takes root, the demagogue redirects collective frustration toward fabricated culprits. In the election fraud context, this involves blaming marginalized groups (e.g., undocumented voters), rival politicians, or institutions (e.g., courts, media) 9. Anger becomes a unifying force, with the demagogue using inflammatory rhetoric to frame opponents as enemies of the people 4:
“They’re not just wrong—they’re evil. They want to destroy everything you love.”
This phase weaponizes the anger stage by offering simplistic explanations for complex societal issues. Followers, now emotionally activated, seek catharsis through loyalty displays, such as attending rallies or harassing perceived adversaries 9.
Stage 3: Bargaining – Offering False Compromises
The demagogue then introduces illusory solutions that appear conciliatory but deepen dependency on their narrative. Promises to “audit votes” or “restore integrity” simulate the bargaining stage, where followers trade critical thinking for hope of resolution 7. These gestures—often performative and legally baseless—serve two purposes:
Normalizing extraordinary measures (e.g., bypassing electoral protocols)
Reinforcing victimhood (“They’re blocking us from finding the truth”) 9
Supporters invest in these symbolic acts, mistaking procedural theater for legitimate problem-solving.
Stage 4: Depression – Cultivating Helplessness
When bargains fail (e.g., courts reject fraud claims), the demagogue induces despair to sever ties to reality. Followers are told the system is irredeemably corrupt (“Nothing matters anymore”), mirroring the depression phase 1 6. This learned helplessness makes individuals susceptible to authoritarian appeals:
“They’ve rigged it all. Only I can fix this.”
By eroding faith in institutions, the demagogue positions themselves as the lone savior, exploiting the depression stage’s vulnerability to external control 9.
Stage 5: Acceptance – Surrendering to the False Reality
The final stage involves internalizing the fabricated narrative as existential truth. Followers adopt conspiracy theories not through evidence but via emotional exhaustion 4 9. The demagogue reinforces this acceptance by rewarding conformity (e.g., social status within the movement) and punishing dissent 9:“True patriots know the election was stolen. Everyone else is a traitor.”
This phase completes the psychological shift from skepticism to fanaticism, with followers defending falsehoods as articles of faith 9.Mechanisms of Manipulation
A. Emotive Language and Cognitive Dissonance
Demagogues substitute facts with emotionally charged terms (e.g., “invasion” for immigration)4. Followers experiencing dissonance between reality and the narrative resolve it by rejecting facts, not the leader 9.B. Social Identity Reinforcement
Group rituals (e.g., chanting slogans, wearing symbols) bind individuals to the collective grief journey, making defection feel like betrayal 9.
C. Selective Use of “Evidence”
Fabricated documents or decontextualized data (“2000 Mules”) are presented as “proof,” exploiting the bargaining stage’s search for resolution 9.Ethical and Societal Implications
This manipulation illustrates how the Kübler-Ross model, designed for terminal illness, becomes dangerous when applied to politics. Demagogues exploit its stages to:
Bypass rational scrutiny by emotionalizing discourse 4 9
Legitimize authoritarianism as a “cure” for manufactured grief 9
Erode democratic norms by reframing lies as “alternative truths”
As seen in post-2020 election rhetoric, this tactic can incite violence, destabilize institutions, and fracture social cohesion 9. Yet, as search results emphasize, the model’s misuse persists because it offers a seductive narrative arc—transforming confusion into purpose, and despair into loyalty 1 6.Conclusion: Grief as a Weapon
The demagogue’s manipulation of grief stages reveals a dark inversion of Kübler-Ross’ original intent. Where the model sought to provide comfort in helplessness, demagogues weaponize that helplessness to consolidate power. This underscores the ethical imperative to recognize such tactics and fortify public resilience against emotional exploitation 9.
