56 pages • 1 hour read
Amanda MontellThe Age of Magical Overthinking: Notes on Modern Irrationality
Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2024A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Chapters 3-5Chapter Summaries & Analyses
Chapter 3 Summary: “A Toxic Relationship Is Just a Cult of One: A Note on the Sunk Cost Fallacy”
The sunk cost fallacy, which is the tendency to continue investing in a decision based on the cumulative prior investment rather than the current value or outcome, is targeted as a main reason why people, including Montell, stay in unhappy romantic partnerships.
Montell shares her experience of staying in a toxic, seven-year relationship with an older man she refers to as Mr. Backpack, a pseudonym she uses to protect his identity and avoid painful memories. They began dating when Montell was 18 and he was 29, initially connecting through playful texts that quickly escalated into a romantic relationship. After spending her college years traveling to Los Angeles to be with Mr. Backpack, she moved there with him, despite dreaming of living in New York. She excused Mr. Backpack and his increasingly manipulative and abusive behavior until she was 25, when she left him. Reflecting on the relationship years later, Montell now recognizes the influence of the sunk cost fallacy, realizing that she stayed in the relationship out of a fear of loss and a misplaced hope for future happiness.
Research suggests that the sunk cost fallacy has benefits— “it’s actually reasonable enough to want to continue a project based on the time and energy you’ve already spent on it” (59). It can make people appear consistent and valuable. Modern judgmental attitudes, exacerbated by social media, encourage people to stick with a task or stay in a situation to avoid embarrassment, and modern policies and cultural norms encourage individuals to stay in toxic relationships.
The additive solution bias—which is the tendency to favor adding elements to a solution rather than removing them—complements the sunk cost fallacy. For instance, when Montell attempted a difficult hike with Mr. Backpack, she initially felt compelled to carry a pack and several supplies, which hindered her progress; later, she successfully completed the hike when she chose to leave the pack behind.
Montell found professional success after leaving Mr. Backpack, publishing a book about one of her interests, cults. During her research, she realized that toxic relationships are often a lot like cults, equating romantic abusers to charismatic and manipulative cult leaders. Montell acknowledges that Mr. Backpack was not evil, nor was Montell blameless, and they shared many good moments. She shares advice given to her by Dan Savage, a columnist, who told her that the best thing to do to help someone stuck in a toxic relationship is to let them know that you are there to support them at any time and without judgment. Montell argues that it is never too late to cut losses and start over.
Chapter 4 Summary: “The Shit-Talking Hypothesis: A Note on Zero-Sum Bias”
Montell began her career writing for the beauty industry in Los Angeles, and in the following years, she became deeply involved in beauty culture: “I was practically a cyborg; highlighted, spray-tanned, Botoxed, eyelash-extended, manicured and pedicured, steamed and extracted, Brazilian sugared, Facetuned” (71). As a feminist, Montell experienced a strong internal conflict and attempted multiple ways to compensate for her cognitive dissonance, which is the psychological discomfort experienced when holding two conflicting beliefs or attitudes. Instagram exacerbated Montell’s issues with identity and self-perception, encouraging her to compare herself to countless peers. She attributes her issues to the zero-sum bias, which is the idea that someone else’s win constitutes another’s loss.
The zero-sum bias is portrayed as irrational, as people would not engage in trade behaviors if one’s gain inherently meant another’s loss. It is likely that this cognitive bias emerged as a result of resource competition, but it has not translated well to modern individualist cultures, which are dominated by capitalism, information, and “physical detachment.”
Montell quit working in the beauty industry after five years, and her social media algorithms began showing her different content more in line with her new lifestyle. She continued comparing herself to these new perceived peers: “I’d spend a handful of hours mad-scientist-conspiring how I could inflate my value to beat her” (79). Such comparisons, particularly upward comparisons, are psychologically detrimental. Montell suggests that capitalism and feminism are at odds, contributing to the zero-sum bias. Additionally, studies show that when people “disparage” others, they ironically tend to take on those same traits.
At a party, Montell listened to people talking about insecure celebrities, including an anecdote about Tom Hanks’s jealousy when Daniel Day-Lewis was featured on an issue of TIME. While social comparisons are crucial for development, especially for identity formation, the understanding that everyone has a unique perspective is also critical for “social harmony.” Studies show that social media contributes to social comparisons, hindering children’s and teens’ social skills, which in turn negatively impacts their mental health.
Aminatou Sow and Ann Friedman, Montell writes, came up with the “shine theory,” which can combat zero-sum bias; it involves surrounding oneself with successful peers and building others’ self-esteem. This results in trait transference—by speaking well of one’s perceived competitors, they may take on the positive traits identified. Montell successfully put the shine theory into practice, reaching out to her perceived competitors and sometimes making positive connections.
Chapter 5 Summary: “What It’s Like to Die Online: A Note on Survivorship Bias”
Montell met her best friend, Racheli, while researching individuals who share their illnesses and deaths through social media, a phenomenon driven by the survivorship bias—the tendency to focus on those who succeed or survive while overlooking those who do not, creating a skewed perception of reality. While working for Marie Claire in 2017, Montell wrote an article about young adults who vlog about their life-altering medical diagnoses, highlighting figures like Courtney, diagnosed with a brain tumor, and Talia Joy Castellano, a 13-year-old who gained fame by sharing her experiences with a neuroblastoma.
Of the women Montell interviewed, only two survived, including Racheli, a Hodgkin’s lymphoma survivor who shared her journey online to help others feel less alone. Racheli radiated “radical optimism,” using positivity to support herself through treatment. However, she pushed back against the idea, often perpetuated by followers, that survival is a “reward” for doing things right.
Montell states that survivorship bias encourages people to assign arbitrary reasons for why something turns out favorably. She cites an example from World War II: Military officials examined damaged planes that returned home to figure out where they should reinforce the planes. However, this method failed to account for the planes that didn’t return home, meaning that they were not protecting the planes from fatal damage—“The military had no idea which bullet holes hit the worst, because those planes never came back” (96). Disregarding failures leads to irrational thinking. For instance, museum artifacts give incomplete information about history, as usually only the highest quality objects survive and make it into a museum.
Montell reflects on Mary, the second survivor from her batch of interviewees, whom Montell still follows on social media. Mary found her YouTube vlog and her interactions with followers “therapeutic.” According to Montell, mental health professionals agree that using social media to follow individuals like Mary is healthy and can help people gain perspective on their own lives. Individuals like Mary portray themselves as imperfect, while most social media content portrays figures as perfect. It also helps bring authentic visibility to individuals with illnesses and disabilities—a traditionally neglected segment of the population.
Survivorship bias is similar to proportionality bias in that both biases misjudge cause-and-effect relationships. People want life to flow like a novel or movie, following a plot, but life does not work that way. Vlogs act as a middle ground, blurring reality with storytelling. Montell adds that research has found a correlation between positivity and good health outcomes, but she counters that optimism, alone, cannot cure disease.
Chapters 3-5 Analysis
In Chapters 3-5, Montell deepens her exploration of how cognitive biases impact decision-making and perception in the modern era. These chapters not only expand on the book’s central themes but also weave in a subtle undercurrent of social criticism and self-help, offering readers both a critical lens and a path toward greater self-awareness.
One of the key themes in these chapters is The Psychological Effects of Social Media, as Montell illustrates how platforms like Instagram can distort self-perception and exacerbate feelings of inadequacy. Montell reflects on her own experiences, admitting, “My experience of life and selfhood became increasingly out of body, especially as Instagram usurped reality” (73). This quote underscores how social media encourages users to curate idealized versions of their lives, often at the expense of authenticity and self-connection. The relentless exposure to others’ highlight reels fosters a toxic environment of constant comparison where individuals, like Montell herself, struggle to maintain a grounded sense of self. The pressure to appear perfect not only intensifies self-doubt but also feeds into the zero-sum bias, where someone else’s perceived success is seen as a personal failure. Montell’s candid discussion of her time in the beauty industry, where she felt compelled to maintain a meticulously crafted image, further exemplifies how social media distorts reality and contributes to the psychological toll of living in a hyper-judgmental society.
The theme of The Impact of Digital Culture on Perception and Decision-Making is also prominent in this section as Montell examines how cognitive biases are amplified by the digital age. The sunk cost fallacy, which she describes as “the most irrational thing [she’s] ever done” in reference to her toxic relationship (52), serves as a prime example of how individuals can become trapped in unfulfilling situations due to the false belief that they must see things through to the end because of prior investments. This bias is not limited to relationships; Montell notes that it can apply to anything from continuing a boring movie to staying in exploitative spiritual groups. In a world where digital platforms constantly bombard users with information and choices, the sunk cost fallacy becomes even more insidious, as people are pressured to justify their past decisions rather than re-evaluate them based on current realities. Montell’s immersive language brings readers directly into her thought process with the aims of strengthening the reader-author relationship, creating a judgment-free tone, and encouraging self-reflection rather than self-condemnation.
Montell’s exploration of The Challenge of Maintaining Rationality in an Era of Overwhelming Information and Connectivity is prevalent in these chapters. She critiques the modern expectation that everyone should have a clear, rational path in life, pointing out how social media and digital culture exacerbate irrational thinking. Montell’s observation that “thanks to dating apps and social media, which make everyone’s image miserably visible—subject to the harsh scrutiny of potentially limitless eyeballs—we’ve arguably entered the judgiest era of all time” highlights how digital culture fosters irrational comparisons and judgments (60). The constant connectivity and information overload make it increasingly difficult to separate rational thought from cognitive biases like zero-sum thinking and survivorship bias. Montell illustrates this with the example of museum artifacts, explaining that what survives in history is often the exception rather than the norm, leading to skewed perceptions and unrealistic expectations. This critique extends to how society views success and failure, with Montell cautioning that “odds-defying narratives may be sparkly, but they falsely imply that with adequate skill and effort, riches are available to anyone, and if you fail, you’re the pitiful exception rather than the norm” (101). This idea of success has been perpetuated in modern society, and this has become a default way of thinking that is hard to overcome. This illusion of the ease of success with hard work also connects to the flawed “American dream,” which has been baked into the international zeitgeist as an accessible opportunity when it is truly a near-impossible ideal.
The chapters also touch on The Social and Psychological Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic, though less directly than other themes. The pandemic heightened the reliance on digital communication and social media, intensifying the cognitive biases that Montell discusses. The increased isolation and disconnection from reality that many experienced during the pandemic made it easier for cognitive biases to take hold, as people turned to social media to fill the void left by reduced face-to-face interactions. Montell’s narrative subtly reflects this shift, as she discusses how her relationship with social media evolved and how she began to notice its detrimental effects on her mental health.
Montell’s writing in these chapters also carries a layer of social criticism, particularly in her discussion of the societal pressures that trap individuals in toxic relationships. She critiques the “bottomless well of societal factors” that contribute to this phenomenon (62), including pro-marriage policies, cultural stereotypes, and rigid gender norms. By highlighting these issues, Montell addresses the personal implications of cognitive biases and connects them to broader societal structures that reinforce irrational thinking and unhealthy behaviors.
