Critical thinking is easy when the problem is abstract. It’s much harder when the problem is your life.

In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we move critical thinking out of theory and into midlife—where decisions are shaped by fear, loyalty, identity, and incomplete information. Using a long, painful divorce as a case study, we examine how people reason when trust is compromised, values collide, and waiting feels safer than concluding.

This is not an episode about who was right or wrong. It’s about how uncertainty, sunk costs, hope, and moral pressure distort judgment—and how disciplined thinking can help us see when endurance becomes avoidance, when patience stops being virtuous, and when clarity finally costs less than confusion.

If you’ve ever stayed too long, trusted too loosely, or postponed a hard conclusion because the alternative felt unthinkable, this episode is an invitation to examine not your choices—but the reasoning behind them.

In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we take a serious, standards-based look at why conspiracy theories are so appealing, why they spread so easily, and why they tend to collapse under careful scrutiny. We start by clarifying what we’re not doing: this is not about mocking people or defending institutions by default. Skepticism is healthy. Curiosity is good. But skepticism without evidence—and curiosity without discipline—quickly turn into something else.

We walk through what defines a conspiracy theory, why conspiracy thinking conflicts with the basic principles of critical reasoning, and how a critical thinker should approach extraordinary claims: by evaluating sources, recognizing logical fallacies, and seriously considering alternative explanations.

Then we put that framework to work. First, we examine the Flat Earth conspiracy—politely, patiently, and for educational purposes only—as a low-stakes example of how bad reasoning can sound persuasive. Next, we turn to the far more consequential claim that the 2020 U.S. election was stolen, using the bipartisan Lost, Not Stolen report as a foundation for how critical analysis should actually be done.

Our goal isn’t to tell you what to think. It’s to show how to think—especially in a world where confidence often substitutes for credibility and “do your own research” frequently means “trust me, I watched a video.”

If this episode helps even one listener pause before sharing, check a source, or ask what evidence would actually change their mind, we’ll consider it a success.

In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we discuss why some people treat confidence like a résumé and disagreement like a personal attack. We examine narcissism and the Dunning–Kruger effect as recurring enemies of critical thinking. We talk swindling suitors, know-it-alls, and public figures who never met a fact they couldn’t ignore. The result is a conversation about how ego replaces evidence, why some people can’t—or won’t—self-correct, and how to protect your own thinking without losing your sanity. Spoiler: being loud is not the same as being right.

We all like to think we follow the facts. In reality, we often follow our feelings — and then hire our brains as defense attorneys.

In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we break down why otherwise rational people ignore overwhelming evidence in order to defend bad actors and bad causes. Using core critical-thinking concepts like Ockham’s razor, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, belief perseverance, echo chambers, and cult dynamics, we explore how human psychology makes denial not just possible, but comfortable.

We then apply those tools to a real-world case study: Donald Trump. Not rhetorically, but evidentially. We walk through verifiable facts — failed businesses, fraud settlements, criminal convictions tied to his company, civil judgments for sexual abuse and defamation, documented falsehoods, racist statements, and a pattern of corruption and self-dealing — and examine how supporters rationalize, dismiss, or excuse each category of evidence.

This isn’t about partisanship. It’s about understanding how people come to believe things that don’t survive contact with reality — and why intelligence alone doesn’t protect anyone from motivated reasoning.

If you’ve ever wondered how “just asking questions” turns into ignoring answers, this episode is for you.

In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we dive into the wild world of religious truth claims—why some folks think they have the exclusive backstage pass to the universe, and why that confidence might have more to do with psychology than divine VIP status. We’ll look at confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and the peculiar human habit of trusting feelings as if they were peer-reviewed data. We even take a lightning tour through a few world religions and hear a few truth claims and faith-promoting experiences from their adherents. By the end, we hope we'll all better understand why people with completely different beliefs can all be 100% sure they’re right… and why that’s actually good news for living together without starting a theological cage match.

In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we ask "simple" questions about two of America’s most entertaining political mysteries: Does Donald Trump have something to hide about Jeffrey Epstein? And, did Hillary Clinton have something to hide in her email server saga? And instead of shouting about it on social media , we do something radical: we use critical thinking!

We walk listeners through the facts, timelines, missteps, and changing tunes, on both scandals — laying out what’s known, what’s unknown, and what people pretend is known after scrolling their Facebook feed. We analyze Trump’s shifting statements on the Epstein files, Clinton’s evolving answers on her private server, and the cast of colorful characters around them (including media personalities-turned-officials who suddenly found new ways to describe old events).

Throughout the episode, we apply tools we’ve discussed in earlier shows:

• how to filter out bad sources (yes, including your uncle’s Facebook meme),

• how to avoid confirmation bias (deep breaths, everyone),

• how to review evidence without emotionally combusting,

• how to follow reliable data even when it contradicts what you want to believe.

By the end, our goal isn’t to confirm anyone’s favorite conspiracy theory — it’s to show listeners how to navigate politically radioactive stories with logic, nuance, and just enough humor to avoid despair. So, join us as we attempt to review the hot button topics using the skills we've discussed in past episodes.

In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we ask one of humanity’s oldest and most uncomfortable questions: Can you make people good — or just scared of getting caught?

From the Founding Fathers to Prohibition to today’s moral crusades, we dive into the messy business of legislating morality. Along the way, we’ll meet Thomas Jefferson the rationalist, a few witch-hunters who really needed hobbies, and the occasional Spartan who thought murder made great cardio.

We’ll encourage critical thinking — not just opinion — to explore why many laws are secretly moral, why moral laws so often backfire, and why freedom without some moral compass tends to run off the road. It’s part philosophy, part history, and part “maybe we should think this through before writing it into law.” If you’ve ever wondered whether government should make you a better person, or just leave you alone to do it yourself — this episode’s for you.

Ever been in an argument that went absolutely nowhere? (Of course you have — you’re on the internet.) In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we dive into the hall of shame of bad arguments — the logical fallacies and rhetorical shortcuts that sound clever but collapse under the weight of critical thinking.

From ad hominem attacks (“You’re just saying that because you’re a [add pejorative here]!”) to strawman arguments (“So you like criminals?”), and whataboutism, red herrings, and the classic correlation ≠ causation mix-ups — we unpack why these arguments feel persuasive but actually weaken reasoning and discussion.

Using real-world examples from current politics, social media debates, and everyday conversations, we show how these tactics derail logic, reward outrage, and keep us from actually learning anything. Then, we explore what good critical thinking looks like — how to spot fallacies, stay curious, and argue like someone who’s actually trying to get to the truth.

It’s funny, it’s sharp, and it might make your next debate with that one relative slightly less painful.

Ever been too embarrassed to ask a question, challenge a claim, or admit you might be wrong? Welcome to the world of shame — one of humanity’s oldest social control tools and a significant impediment to critical thinking. In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we dig into how shame hijacks our brains, narrows our reasoning, and keeps us quiet when we should speak up.

From Galileo’s public recantation to McCarthy-era blacklists, from virtue signaling to social media pile-ons, we look at how public humiliation has been used to keep people in line — and how it still shapes political tribes and online debates. We also explore how to push back: separating ideas from identity, building psychological safety, and being accountable without taking the walk of shame when we're wrong.

It’s history, psychology, and a little comedy — because if you can’t laugh at your own embarrassing mistakes (or ours), you’re probably missing the point.

In this episode of My Idiot Brother Questions Everything, we discuss Tribalism: it’s not just for cavemen with spears anymore. We dive into how our “team spirit” can hijack our brains and short-circuit critical thinking. We start in ancient Greece, where Sparta and Athens bickered like rival sports fans, then fast-forward to the tragic and deadly Hutu–Tutsi conflict to show how powerful—and dangerous—tribal identity can be.

Jump to today’s U.S. politics and you’ll see the same instincts at work. Democrats and Republicans act like dueling fandoms, even though hardly anyone’s personal beliefs line up perfectly with their party’s platform. Yet we still pick a side, put on the jersey, and join the echo chamber.

We talk about how that echo chamber hardens our thinking, makes us allergic to nuance, and turns “the other side” into a caricature instead of a person. And we explore the high cost of that dehumanization—for our politics, our communities, and our own ability to think for ourselves.

If you’ve ever wondered why smart people act like superfans for bad ideas—or why you sometimes do it yourself—this episode will make you laugh, squirm, and (hopefully) rethink your own tribal instincts.