A fresh study in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin has added another wrinkle to our understanding of conspiracy beliefs: they don’t just make people paranoid about shadowy elites controlling the world—they also shift how they interpret social inequalities.

It turns out that when folks buy into conspiracy thinking, they are less likely to blame disadvantaged groups for their struggles and more inclined to see the wealthy and powerful as, well, up to something.

This research complicates the usual hand-wringing over conspiracy theories.

While conspiracy beliefs have been linked to irrational thinking, political extremism, and even public health skepticism (Douglas et al., 2017), this study suggests they might also serve a peculiar function: challenging the American idea that success and failure are purely based on individual merit.

In other words, conspiracy theorists may not just be tinfoil-hat-wearing contrarians—they might also be (accidentally?) questioning the myth of meritocracy.

Limbic Capitalism—a phrase so neatly academic it could almost hide its sinister undertones. It sounds like a term conjured up by a committee of bored psychologists sipping overpriced coffee.

But in reality, it neatly captures how today's market forces are tapping directly into our emotional and intimate lives, especially through dating apps, pornography, romantic consumerism, and a broader cultural narcissism that further commodifies human connection.

Let's peek behind the curtain and see how this works, shall we?

What Exactly is Limbic Capitalism?

Humans, that peculiar species known equally for inventing calculus, jazz music, and reality television, can’t agree on how to handle something as straightforward as love.

You’ve got monogamy, which society props up like the perfect IKEA shelf—promising sturdiness and elegance but prone to wobbling dangerously if not assembled just right.

Then there’s polyamory, monogamy’s free-spirited cousin who promises everyone at the party an emotional goodie bag filled with love, honesty, and occasionally uncomfortable truths.

Like all ambitious philosophies, both come with fine print, hidden fees, and potential meltdowns.

Human beings, in their infinite wisdom, have long insisted that romantic love is the holy grail of human happiness.

Entire industries—wedding planners, dating apps, even an entire wing of pop music—exist solely to reinforce this collective delusion.

But what if the real secret to well-being isn't candlelit dinners and whispered sweet nothings, but rather eating cold pizza on a friend’s couch while discussing if aliens have a secret base under Greenland?

Welcome to the relationship Twilight Zone. There was a time when relationships made sense.

You were either single or taken—there was no in-between, no Schrödinger’s relationship, no quantum entanglement where one person thinks they’re dating and the other thinks they’re just “seeing where things go.”

And then, dating apps happened.

Now we have situationships—a delightful term for a romantic arrangement with all the emotional labor of a relationship and none of the commitment.

If you’ve ever found yourself invested in someone who won’t call you their partner, congratulations. You’ve won a free ticket to the emotional equivalent of an escape room with no clues.

So, the question is: How do you get them to commit—or at least be honest enough to admit they won’t?

For years, Attachment Theory has treated as the holy gospel of relationship science.

It promised to explain everything—why you text back too fast, why your ex had the emotional availability of a houseplant, and why your best friend is engaged to a guy who never calls her “babe.”

But here’s the problem: it might be wrong. Or at least, wrong enough to be dangerous.

Not in the “flat earth” kind of way, but in the Freudian, still-lingering-long-past-its-expiration-date kind of way.

Researchers are starting to push back, and not just in the “I have some questions” way. More in the “we need to rethink this whole thing before we ruin more relationships” way.

So, is attachment theory scientific truth or relationship astrology with a PhD? Let’s break it down.

There was a time, believe it or not, when people met by accident.

Maybe they bumped into each other reaching for the same book, or sat next to each other on a train, or—God forbid—locked eyes across a smoky bar and got talking.

This was before love became a slot machine, before human desire was subjected to the cold, mechanical whirr of an algorithm.

And yet, here we are, neck-deep in a dating landscape so chaotic, so absurdly volatile, that a new movement has emerged from the wreckage: chaos celibacy.

It’s not that these people hate love. Far from it.

They just hate whatever this is.

The swipes, the ghostings, the emotionally incoherent text messages that arrive at 2 AM and disappear into oblivion by dawn.

They are opting out, defecting, taking their ball and going home—not because they’ve lost the game, but because the game has become a grotesque parody of itself, a bizarre Hunger Games of attraction where nobody wins, but everyone keeps playing.

The Digital Age and the Birth of Nah, I’m Good

Saint Camillus de Lellis was, in many ways, the last man anyone expected to become a saint. He was a fighter, a gambler, a brawler. He was a man who lived off his fists and his luck, and both betrayed him in equal measure.

Born in 1550, Camillus had a childhood that reads like a training montage for disaster. His father was a mercenary captain, the kind of man who solved problems with steel and walked away from them without a second glance.

Camillus, naturally, followed in his footsteps. At 16, he was already a soldier, swinging his sword for whatever cause paid him in coin and whiskey.

But discipline? No.

He was reckless, betting away his money, his food, his dignity. He was the kind of soldier other soldiers avoided—not because he wasn’t strong, but because his strength had no direction.

Then came the wound.

There’s an old joke, the kind that makes seminarians chuckle into their wine cups: three saints walk into a bar.

Except in this case, the bar is the twenty-first century, and the saints—long forgotten by all but the nerdiest hagiographers—have no idea what’s going on.

For decades, modern dating has been fixated on compatibility quizzes, text chemistry, and the fine art of decoding emoji usage.

But what if the real key to lasting connection wasn’t in perfectly matched values or love languages, but in shared experiences that create intimacy through action rather than analysis?

Welcome to experiential intimacy-led dating—a relationship model that prioritizes doing things together over talking about doing things together. If past dating trends were about defining relationships, this one is about living them.

What Is Experiential Intimacy?

Once upon a time—by which we mean, the 2010s—relationships were a grim battleground of overanalysis. "Are we exclusive? Should we keep talking to other people? Should we split the check? What does their therapist say about me?"

Love, somehow, became homework. But now, a refreshing new movement is sweeping the dating world: pleasure-centered love.

Gone are the days when ‘hard work’ was the gold standard for a good relationship. Instead, people are now asking, "What if my relationship made me feel good?" Shocking, right?

Nowadays self-actualization is often portrayed as a solo journey (cue the self-help gurus and their endless listicles).

The Michelangelo Phenomenon reminds us that we are, at our core, communal creatures. Our most intimate relationships don’t just comfort us—they shape us.

And like any sculpting process, the outcome depends on the skill, vision, and patience of the hands involved.

This blog post will take you on a journey through the history, psychology, and real-world impact of the Michelangelo Phenomenon.

Buckle up—this is love, but with chisels.