Parasitic Mind

Parasitic Mind Plot Summary

Introduction

We live in a time when reason, science, and freedom are under assault by a collection of pernicious mental pathogens. These idea viruses, which originated in university settings, have now infected our broader society, compromising our ability to think rationally and freely. They include postmodernism, radical feminism, social justice ideology, identity politics, cultural relativism, and an addiction to victimhood narratives. These dangerous ideas distort our understanding of reality and threaten the foundations of Western civilization. What makes these ideologies so dangerous is their systematic rejection of reason, evidence, and intellectual diversity. Through a careful examination of these mental pathogens, we can understand how they spread, why they persist, and most importantly, how we might inoculate ourselves against them. Using principles from evolutionary psychology, parasitology, and cognitive science, we can develop intellectual antibodies to protect our minds from these destructive ideas and reclaim our commitment to rationality, individual dignity, and true freedom. The battle against these idea pathogens is the defining intellectual struggle of our time, and our success in defeating them will determine whether reason and freedom can survive into the future.

Chapter 1: The Ideological Battleground: Universities and Intellectual Freedom

Growing up in Beirut during the Lebanese Civil War taught me early about the ugliness of tribalism and religious dogma. As a Lebanese Jew, my family lived relatively peacefully until violence erupted in 1975. My experience during this brutal conflict—witnessing neighbors become enemies overnight, hiding from snipers, and eventually escaping the country—shaped my worldview profoundly. It instilled in me a deep appreciation for freedom and truth, values that would later drive my academic career and public engagement. These formative experiences created in me a natural aversion to dogma and group-think. When I finally arrived in North America and entered academia, I discovered that universities, supposedly bastions of free inquiry, were increasingly dominated by ideological conformity. The same tribalism I had escaped in Lebanon was manifesting in a different form on university campuses, where identity politics replaced merit and adherence to progressive orthodoxy superseded the pursuit of truth. My life has been guided by two foundational ideals: freedom and truth. The pursuit of these ideals was not imposed on me but emerges from my personhood. My love of freedom became apparent as a young child being dragged to synagogue, where I found the rote prayers and herd-like rituals alienating. This carried through to my professional life, where academic freedom allows me to explore diverse intellectual landscapes rather than remaining confined to narrow specializations. Likewise, my commitment to truth drives me to confront intellectual dishonesty wherever I encounter it. Universities today face a profound paradox – they are simultaneously sources of scientific truths and dispensers of outlandish anti-truths. During my doctoral studies at Cornell University, I was exposed to both rigorous scientific training and the emerging nonsense of postmodernism. One particularly egregious example was a paper published in a prestigious consumer research journal that described the author's erotic feelings toward food and included explicit descriptions of sexual arousal. This kind of postmodern "scholarship" exemplifies the intellectual deterioration occurring in academia. What makes universities so dangerous is that they serve as patient zero for a broad range of bad ideas and movements. These idea pathogens operate like biological parasites that manipulate their hosts' behaviors. Just as some parasites can make mice unafraid of cats (to the benefit of the parasite), idea pathogens compromise our ability to reason clearly and recognize reality. Over the past decades, these destructive ideas have slowly eroded the West's commitment to reason, science, and Enlightenment values. The battle against these parasitic ideas is crucial for preserving the foundations of Western civilization.

Chapter 2: Thinking vs. Feeling: The Struggle for Rational Discourse

The human mind operates with two fundamental systems: thinking and feeling. These systems are not inherently opposed to one another—both are essential aspects of human cognition. Problems arise when we apply the wrong system to a given situation, such as letting emotions guide us in scenarios that require reason, or vice versa. Our educational institutions increasingly prioritize feelings over facts, creating generations of students unable to engage in rational discourse. When Donald Trump won the 2016 U.S. presidential election, many academics and progressives responded with extraordinary emotional hysteria. Predictions abounded that the stock market would crash, democracy would be abolished, and minorities would be endangered. This overwhelming emotional response prevented reasoned analysis of why nearly 63 million Americans voted for him. Using principles from behavioral decision theory, it becomes clear that perfectly reasonable and rational people might have preferred Trump's positions on immigration, tax policy, regulatory policy, trade, foreign policy, or judicial appointments without being "deplorable bigots." The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings provided another example of emotional reasoning superseding rational judgment. Despite decades of scientific research casting doubt on the accuracy of distant memories, Democratic politicians were willing to ignore the presumption of innocence and scientific evidence in favor of emotional indignation. When no corroborative evidence emerged to support accusations against Kavanaugh, his detractors shifted their criticism to his "temperament," committing the fundamental attribution error by blaming his justified anger on his personality rather than the circumstances. The tension between truth and hurt feelings pervades modern discourse. University mottos commonly reference truth, wisdom, and science—never emotions or feelings. Yet increasingly, across institutions from universities to media to the judicial system, truth takes a back seat to feelings. In the Netherlands in 2010, when parliamentarian Geert Wilders criticized Islam, prosecutors made the shocking statement that "It is irrelevant whether Wilders's observations might prove correct. What's relevant is that his observations are illegal." This mindset, where truth is subordinate to emotional comfort, is becoming prevalent in academia. When truth threatens certain progressive narratives, the consequences can be severe. Lawrence Summers was forced to resign as Harvard's president for suggesting that intrinsic sex differences might explain the underrepresentation of women in certain scientific fields. Google engineer James Damore was fired for citing scientific literature on sex differences. Alessandro Strumia, a professor of physics at the University of Pisa, was condemned for presenting bibliometric analyses that questioned the victimhood narrative in physics. Nobel Prize winner Tim Hunt lost positions for a joke about mixed-sex laboratories. In each case, emotional outrage trumped scientific facts. Universities were once centers of intellectual development but have become retreats for the emotionally fragile. The driving motto is no longer the pursuit of truth but the coddling of hurt feelings. This shift undermines the very purpose of higher education and threatens the foundations of rational discourse in society.

Chapter 3: Anti-Science Movements: Postmodernism, Social Constructivism, and Beyond

Postmodernism represents one of the most destructive idea pathogens affecting academia. It posits that there are no objective truths and that all knowledge is relative. This anti-science perspective generates impenetrable prose that is often tantamount to random gibberish. In 1996, physicist Alan Sokal published a hoax paper in a leading postmodern journal, demonstrating how nonsensical writing could be accepted if it seemed to support postmodernist views. Despite this exposure, postmodernism continued to spread across humanities departments. In 2017, James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian, and Helen Pluckrose took the Sokal hoax to new heights in what became known as the Grievance Studies project. They wrote twenty nonsensical papers and submitted them to various academic journals to gauge what would happen. Seven papers were accepted before they revealed the hoax, including studies on "Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks" and a rewriting of Hitler's Mein Kampf using feminist buzzwords. That these absurd papers could pass peer review demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of fields infected by postmodernism. Social constructivism, another prevalent idea pathogen, proposes that human behaviors, desires, and preferences are formed not by biology or human nature but by society. This leads to the blank slate view of human psychology, epitomized by behaviorist John Watson's claim that he could take any healthy infant and train them to become any type of specialist regardless of their innate talents or abilities. This hopeful but delusional belief rejects the reality of biological influences on human development and behavior. Transgender activism often takes social constructivism to extremes by asserting that biological sex is merely a social construct. While genuine gender dysphoria affects a small percentage of the population, transgender ideology now claims that men can menstruate, biological males should compete in women's sports, and women can have penises. When Rachel McKinnon, a biological male who identifies as female, won a women's cycling championship, questions about fairness were dismissed as transphobic. The denial of biological reality has reached such heights that Julian Castro, during a Democratic presidential debate, declared that transgender men should have guaranteed abortion rights. Radical feminism similarly rejects biological science, particularly regarding sex differences. The concept of "toxic masculinity" pathologizes normal male behavior and characteristics. Universities now offer talks, seminars, and courses on how to combat toxic masculinity, with Cornell University hosting discussions on using fashion to fight it and Lehigh University creating a Men's Therapeutic Cuddle Group. Some feminists like Lisa Wade argue that masculinity itself is problematic, not just its "toxic" manifestations. The academic world has developed an extraordinary arsenal of tactics to suppress scientific findings that contradict ideological preferences. Researchers who study sex differences face accusations of sexism, neurosexism, or supporting patriarchal oppression. The fact that men and women exhibit different brain structures, different cognitive abilities, and different behavioral patterns across cultures is dismissed despite overwhelming scientific evidence. Fields once thought immune to ideological influence now include feminist physics, feminist chemistry, feminist geography, and even feminist glaciology. These anti-science movements share a common thread: a deep desire to liberate people from the shackles of reality. By rejecting biological facts and scientific evidence, they create alternative worldviews where objective truth is subordinate to ideological preferences. The result is not liberation but confusion, as society loses its moorings in scientific reality and rational discourse.

Chapter 4: Victimhood Culture: Identity Politics and Social Justice Warriors

Social justice warriors (SJWs) represent a growing segment of university populations who prioritize feelings over facts and victimhood over reality. Though they may constitute a minority on most campuses, they wield disproportionate power through what can be described as the tyranny of the minority. They enforce a stifling climate of political correctness through trigger warnings, safe spaces, microaggressions, and campus speech codes, empowering the perpetually indignant and outraged. This culture of offense has created a competitive urge to establish one's position in a victimhood hierarchy. The Oppression Olympics (also known as Victimology Poker) is the arena where this competition takes place, with participants using identity politics and intersectionality to establish their victimhood credentials. Statements like "I am a Queer Fat Muslim Disabled Transgendered Black Feminist" become currency in this environment. The underlying ethos is "I am a victim, therefore I am"—a form of what might be called Collective Munchausen Syndrome, where individuals feign or exaggerate victimhood to garner sympathy and status. Holding a strong victimhood hand doesn't guarantee immunity from SJW attacks, however. Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a Somali-born woman who faced genuine oppression), Dave Rubin (a gay Jew), and Andy Ngo (a gay Asian man) have all been targeted by progressive mobs after expressing views that violated central tenets of progressivism. Even liberal professors find themselves under attack when they question any aspect of the prevailing orthodoxy, as happened to Laura Kipnis, Rebecca Tuvel, Bret Weinstein, and Michael Rectenwald. SJWs create intellectual environments that are maladaptively sterile. Just as children raised in overly sanitized environments fail to develop robust immune systems, students educated in intellectually homogeneous settings fail to develop the critical thinking skills needed to navigate intellectual disagreements. Evolution has endowed humans with behavioral adaptability; our immune systems expect exposure to pathogens, and our minds expect exposure to challenging ideas. Creating artificial safe spaces deprives students of the intellectual challenges necessary for cognitive development. The victim mentality manifests in increasingly absurd ways. Cultural appropriation becomes a serious offense—wearing hoop earrings, cooking with bone broth from another culture, or even thickening one's eyebrows can trigger accusations of cultural theft. Halloween becomes a minefield of potential offenses, leading universities to issue warnings about costume choices. At Yale University in 2015, a lecturer's mild suggestion that students should be trusted to choose their own costumes sparked outrage so intense that both she and her husband (also a professor) eventually resigned their positions. This victimhood culture creates logical inconsistencies that would be comical if not so damaging. White people being kind to Muslims is interpreted as overcompensation for concealed bigotry. Absence of evidence for oppression becomes evidence of oppression, as when an Israeli researcher found no incidents of Israeli soldiers raping Palestinian women—which was then interpreted as proof that Israelis dehumanize Palestinians so thoroughly they don't even consider them worthy of rape. All roads lead to victimhood in this distorted worldview. Universities have transformed from centers of intellectual growth to retreats for the emotionally fragile. The pursuit of truth has been subordinated to an obsession with avoiding offense and protecting feelings. This shift fundamentally undermines the purpose of higher education and threatens to produce generations incapable of rational discourse or intellectual resilience.

Chapter 5: Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome: Patterns of Willful Denial

Humans possess an extraordinary capacity for self-deception, particularly when confronted with realities that challenge cherished beliefs or ideologies. This phenomenon, which I call Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome (OPS), causes people to reject facts that are as evident as the existence of gravity. Sufferers construct an alternate reality where science, reason, rules of causality, evidence, data, logic, and common sense are all rejected in favor of ideologically convenient narratives. One manifestation of OPS is what I call "Six Degrees of Faux-Causality," whereby people construct elaborate networks of illusory connections between unrelated phenomena. For example, in 2015, Bill Nye linked terrorism in Paris to climate change through a convoluted chain of reasoning: climate change caused water shortages in Syria, which forced farmers to move to cities, creating unemployment and disaffection, which made young people susceptible to terrorist recruitment. This kind of tortured logic allows ideologues to blame their preferred culprits for any problem, regardless of evidence. The mantra "Diversity Is Our Strength," repeated endlessly by politicians like Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, exemplifies another form of OPS. While cultural diversity can enrich society in many ways, empirical evidence suggests that extreme diversity in values and beliefs often creates social tension rather than harmony. Homophily—the tendency to associate with similar others—has been documented across a broad range of social contexts. People generally choose friends, partners, and even dogs based on similarity. Yet questioning whether unrestrained immigration from cultures with fundamentally different values might create social problems is labeled as bigoted, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Perhaps the most dangerous form of OPS is the refusal to acknowledge the role of Islamic doctrines in motivating terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists have perpetrated more than 35,000 attacks globally, yet many Western intellectuals and politicians insist that these attacks have "nothing to do with Islam." Instead, they attribute terrorism to poverty, marginalization, climate change, Western colonialism, or other factors—anything except the explicit religious motivations stated by the terrorists themselves. This willful blindness prevents honest discussion of a serious threat. OPS sufferers employ various cognitive strategies to maintain their denial. When confronted with the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list, which features predominantly Islamic terrorists, they invoke whataboutism, pointing to Christian extremists or historical grievances like the Crusades. They deploy the No True Scotsman fallacy, claiming that terrorists are not "real Muslims" despite their adherence to specific theological interpretations. They engage in infinite delegitimization, questioning critics' qualifications to discuss Islam: Do you speak Arabic? Did you grow up in the Middle East? Are you a Muslim? Are you an imam? This pattern of denial extends to other areas as well. Sharia law fundamentally contradicts Western legal principles by applying different standards based on a person's identity, yet OPS sufferers refuse to acknowledge this incompatibility. Profiling is labeled racist even when based on statistical realities rather than prejudice. Jesse Jackson once admitted feeling relief when discovering that footsteps behind him belonged to a white rather than a black person, acknowledging a statistical reality about crime patterns. Yet suggesting that such patterns exist is now considered beyond the pale in progressive circles. The refusal to face reality has serious consequences. It prevents honest discussion of important issues, hampers effective policy responses to real problems, and ultimately endangers the very people it claims to protect. Overcoming OPS requires intellectual courage—the willingness to follow evidence wherever it leads, even when it contradicts cherished beliefs or threatens social acceptance.

Chapter 6: Building Intellectual Immunity: Truth-Seeking Through Evidence

In a world increasingly dominated by ideological thinking, establishing truth requires rigorous methodologies that transcend personal biases. Nomological networks of cumulative evidence provide a powerful framework for synthesizing information from multiple, diverse sources to build compelling cases for particular truths. This approach is especially valuable when dealing with contentious issues where motivated reasoning might otherwise prevail. The pursuit of truth begins with understanding that scientific knowledge is provisional and potentially falsifiable. Scientists, like all humans, are susceptible to bias and motivated reasoning. When I presented evolutionary psychology research at the University of Michigan, I faced extraordinary hostility from established professors who viewed my biological approach as threatening to their social constructivist paradigms. As Nobel Prize-winning physicist Max Planck noted, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Building nomological networks involves gathering evidence from diverse disciplines and methodologies to create a comprehensive picture that no single source could provide. Charles Darwin exemplified this approach in On the Origin of Species, amassing evidence from biogeography, geology, entomology, comparative anatomy, botany, embryology, and paleontology to support his theory of natural selection. Like a prosecutor building a case, Darwin collected data for decades before presenting his findings to the world. To illustrate this approach, consider the evidence for men's universal preference for the hourglass female figure. The network includes findings that: 1) the hourglass figure correlates with fertility and health; 2) escorts across cultures advertise this figure; 3) those with hourglass figures command higher fees; 4) art across millennia depicts this preferred shape; 5) Playboy centerfolds consistently display this figure; 6) men's preference for this shape appears across diverse cultures using various measurement methods; and 7) even congenitally blind men prefer this shape when using touch. This consilience of evidence from disparate sources creates an unassailable case that this preference has evolutionary roots. Similarly, toy preferences among children can be examined through this lens. Evidence includes: infants showing sex-specific preferences before socialization could occur; the digit ratio (a marker of prenatal testosterone exposure) correlating with masculine play preferences; congenital adrenal hyperplasia in girls (a masculinizing condition) leading to more male-typical toy choices; similar sex differences in toy preferences appearing in non-human primates; and persistently sex-differentiated preferences even in gender-egalitarian Sweden. This network of evidence decisively refutes the social constructivist claim that toy preferences are merely imposed by parents or society. Nomological networks can illuminate controversial social issues as well. Examining Islam through this framework involves analyzing historical patterns of Islamic conquests, survey data on attitudes toward Jews, homosexuals, and women in Muslim-majority countries, content analysis of canonical texts, patterns of terrorism, and indices of religious freedom across nations. The consilience of evidence from these diverse sources yields insights that might be missed or denied when examining any single source in isolation. This method inoculates us against the quicksand of feel-good platitudes and emotional appeals. It enables rational decision-making by synthesizing complex information into coherent frameworks that transcend ideological biases. By assembling networks of evidence from disparate sources, we can arrive at more reliable conclusions about complex phenomena—whether in science, politics, or social policy. The pursuit of truth requires intellectual courage—the willingness to follow evidence wherever it leads, even when it contradicts cherished beliefs or threatens social acceptance. In an age of increasing ideological polarization, nomological networks of cumulative evidence offer a path toward objective understanding and rational discourse.

Chapter 7: Reclaiming Freedom of Thought: Strategies for Action

The battle against idea pathogens requires active engagement from everyone concerned about the future of reason and freedom. Many people remain silent bystanders, either because they underestimate the threat, assume someone else will speak up, or fear social and professional consequences. This diffusion of responsibility allows destructive ideas to spread unopposed. The reality is that every voice matters in this struggle, and there are concrete actions anyone can take to help turn the tide. Social media has democratized information platforms, enabling individuals to reach audiences that were once accessible only to established media outlets. Mark Dawson self-published his way to becoming a bestselling author. Andy Weir's self-published novel The Martian became a blockbuster film. Joe Rogan built the world's most popular podcast through long-form conversations that defy echo chambers. These examples demonstrate that your voice can have impact regardless of your institutional position or credentials. The key is to overcome the fear of judgment and speak your truth. Many people fear that expressing controversial views will damage friendships or professional relationships. But true friendships should withstand the stress of disagreement. A friendship that cannot survive differences of opinion on substantive issues is hardly worth preserving. Similarly, many well-intentioned individuals hesitate to judge others, influenced by religious teachings against judgment or by cultural relativism. But judgment is an integral part of being a functioning adult. We judge whom to include in our close circle of friends, whom to marry, and how to vote. Fence-sitters who equivocate on every issue are not only intellectually dishonest but profoundly boring. Virtue-signaling represents another trap to avoid. After terrorist attacks, countless people change their social media profiles to the flag of the affected country or share hashtags expressing solidarity, while politicians offer vacuous condolences. These are costless, self-aggrandizing gestures that feed one's ego without requiring real sacrifice or engagement. True commitment requires skin in the game—the willingness to accept costs for defending your principles. Throughout history, millions have sacrificed their lives for freedom. Today, many are unwilling to risk even minor social discomfort to defend those hard-won liberties. When confronted by those seeking to silence you, channel your inner honey badger—be fearlessly ferocious when attacked. Never cede ground to ideological bullies who try to shame you into silence. If accused of racism, sexism, or other "isms" for expressing reasonable views, stand firm in your principles. To criticize Islam does not make you Islamophobic; to question open borders does not make you racist; to assert that biological males should not compete in women's sports does not make you transphobic. The accusations are locked and loaded threats, ready to be deployed against anyone who questions progressive orthodoxy. Don't fall prey to this silencing strategy. Universities need fundamental reform to reclaim their mission of pursuing truth through reasoned discourse. This means fighting back against unconstitutional speech codes, rejecting safe spaces and trigger warnings, eliminating identity politics and the cult of victimhood, restoring meritocracy, and recommitting to intellectual diversity. As John Ellison, Dean of Students at the University of Chicago, wrote to incoming students: "Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support trigger warnings, we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual 'safe spaces' where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own." The pursuit and defense of truth, the recommitment to scientific inquiry and Enlightenment values—these are the cures for the idea pathogens that threaten our civilization. Each person who speaks out makes it easier for others to do the same. What begins as a solitary voice can become a chorus, and eventually a movement capable of reclaiming reason and freedom.

Summary

Idea pathogens—such as postmodernism, radical feminism, social constructivism, and identity politics—have infected Western society, undermining our commitment to reason, freedom, and individual dignity. These mental parasites function similarly to biological pathogens that manipulate their hosts' behaviors, causing infected individuals to reject reality and common sense in favor of ideological fantasies. The result is a society increasingly unable to distinguish truth from falsehood, where feelings trump facts, and where the pursuit of victimhood status supersedes the pursuit of excellence. The antidote to these mind viruses lies in intellectual courage—the willingness to speak truth even when it contradicts prevailing orthodoxies. By building nomological networks of cumulative evidence, we can establish robust cases for important truths that transcend ideological biases. And by actively engaging in the battle of ideas—refusing to be silenced by accusations of various "isms" or "phobias"—we can help restore the Western commitment to freedom of thought and expression. This struggle requires participation from everyone who values reason and liberty, not just academics or public intellectuals. Each voice added to the chorus makes it stronger, and each person who refuses to be silenced helps create space for others to speak freely. The fate of reason and freedom in Western civilization depends on our willingness to defend them.

About Author

Loading...

Gad Saad

Dr. Gad Saad is Professor of Marketing, holder of the Concordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption, and advisory fellow at the Center for Inquiry. He was an Associate Editor of Evolutionary Psychology (2012-2015) and of Customer Needs and Solutions (2014- ). He has held Visiting Associate Professorships at Cornell University, Dartmouth College, and the University of California-Irvine. Dr. Saad was inducted into the Who’s Who of Canadian Business in 2002. He was listed as one of the “hot” professors of Concordia University in both the 2001 and 2002 Maclean’s reports on Canadian universities. Dr. Saad received the JMSB Faculty’s Distinguished Teaching Award in June 2000. He is the recipient of the 2014 Darwinism Applied Award granted by the Applied Evolutionary Psychology Society and co-recipient of the 2015 President's Media Outreach Award-Research Communicator (International). His research and teaching interests include evolutionary psychology, consumer behavior, and psychology of decision making.Professor Saad’s trade book, The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal About Human Nature (Prometheus Books), was released in June 2011, and has since been translated to Korean and Turkish. His 2007 book, The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption (Lawrence Erlbaum) is the first academic book to demonstrate the Darwinian roots of a wide range of consumption phenomena. His edited book, Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences, was also released in 2011 (Springer), as was his special issue on the futures of evolutionary psychology published in Futures (Elsevier).He has over 75 scientific publications covering a wide range of disciplines including in marketing, consumer behavior, psychology, economics, evolutionary theory, medicine, and bibliometrics. A sample of outlets wherein his publications have appeared include Journal of Marketing Research; Journal of Consumer Psychology; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes; Journal of Behavioral Decision Making; Evolution and Human Behavior; Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics; Marketing Theory; Journal of Social Psychology; Personality and Individual Differences; Managerial and Decision Economics; Journal of Bioeconomics; Applied Economics Letters; Journal of Business Research; Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences; Psychology & Marketing; Journal of Consumer Marketing; Medical Hypotheses; Scientometrics; and Futures. His work has been presented at 170 leading academic conferences, research centers, and universities around the world.Dr. Saad has supervised or served on the committee of numerous Master’s and Doctoral students, as well as one post-doc. He has been awarded several research grants (both internal as well as governmental). Using his own grant money, he created an in-house behavioral marketing lab. He serves/has served on numerous editorial boards including Journal of Marketing Research; Journal of Consumer Psychology; Psychology & Marketing; Journal of Business Research; Journal of Social Psychology; Evolutionary Psychology; Open Behavioral Science Journal; Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics; Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology/Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences; The Evolutionary Review; and Frontiers of Evolutionary Psychology; and is an associate member of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. He has consulted for numerous firms, and his work has been featured in close to 500 media outlets including on television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and blogs. He has been designated Concordia's Newsmaker of the Week five years in a row (2011-2015). Dr. Saad holds a PhD (Major: Marketing; Minors in Cognitive Studies and Statistics) and an MS from Cornell University, and an MBA (Specialization: Marketing; Mini-Thesis: Operations Research) and a BSc (Mathematics and Computer Science) both from McGill Uni

Read more

Related Books by Gad Saad

Loading...

The Saad Truth about Happiness

Gad Saad

8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life

★★★½☆3.7