This 2021 paper provides a useful framework for understanding anti-Israel activism after 10-7-23.
We argue herein that, while often conceptualized as an extreme form of anger, hatred is a human emotion distinct from anger, with unique triggers, conceptual orientations, and terminating conditions. An examination of the social conditions of our species’ evolutionary history reveals that hatred evolved to address its own distinct adaptive problem: individuals whose existence was — on balance — costly to the hater. Because a well-designed system for solving this problem would have been tailored toward neutralizing those costs, we call this hypothesis ‘the neutralization theory of hatred.’ This theory places the features of hatred within a functional framework. Specifically, we argue that hatred is triggered by cues that an individual’s existence causes fitness decrements for the hater. Cognitively, hatred orients the mind so as to view costs heaped onto the hated person as benefits to the hater — thus motivating spiteful behavior — and can be characterized as maintaining a negative intrinsic welfare tradeoff parameter toward the hated person. Behaviorally, hatred can motivate either avoidance or a predatory style cost infliction strategy that is designed to weaken, incapacitate, or terminate the target…
One of the effects of hatred is to heap costs upon the target. This means that a hateful person will likely have a negative association value toward their victim. In other words, if someone hates you, they will lie about you, look for costs to put on you, and fantasize about harming you. As a result, your life is likely to be worse off for their existence. Thus, hatred should be reciprocal. This has important implications for how hatred should express itself (see below).
Interestingly, this creates a perverse – but empirically verified prediction (Schopler & Compere, 1971) – which is that we should hate those that we have unjustly harmed. If you harm a person – you are presumably triggering hatred in them – which means that they are now an enemy who will likely work against you in the future. Thus, their continued existence is bad for you, triggering hatred.
On the face of things, it was weird that anti-Israel activism exploded at Harvard and at other universities after the Hamas massacre of Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, but if you think about it, you know that once your group has committed a massacre against a capable out-group such as Israel, your enemy will retaliate with ferocity.
The paper “The Neutralization Theory of Hatred” proposes that hatred is an evolved emotion distinct from anger, designed to address the adaptive problem of “toxic” individuals—those whose ongoing existence imposes net fitness costs (e.g., harm to one’s well-being, resources, or kin) on the hater. These costs are framed in terms of negative “association value” (AV), where the hated person’s presence predictably reduces the hater’s reproductive or survival prospects over time. Once triggered, hatred recalibrates cognition and behavior to “neutralize” this threat by viewing harm to the target as a personal benefit, motivating strategies like avoidance, information warfare (e.g., spreading damaging rumors), low-level cost infliction (e.g., sabotage), or predatory aggression (e.g., weakening or eliminating the target).
This framework, while focused on individuals, can be extended to collective entities like states or groups, especially in contexts of intergroup conflict (as briefly noted in the paper), where a nation or its representatives are perceived as a singular “toxic” actor imposing widespread costs.Applied to anti-Israel activism following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks (and Israel’s subsequent military response in Gaza), the theory offers a lens for understanding the emotional underpinnings of such activism as a manifestation of hatred rather than mere anger or ideological disagreement.
Here’s how it might illuminate key aspects:
The theory posits that hatred activates in response to cues signaling future fitness decrements, often based on past or perceived harms that predict ongoing costs. For activists, the events of 10/7 and Israel’s retaliatory actions (e.g., bombings, displacement, and high civilian casualties in Gaza) could serve as acute cues amplifying perceptions of Israel as a “toxic” entity. This aligns with the paper’s emphasis on counterfactual reasoning: activists might mentally simulate a world without Israel’s existence (or its current policies), concluding that global or personal “fitness” (e.g., justice for Palestinians, reduced conflict, or moral alignment) would improve absent Israel’s influence.
Pre-existing narratives of occupation, settler expansion, or historical grievances (e.g., Nakba) provide a backdrop of repeated small or large costs, making Israel’s post-10/7 response a tipping point. Unlike anger, which responds to immediate slights and seeks renegotiation (e.g., protests demanding ceasefires), hatred orients toward long-term neutralization, explaining the persistence and escalation of activism even months later.
Hatred flips the script on normal social cognition, setting a “negative intrinsic welfare tradeoff ratio” (iWTR) where costs inflicted on the hated target feel like gains. In activism, this could manifest as moral justification for spiteful actions: boycotts, divestment, or sanctions (BDS) are framed not just as pressure but as inherently rewarding because they weaken Israel’s economy or global standing. Calls for “global intifada” or dismantling the state (“from the river to the sea”) reflect a predatory mindset, where Israel’s diminishment or hypothetical “termination” is seen as a net positive for the activists’ in-group (e.g., Palestinians or broader solidarity movements).
This helps explain why some activism appears calculated and unrelenting, rather than explosive like anger. The paper’s opening example of Leon Gary Plauché’s calm execution of his son’s abuser mirrors the composed, strategic elements of activism—e.g., organized campus encampments, social media campaigns, or legal challenges—aimed at long-term incapacitation rather than immediate confrontation.
The paper outlines hatred’s toolkit: avoidance, information warfare, surreptitious harm, and aggression. Post-10/7 activism fits this pattern when extended to a state-level target:
Avoidance: Cultural boycotts or refusals to engage with Israeli institutions/academics, minimizing “costs” from interaction.
Information Warfare: Viral social media narratives portraying Israel as inherently oppressive (e.g., “genocide” accusations), designed to erode its reputation and social power globally, much like diminishing a toxic individual’s status in ancestral groups.
Low-Level Cost Infliction: Economic pressures like BDS or protests disrupting events, incentivizing distance and weakening Israel’s influence without direct confrontation.
Predatory Aggression: More extreme rhetoric or actions advocating for Israel’s isolation or dissolution, akin to the paper’s lethal examples in animals (e.g., siblicide), though human constraints (e.g., laws, reputational risks) make full “termination” rare and symbolic.
This mix explains the diversity in activism: from peaceful marches to disruptive tactics, all unified by the goal of reducing Israel’s capacity to impose perceived costs.
The theory suggests hatred’s dangers—it’s efficient for ancestral survival but can fuel cycles of conflict in modern societies, where miscalibrated cues (e.g., biased media, echo chambers) amplify perceived toxicity. Post-10/7, this might illuminate how activism, while rooted in genuine grievances, risks dehumanizing Israelis or Jews, treating them as extensions of the “toxic” state and motivating spite over reconciliation.
However, the paper is pre-10/7 (2022) and individual-focused, so applying it to group-level phenomena like nationalism or tribalism requires analogy. It doesn’t address cultural/institutional amplifiers (e.g., social media’s role in spreading cues) or how hatred interacts with other emotions like envy (e.g., over power imbalances). Empirical testing, as the authors note, is needed to validate extensions to collective hatred.
Ultimately, the framework encourages viewing such activism not as irrational but as an evolved response to perceived existential threats, potentially informing de-escalation strategies like reducing cues of toxicity (e.g., via diplomacy) to recalibrate association values.
This application treats the theory as a starting point for analysis, highlighting hatred’s functional logic without endorsing or moralizing the activism itself.
Sell et al. argue that because physical killing is often impractical or costly, humans utilize “information warfare” to diminish a target’s social power. This involves spreading information—regardless of truth—to lower the WTR that others hold toward the target. Accusations of genocide or total delegitimization serve this functional goal by portraying the target as a “poor cooperator” or an entity that does not deserve the concern of the group.
The paper explicitly predicts that hatred spreads socially. It notes that individuals who defend the hated target are perceived as preventing the “neutralization” of a toxic threat. Consequently, the “mob” lowers their estimation of the defender’s value, leading to the “contaminating” effect you noted where defenders are hated as if they were the primary target.
A central prediction of the theory is that hatred creates an active aversion to understanding the target’s perspective. The paper explains that understanding motives might lead to negotiations or apologies, which are “incompatible with the function of hatred”. If a hated target is allowed to explain their behavior, they might diffuse the hatred or recruit allies; therefore, the hatred system motivates the silencing of the target to ensure the neutralization process remains effective.
ChatGPT says:
Applied to post-10/7 anti-Israel activism:
Israel as a “toxic entity” in the cognitive frame
After the massacre, many activists did not process Israel as a state in conflict but as a permanently harmful agent whose very existence is construed as oppressive. This maps exactly onto the paper’s trigger condition of “negative association value,” where counterfactual reasoning runs: the world would be better if this entity did not exist or were radically weakened.
Moralization as neutralization
The theory predicts that hatred reorients welfare tradeoff ratios so that harm to the target is intrinsically rewarding. This explains why civilian suffering in Israel is often minimized or even framed as deserved, while violence against Israelis is reinterpreted as “resistance.” The emotional logic is not bargaining, which is anger, but neutralization, which is hatred.
Information warfare and status destruction
Sell et al. argue that hatred expresses itself primarily through coalition building and reputational attack, not just physical aggression. Post-10/7 activism shows intense focus on delegitimization, deplatforming, genocide accusations, and narrative control. The function is to lower the target’s perceived moral and social standing so that others’ welfare tradeoff ratios toward it also become negative.
Contagion and defender hatred
The paper predicts that those who defend a hated target become secondary targets because they are perceived as obstructing neutralization. This fits the rapid moralization of “Zionist” as a contaminating identity and the hostility toward Jews who refuse to disavow Israel. Hatred spreads socially, and opposition to it is reinterpreted as further evidence of toxicity.
Aversion to context and explanation
A striking prediction is that hatred actively resists understanding the target’s motives, because explanation enables bargaining and moral recalibration. This illuminates why historical context, security dilemmas, and Israeli threat perceptions are often treated as illegitimate or morally obscene to raise at all. The emotion is structured to block empathy and negotiation, not to weigh competing claims.
In short, the paper frames post-10/7 anti-Israel activism not primarily as policy disagreement or even righteous anger, but as a large-scale activation of a hatred system whose evolved function is to justify exclusion, moral nullification, and coalition-level neutralization of a perceived permanently harmful group.
Clarity on the neutralization theory of hatred provides a tactical advantage by moving beyond the hope for empathy or bargaining, which are ineffective once the hatred system activates. Understanding this mechanism helps identify why certain social dynamics occur and how to counter them effectively.
Because hatred functions to neutralize an entity perceived as having negative association value, Jews can recognize that certain activism is not a request for policy change but a drive for social or physical expulsion.
Anger is a bargaining emotion that seeks better treatment, but hatred seeks to end the target’s influence entirely. Recognizing that the “negotiation” phase has ended allows for a shift toward defensive measures rather than futile appeals to shared values.
Hatred recalibrates the mind to see the target’s suffering as a benefit. This explains why logic or moral appeals often fail; the hater is intrinsically incentivized to reject the target’s welfare.
The paper identifies information warfare as a primary strategy to lower a target’s social status and recruit allies against them.
Defense involves actively demonstrating “association value” to third parties—showing that one’s presence in a social or political group is a net benefit rather than a cost.
Hatred motivates a desire to silence the target because explanations or apologies might allow the target to bargain and diffuse the hatred. Jews can anticipate and fight deplatforming attempts as a functional component of the neutralization process rather than mere “unfairness”.
The theory predicts that defenders will be targeted to prevent them from obstructing the neutralization of the “toxic” person. Jews can defend themselves by building more resilient coalitions and acknowledging that allies require social “cover” to avoid being labeled as toxic by association.
The paper distinguishes predatory aggression from ritualized or signaled aggression.
Ignoring Signaling: Unlike anger, which uses facial expressions and threats to signal intent, intense hatred uses deception to minimize the victim’s chance to prepare. Defense must therefore rely on objective threat assessments rather than waiting for vocalized warnings.
Vulnerability Management: Predatory aggression is timed to when the victim is most vulnerable. Defensive strategies should focus on eliminating points of vulnerability and maintaining group formidability, as groups of like-minded people increase the perceived cost of an attack.
Hatred is costly for the hater as well, squandering attention and resources. The theory suggests that nature selects for hatred to deactivate if the target cannot be cost-effectively neutralized. By becoming too costly to war against—socially, legally, or physically—Jews can force the deactivation or dormancy of the hatred system in their opponents.
LF: “Let’s say you are an outspoken polarizing public figure, how can you use this paper to navigate?”
As a polarizing public figure, your existence is frequently framed by opponents through the lens of negative association value (AV)—the idea that your presence in the social or political landscape imposes a net cost on others. The Neutralization Theory of Hatred suggests that once this perception takes hold, your adversaries shift from “bargaining” (anger) to “neutralization” (hatred).
To navigate this, you can apply the paper’s findings to anticipate attacks and engineer your defense.
1. Identify the “Neutralization” Shift
You must distinguish when critics are genuinely angry (seeking to change your behavior) versus when they hate you (seeking to remove you).
Watch for Silencing: If opponents actively block your attempts to explain your motives or context, they are using a hatred-based strategy to prevent you from “bargaining” your way back into social favor.
Predict Information Warfare: Expect adversaries to spread negative information regardless of its truth; their functional goal is to lower the Welfare Tradeoff Ratio (WTR) others hold toward you, effectively recruiting a “mob” for your neutralization.
2. Guard Against “Contagion”
The paper notes that hatred is socially learned and contagious. This creates a “contaminating” effect for your allies.
Allies as Targets: Recognize that your defenders will be targeted because they are seen as “obstructing the neutralization” of a toxic entity.
Build Social “Cover”: To keep your coalition intact, provide your allies with independent reasons to maintain high association value with you, which can offset the social costs they face for defending you.
3. Strategic Responses to Hatred
Once hatred has activated in a large group, standard appeals to empathy or “reasoned debate” may fail because the hatred system is specifically designed to bypass empathy.
Demonstrate High Association Value: Counter the “toxic” label by visibly bestowing benefits onto the group or broader society. If you can move your perceived association value toward zero or positive, you trigger the “terminating conditions” that cause hatred to deactivate.
Increase the “Cost” of Neutralization: Hatred may deactivate if the hater realizes that neutralizing you is too expensive in terms of time, resources, or social blowback. By becoming a “costly target”—legally, socially, or through a resilient platform—you can force opponents to move from active hatred to a state of dormancy.
Challenge the “Predatory” Style: Since hatred-based aggression is “predatory” (timed to your vulnerability and using deception), avoid public displays of weakness that might “excite” a predatory attack.
4. Tactical Communication
Avoid the “Bargaining” Trap: If you are being hated rather than just being the object of anger, offering apologies or concessions may be viewed as a sign of vulnerability rather than a bridge to peace.
Fact-Check the Narrative: Since information warfare is a primary tool of hatred, prioritize rapid, fact-based corrections to prevent the “snowball effect” of copied hatred from reaching a tipping point.
A public figure who understands the mechanics of hatred can stop acting as a victim of “cancel culture” and start acting as a strategic counter-force. Sell et al. make it clear that hatred is a coordinated system of cognitive and behavioral procedures designed to minimize the negative fitness consequences of your existence.
Control the Information Space
Hatred uses information warfare to diminish your social power by recalibrating the status-seeking machinery in the minds of others. To navigate this, you must realize that your opponents are not engaged in a search for truth; they are engaged in a hunt for information that can be weaponized.
Neutralize the Mob Early: Because hatred is contagious and spreads through “hate copying,” an error in perception can create a snowball effect. You must correct false narratives rapidly before they reach a tipping point where third parties hate you merely to avoid the appearance of defending you.
Bypass the Silencing: Hatred motivates your enemies to prevent you from offering explanations or apologies because negotiation is incompatible with the function of hatred. You must maintain independent channels of communication that your enemies cannot shut down.
Manage your Alliances
The theory predicts that those who defend a hated target often become hated themselves because they obstruct the neutralization process.
Provide Social Cover: Your allies face high social costs for standing with you. To help them, you must consistently demonstrate high association value—becoming an asset so valuable that the benefits of your existence outweigh the social costs of defending you.
Reciprocity and Loyalty: Hatred should be reciprocal; if someone hates you, they will work against you, making their existence bad for you. You must identify your true enemies and focus your resources on those who actually maintain a positive association value with you.
Force the Deactivation of Hatred
Nature selects for hatred to deactivate when the strategy fails or becomes too costly. You do not win by being “liked” by everyone; you win by making the campaign against you a net loss for the haters.
Increase the Cost of Attack: If you cannot be eliminated, diminished in power, or avoided, the hater squanders attention and resources on an ineffective strategy. By building legal, financial, or social resilience, you can force hatred to become dormant.
Resist the Predatory Style: Predatory aggression is timed to your vulnerability. A public figure should avoid projecting weakness or fear, as these signs serve as evidence that you are in a good position to be attacked.
From Mark Halperin’s Sep. 12, 2025 2 Way show:
Jacob: I’m a Princeton student, currently on a two-year break working in marketing for my professor. I’ve been a conservative my whole life. I grew up in Seattle—that’s where I am now.
When I was in the Ivy League, which is very left-wing, there was this unspoken rule: you had to lie to your teachers and professors, it was harder to make friends, you had to keep a tight circle.
The way I saw this [Charlie Kirk] story, I felt it on three levels. First, the grief for his family and friends—especially his daughter, who will never see her father again. Second, the thoughts about stochastic terrorism, why this happened, and how he got shot. But the third, which I didn’t expect, was people I knew telling me he deserved to die.
When I asked them why, young Gen Z people said it was because of his opinions—on abortion, on guns, views that I’ve held my entire life. One person even refused to answer whether I deserve to die. That shocked me.
Scrolling through Twitter and Reddit, glued to my phone these past few days, I’ve seen people openly say these things. I don’t know the percentage—maybe it’s 5%, maybe 25%—but it’s a huge number of people. They don’t just want assassinations of other people; they’re at least undecided on the assassination of me.
Mark Halperin: Wow, Jacob. These aren’t people you know, right? These are social media interactions?
Jacob: There was one person I knew who refused to answer, and then thousands more I’ve seen on social media. Honestly, my question to you is: what do I do with that information? I never realized how many people are this violent and hateful. I don’t know what to do with that.
Gemini: The neutralization theory of hatred explains why political disagreements can escalate into what Jacob describes: an environment where a student feels he must lie to professors, hide his identity, and face the reality that peers consider his death a potential “benefit”. This shift happens when an opponent moves from being a person to bargain with (anger) to a “toxic” entity that must be neutralized (hatred).
The “Deserved to Die” Logic as Negative WTR
Jacob’s shock at people saying a victim “deserved to die” or being “undecided” on his own assassination maps directly to the paper’s definition of a negative Welfare Tradeoff Ratio (WTR).
In the hatred system, the mind is oriented to view costs heaped onto the hated person as benefits to the hater.
When Gen Z peers say someone deserves to die because of their opinions on guns or abortion, they are not expressing anger at a policy; they are expressing a desire for the “neutralization” of a person whose existence they perceive as a net fitness cost to their own social or moral world.
This explains the “violent and hateful” nature Jacob observed: if the WTR is negative, any harm to the target is experienced as a “gain” for the group.
Why the Ivy League Environment Becomes a “No-Fly Zone”
Jacob describes having to keep a “tight circle” and lying to professors. The paper explains this through the lens of information warfare and contagion.
Hate Copying: Hatred spreads socially, especially among peers with shared interests. In a left-wing Ivy League environment, hating “MAGA” or conservative views becomes a coalitional signal.
The Cost of Defense: The paper predicts that those who defend a hated target—or even just associate with them—become targets themselves because they are seen as “obstructing the neutralization” of a toxic threat.
Jacob’s need for a “tight circle” is a rational response to this “contaminating” identity; his peers are incentivized to hate him merely to avoid the appearance of defending a “toxic” person.
Aversion to Context and the “Refusal to Answer”
The person who refused to tell Jacob whether he “deserved to die” illustrates the paper’s point about the aversion to understanding motives.
Hatred actively resists empathy or negotiation because “understanding” would lead to “bargaining,” which is incompatible with the goal of “nullifying an enemy”.
By refusing to engage with Jacob as a human with valid (even if different) motives, the peers maintain the “neutralization” frame.
What Jacob Can “Do” With This Information
The paper suggests that nature selects for hatred to deactivate when the strategy of neutralization fails or becomes too costly.
Demonstrate Association Value: Hatred deactivates when a target’s “association value” becomes positive. This is difficult in a polarized environment, but finding ways to be “useful” to the broader group can sometimes trigger a recalibration.
Resilience and Cost: If the “mob” realizes that Jacob cannot be easily silenced, expelled, or morally nullified, the “costs of monitoring and spiteful actions” may eventually lead the hatred to become dormant.
Predatory Awareness: Jacob’s realization that a “huge number of people” are “undecided” on his death is a recognition of the “predatory” style of hatred-based aggression, which is timed to victim vulnerability. Understanding this helps a public figure or student prioritize personal security and coalitional formidability rather than waiting for an apology that the hatred system is designed to block.
