You follow them every day.

You know their morning routine, their struggles, their transformation story, maybe even the name of their dog. So when they recommend a supplement, sell a fitness plan, or offer to coach you through something they've personally overcome, it doesn't feel like buying from a stranger.

But they are still a stranger.

In this episode of The Human Pattern, we use the case of fitness influencer Brittany Dawn Davis to explore something much bigger than one influencer or one lawsuit: what happens when familiarity begins to feel like expertise.

Davis built a large online following and sold what were marketed as personalized fitness and nutrition plans. After years of customer complaints, the Texas Attorney General sued her under the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case ultimately ended in a $400,000 settlement.

But the more interesting question isn't simply whether people were misled.

It's why the offer was so persuasive in the first place.

We explore how parasocial relationships change the way we evaluate someone online, why personal transformation stories can function like credentials, how success stories create survivorship bias, and why a program that isn't working can leave the customer blaming themselves instead of questioning the product.

We also look at the largely unregulated world of online fitness and wellness coaching, the difference between lived experience and professional expertise, and cases involving Liver King and Belle Gibson that reveal the same underlying pattern in very different forms.

Because the people who fall for misleading wellness claims aren't necessarily gullible.

Sometimes they're reasoning perfectly well from information that was corrupted before it ever reached them.

And underneath all of it is a question that extends far beyond wellness:

What's the difference between feeling like you know someone and actually knowing them?

Content Advisory: This episode includes discussion of eating disorders.

Eating Disorder Support:
National Alliance for Eating Disorders
https://www.allianceforeatingdisorders.com/

Find The Human Pattern:

Website

Instagram

TikTok

YouTube

Make sure to follow or subscribe to The Human Pattern wherever you're listening.

How much can you say about another person before you've crossed a line?

Probably much more than you think.

We tend to imagine defamation law as a guardrail that keeps public commentary responsible. But the legal line is surprisingly far away from the line most of us would consider careful, fair, or even accurate.

In this episode of The Human Pattern, we start with a sentence from another podcast about the ongoing Lindsay Clancy trial: “She had psychosis.”

That sentence isn't what sent me down the rabbit hole because it's defamatory. It isn't. What interested me was something stranger: why did stating an unresolved question as fact feel completely natural?

From there, we look at what defamation actually requires, why public and private figures are treated differently, what “actual malice” really means, and why disclaimers like “this is just my opinion” may protect you far less than you think.

We also examine two very different defamation cases, including the $10 million verdict against a TikTok creator who falsely accused a University of Idaho professor of murder, and the unsuccessful lawsuit against Netflix over Making a Murderer.

But the law is only the beginning.

Because the more interesting question is what happens in the enormous space between what we're legally allowed to say and what we actually know.

Why does repetition make claims begin to feel true? Why are corrections so bad at erasing misinformation? Why does confident language sound better than careful language? And why do we instinctively hedge some claims while stating others as fact, even when we're equally uncertain about both?

This episode isn't really about how to avoid getting sued.

It's about something much harder:

How do we talk responsibly about things we don't actually know?

In this episode:

• What defamation actually requires

• The difference between public and private figures

• What “actual malice” really means

• Why “in my opinion” isn't a legal shield

• The fair report privilege and substantial truth

• The $10 million Scofield v. Guillard verdict

• Why Netflix won the Making a Murderer defamation case

• The limits of disclaimers

• Why attribution is more powerful than hedging

• The illusory truth effect and continued influence effect

• Why confident language is rewarded

• The difference between uncertainty and perceived risk

• Why accuracy sometimes loses simply because the accurate sentence sounds worse

The Lindsay Clancy trial was ongoing at the time this episode was recorded. She has pleaded not guilty, and nothing about her mental state should be treated as established unless and until it is established by the appropriate legal process.

This episode also briefly discusses suicide. If you or someone you know is struggling or in crisis, call or text 988 in the United States to reach the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

The Human Pattern

Website
Instagram

TikTok

YouTube

Almost everyone has had a thought that scared them.

A sudden image of doing something dangerous. An unwanted violent thought. A bizarre impulse that seems to come from nowhere and leaves you wondering why your brain went there at all.

But then there are the other thoughts.

The text you send at one in the morning. The thing you say in an argument before you can stop yourself. The purchase that feels like a great idea until the next morning.

Both can feel like impulses, but they are not the same.

In this episode of The Human Pattern, we explore what actually happens in the space between thought and action, and why the thoughts that frighten us may be very different from the ones most likely to become behavior.

We explore:

• The difference between intrusive and impulsive thoughts

• Why unwanted intrusive thoughts are incredibly common

• How inhibitory control develops during childhood

• Why teenagers can understand risk and still take it

• What the famous marshmallow test really tells us about self-control

• How ADHD can affect the gap between impulse and action

• Why intrusive thoughts become so distressing in OCD

• Thought action fusion and the cycle of reassurance

• What Tourette’s syndrome reveals about the physical effort of inhibition

• The strange “call of the void” or high place phenomenon

• What neuroscience can and cannot tell us about the moment we decide to act

Because maybe the thoughts that cross your mind are not the most revealing part of the story.

Maybe what matters is what happens in the second afterward.

🎙️ The Human Pattern
Why do people do what they do? Exploring why people think, feel, and behave the way they do.

Website
Instagram
TikTok
YouTube

If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis or having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 in the United States to reach the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

In Part One, we walked through the night at Artesia General Hospital, the evidence surrounding the death of Alex Ray Fierro, and the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that dramatically changed the prosecution's case.

But this case raises a much larger question:

What would have had to be different, and when?

In Part Two, we step beyond the facts of one criminal case and examine the pattern surrounding newborn deaths after concealed or denied pregnancies.

We look at the research on pregnancy denial and concealment, including an uncomfortable limitation at the center of much of that research: many of the women studied were already facing criminal charges when they were evaluated.

We also examine whether the systems designed to prevent these deaths actually intervene at the point where help is needed.

In this episode:

• The difference between pregnancy concealment and pregnancy denial

• How someone can genuinely reach labor without recognizing a pregnancy

• What research does and does not tell us about neonaticide

• Why isolation may matter more than mental illness in some cases

• The limitations of relying on self-reported dissociation after a criminal charge

• Why determining whether a newborn was born alive can be complicated

• Why Safe Haven laws and baby boxes may intervene too late

• The difference between legal, perceived, and functional anonymity

• What being nineteen means legally versus developmentally

• Whether first degree murder is always the right framework for cases like this

• How criminal investigations inside medical settings can affect trust in healthcare

• Why prevention may require looking months or years before the moment of crisis

The criminal case against Alexee Trevizo remains open. She has pleaded not guilty, and nothing discussed in this episode should be interpreted as a determination of guilt or innocence.

This episode isn't about reaching a verdict.

It's about asking a different question:

What would have had to be different, and when?

Website
Instagram
TikTok
YouTube

In January 2023, nineteen-year-old Alexee Trevizo arrived at a small New Mexico emergency room with severe back pain.

Hours later, hospital staff discovered a newborn baby, Alex Ray Fierro, inside a bathroom trash can.

What happened next was captured on police body cameras and became the footage that defined the case for millions of people.

But a jury may never see it.

In Part One of this two-part episode, we walk through the night at Artesia General Hospital, what the evidence actually establishes, how early assumptions about what happened began to harden into conclusions, and the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that changed the prosecution's case more than three years later.

We explore:

• What happened inside Artesia General Hospital on January 27, 2023

• The disputed timeline surrounding Trevizo's positive pregnancy test

• What hospital staff and police knew in those first minutes, and what they didn't

• The statement from a charge nurse that quickly became part of the narrative surrounding the case

• Why no attempt was made to resuscitate Alex Ray Fierro

• What the autopsy ultimately concluded

• Why Trevizo wasn't arrested until four months later

• The body camera footage seen by millions of people

• Why the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the footage and Trevizo's statements must be suppressed

• The difference between mandatory reporting and becoming part of a police investigation

• What evidence may still remain if the criminal case moves forward

• What this case reveals about how quickly human beings turn incomplete information into a finished story

Part Two examines a much bigger question: How does something like this happen in the first place?

We'll look at concealed and denied pregnancies, neonaticide, safe haven laws, forensic pathology, adolescent brain development, and what it actually means to charge a nineteen-year-old with first-degree murder.

Part Two drops Thursday.

Website
Instagram
TikTok
YouTube

Disclaimer: This episode discusses an ongoing criminal case and is intended for informational, educational, and commentary purposes. Alexee Trevizo has pleaded not guilty, and all criminal allegations remain allegations unless and until proven in court. The discussion in this episode is based on publicly available court records, reporting, and other publicly available materials. Any analysis, interpretation, or commentary reflects the host's perspective and should not be understood as a determination of guilt, innocence, or any disputed fact.

Should a person's past determine their future?

When someone has a long history of criminal behavior, it feels intuitive to believe that pattern should matter. But in the criminal justice system, when and how it matters is far more complicated than most people realize.

In this episode of The Human Pattern, we examine one of the most difficult questions in criminal justice: Should patterns of behavior be considered when deciding guilt, sentencing, or whether someone is safe to release?

Using the tragic case of Donald James Smith and the murder of Cherish Perrywinkle, alongside the Supreme Court case Lockyer v. Andrade, we explore why the law sometimes excludes a person's past from a trial, why that same history can become one of the most important factors at sentencing, and why predicting future behavior is one of the hardest problems any legal system faces.

Along the way, we discuss:

• Why juries are usually prohibited from hearing about prior crimes (Rule 404(b))

• The psychology of pattern recognition and hindsight bias

• Federal sentencing guidelines and criminal history

• Florida's Jimmy Ryce Act and civil commitment

• The Supreme Court decision in Kansas v. Hendricks

• Three strikes laws and Lockyer v. Andrade

• Why actuarial risk assessments outperform human judgment on average, yet still cannot predict any individual with certainty

• The tension between public safety and individualized justice

Rather than asking whether the system simply should or shouldn't consider someone's past, this episode explores the much harder question of what happens when it already does.

Website

Follow The Human Pattern:

Instagram

TikTok

YouTube

The trial of Lindsay Clancy has become one of the most discussed criminal cases in recent years. Long before opening statements began, millions of people had already reached a conclusion.

But why?

In this bonus episode of The Human Pattern, we're not trying to decide whether Lindsay Clancy is guilty or not guilty. Instead, we're exploring the psychology behind why our minds rush to certainty before all the evidence has been presented.

Using the ongoing trial as a starting point, we examine what the insanity defense actually is, how courts evaluate criminal responsibility, why mental illness and legal responsibility are not the same thing, and why cases involving postpartum psychosis create such powerful public reactions.

Along the way, we look at landmark cases including John Hinckley Jr. and Andrea Yates, the legal standards that govern insanity defenses, and the cognitive shortcuts that lead all of us to form confident opinions from incomplete information.

This episode isn't about telling you what verdict to reach.

It's about understanding why our brains want one long before the jury does.

In this episode:
• What "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" actually means
• Why the insanity defense is far rarer than most people think
• How forensic psychiatrists evaluate a defendant's mental state
• The psychology of blame, intent, and responsibility
• Postpartum psychosis and why it differs from postpartum depression
• What the Lindsay Clancy trial can teach us about human judgment
• Why our brains struggle with uncertainty and unfinished stories

If this episode leaves you thinking differently about a case you've been following, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

🌐 Website

📱 Follow The Human Pattern:

Instagram

TikTok

YouTube

Make sure to subscribe or follow wherever you're listening, and if you're enjoying The Human Pattern, leaving a rating or review helps more people discover the show.

Why do ordinary people sometimes do extraordinary harm?

Most of us like to believe we'd stand up for what's right. That we'd question authority, trust our conscience, and refuse to cross certain moral lines.

But history, and decades of research, tell a more uncomfortable story.

In this episode of The Human Pattern, we explore Stanley Milgram's famous obedience experiments and what they reveal about human behavior. Why are people willing to follow orders that conflict with their own values? How much influence does authority really have over our decisions? And what does this tell us about the situations we find ourselves in every day?

This isn't about labeling people as good or bad.

It's about understanding the powerful forces that shape our choices, often without us realizing it.

Because when we understand the patterns behind obedience, we're better equipped to recognize them in ourselves.

In This Episode

• The story behind Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments

• Why ordinary people obey authority, even when it feels wrong

• The psychological forces that make obedience so powerful

• What these experiments reveal about human nature

• How awareness helps us make more intentional choices

Sources & Further Reading

• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.

• Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today? American Psychologist.

• American Psychological Association (APA)

Connect with The Human Pattern

🌐 Website

📸 Instagram

🎵 TikTok

▶️ YouTube