Hey! I'd love to hear your thoughts, send me a voice note.

Why has Candace Owens continued returning to Charlie Kirk’s assassination, and what happens when questioning an official narrative develops into something much larger?

In this episode of The Psychological Eval, Corey examines Owens’ extensive public commentary surrounding Charlie Kirk, the investigation into his death, Turning Point USA, Erika Kirk, and the numerous theories and allegations that have emerged along the way.

Rather than diagnosing anyone or deciding which theory listeners should believe, this episode explores the psychology surrounding the controversy, including confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, grief, pattern recognition, cognitive dissonance, social identity, and the powerful reinforcement created by online audiences.

We also examine an important distinction that can easily disappear online: asking questions is not the same as proving an allegation.

Where does healthy skepticism end? What evidence should be required before suspicion becomes accusation? And why can certain stories become increasingly difficult for creators and audiences to walk away from?

This is The Psychological Eval: examining the psychology behind the internet’s biggest controversies without telling you which side to take.

Disclaimer: This episode contains commentary, opinion, and psychological analysis of publicly available information. No psychological or psychiatric diagnosis of any individual is intended. Allegations discussed are identified as allegations unless independently established. Tyler Robinson has pleaded not guilty, and the criminal proceedings concerning Charlie Kirk’s death remain ongoing as of this episode’s publication.

Portions of third-party material, if included, are used for purposes such as criticism, commentary, and news reporting consistent with the principles of fair use under Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Hey! I'd love to hear your thoughts, send me a voice note.

In Episode 2 of The Psychological Eval, Corey examines the public commentary of social media personality and podcaster Big Matt (Matthew Chappell) through a psychological lens.

Rather than deciding who's “good” or “bad,” this episode digs into the psychology behind the way we communicate online. Using Big Matt's publicly available commentary as the starting point, Corey explores confirmation bias, social identity theory, group polarization, selective empathy, moral exclusion, and the powerful role outrage plays in social-media engagement.

But this isn't a takedown.

The evaluation also examines moments where Big Matt has advocated for people facing discrimination, creating a more complicated picture than either supporters or critics might expect. The larger question becomes whether legitimate anger toward injustice can sometimes evolve into the same kind of generalization we're trying to fight.

Hey! I'd love to hear your thoughts, send me a voice note.

Everyone has a side. But what happens when defending yours turns into tearing someone else down?

Screenshots, divided loyalties, and public insults—when does online drama become personal?

In the premiere of The Psychological Eval, Corey examines the situation involving Alana, Madison, and messages connected to Kayla’s account. Through selected posts, message excerpts, and a participant’s perspective, this episode explores how an argument about behavior becomes a battle over character and reputation.

We’re talking about public shaming, mental-health stigma, the assumptions we make about emotional reactions, and whether protecting a friend can affect how we interpret a conflict. Can compassion and accountability coexist? And what does hearing “both sides” actually require?

Hey! I'd love to hear your thoughts, send me a voice note.

In Episode 4 of The Psychological Eval, Corey examines the public behavior and online controversies surrounding influencer Lilly Tino. The episode explores restaurant confrontations, the filming of workers and bystanders, privacy concerns involving Disney restrooms, and the way social-media algorithms reward emotionally charged conflict.

The discussion separates Lilly’s gender identity from her conduct. It also acknowledges that some criticism directed toward Lilly crosses into genuine anti-trans harassment. Respecting someone’s identity does not require defending everything they do, and criticizing specific behavior does not justify attacking an entire community.