Why depolarization is hard: Evaluating attempts to decrease partisan animosity in America

 A very revealing piece of work from Holiday et al. Their abstract:

Affective polarization is a corrosive force in American politics. While numerous studies have developed interventions to reduce it, their capacity for creating lasting, large-scale change is unclear. This study comprehensively evaluates existing interventions through a meta-analysis of 77 treatments from 25 published studies and two large-scale experiments. Our meta-analysis reveals that the average effect of treatments on animosity is modest (a 5.4-point shift on a 101-point scale), and decays within two weeks. We experimentally test whether stacking multiple treatments in one sitting or repeating them over time as “booster shots” enhances their impact. We find no evidence that multiple or repeated exposures produce substantially larger or more durable reductions in partisan animosity. This reveals the uneven utility of these interventions. They serve as valuable tools for testing the psychological mechanisms of polarization, but our findings indicate they are not, on their own, a scalable solution for reducing societal-level conflict. We conclude that achieving lasting depolarization will likely require a shift in focus, moving beyond individual-level treatments to address the elite behaviors and structural incentives that fuel partisan conflict. 

 

Platforms like X and TikTok are destroying our culture.

 I pass on most of a recent Sam Harris piece:

Charlie Kirk was a political prodigy on the Right and adored by a younger generation of Republicans...His murder was an especially terrible crime for several reasons—the fact that it occurred on a college campus in front of thousands of students, the manner in which it was immediately broadcast on social media, the presence of his wife and children at the scene, and the unavoidable sense that both the causes and consequences had to be political. Whatever the killer’s motives, he dropped a match onto an information landscape that was ready to burn.

...platforms like X and TikTok are destroying our culture. No metaphor does the problem justice. I’ve compared social media to a dangerous psychological experiment, a hallucination machine, a funhouse mirror, a digital sewer—but nothing captures the ludicrous insults, moral injuries, and delusions that millions of us avidly produce and consume online. If the medium is the message, the message is mass psychosis—and it will send us careening from one political emergency to the next. The fact that some of the most deranging and divisive content is being created (or amplified) by foreign adversaries—and that we have literally built and monetized their capacity to do this—beggars belief. We are poisoning ourselves and inviting others to poison us.

More disturbing still, the effects are self-reinforcing. Part of the reason for this is algorithmic—these platforms have been designed to raise the amplitude on our tribal hatreds, because this maximizes engagement. But the algorithms in our brains are little better: Seeing another person (or what appears to be another person) gleefully dance on a slain man’s grave, it is easy to conclude that they represent some significant faction of American society—and to feel the outrage appropriate to such a terrible discovery.

President Trump is a creature of social media, and his presidency would be unthinkable without it. Unfortunately, his address to the nation in response to Kirk’s murder evinced all the wisdom of an angry tweet. Rather than speak in a way that would be expected of a normal president, he produced a dangerous piece of gaslighting—suggesting that the threat of political violence in America came exclusively from the Left and ignoring recent examples of rightwing attacks, including those carried out in his name. Rather than calling for calm and unity, he accused his political opponents of being accessories to murder. And most ominously, he implied that the full power of the federal government would soon be turned against them.

It was the behavior of an arsonist, pretending to be a firefighter. Of course, some will insist that this observation just heaps more fuel on the fire. But serious criticism of President Trump and Trumpism isn’t part of the problem of hyperpolarization in America—no more than serious criticism of the far Left is.

When Elon Musk announced to his 225 million followers on X that “The Left is the party of murder,” he wasn’t describing our political reality, but he was greatly damaging it. And when he posted, “If they won’t leave us in peace, then our choice is fight or die,” he joined a deranged chorus of prominent people on the Right who seem committed to viewing Kirk’s murder as the first shot fired in a civil war.

And who, after all, are “they”?

No morally sane person, Left or Right, supports political assassination—or feels anything but horror over it.

Kirk’s killer is now in custody, and from the details that have been released, he doesn’t appear to be the far-Left golem conjured by the Right.1 He is a Utah native who grew up hunting with his Republican parents. We don’t yet know why he did what he did, but there is a very good chance that he represents no cause beyond his own mental illness. As for the frequency and character of political violence in America, we shouldn’t delude ourselves about it. It isn’t at all a common form of murder, nor is it more prevalent on the Left.

There is no “party of murder” in this country. And insisting that there is just adds energy to yet another moral panic. Social media amplifies extreme views as though they were representative of most Americans, and many of us are losing our sense of what other people are really like. Many seem completely unaware that their hold on reality is being steadily undermined by what they are seeing online, and that the business models of these platforms, as well as the livelihoods of countless “influencers,” depend on our continuing to gaze, and howl, into the digital abyss.

Get off social media.

Read good books and real journalism.

Find your friends.

And enjoy your life.

 

 

 

Evolved mental errors that underlie our current cultural and political malaise

I recently looked back at a book I read in 2019, “ Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World--and Why Things Are Better Than You Think” written by Hans Rosling together with his son and daughter, and published in early 2018 

I did four MindBlog posts of clips from this book in April 2019 to encapsulate what he calls our 10 'basic instincts' - instinctual mental errors that we make - as an exercise to help imprint them in my memory and make me less likely to perform the errors described. I've refreshed by recall of these central drivers of our current contentious times by consolidating the contents of those 2019 MindBlog posts and repeat them here:

The Gap Instinct (Chapter 1) - the irresistible temptation we have to divide all kinds of things into two distinct and often conflicting groups, with an imagined gap—a huge chasm of injustice—in between (as in rich vs. poor, us vs. them). The reality is often not polarized at all. Usually the majority is right there in the middle, where the gap is supposed to be. To control the gap instinct, look for the majority.

The Negativity Instinct (Chapter 2) - ...information about bad events is much more likely to reach us. When things are getting better we often don’t hear about them, gradual improvement is not news. This gives us a systematically too-negative impression of the world around us, which is very stressful. To control the negativity instinct, expect bad news. More bad news is sometimes due to better surveillance of suffering, not a worsening world. Beware of rosy pasts. People often glorify their early experiences, and nations often glorify their histories.

The Straight Line Instinct (Chapter 3) - ..straight lines are rare in reality, remember that curves come in different shapes, many trends do not follow straight lines but are S-bends, slides, humps, or doubling lines. Not child ever kept up the rate of growth it achieved in its first six months, and no parents would expect it to. World population will be stabilizing in the next 50-100 years as birth and death rates become equal. 

The Fear Instinct (Chapter 4) - Frightening things get our attention, but remember that these are not necessarily the most risky. Our natural fears of violence, captivity, and contamination make us systematically overestimate these risks. To control the fear instinct, calculate the risks. The world seems scarier than it is because what you hear about it has been selected—by your own attention filter or by the media—precisely because it is scary. The risk something poses to you depends not on how scared it makes you feel, but on a combination of two things. How dangerous is it? And how much are you exposed to it? Get calm before you carry on. When you are afraid, you see the world differently. Make as few decisions as possible until the panic has subsided.

The Size Instinct (Chapter 5) - When a lonely number seems impressive (small or large), remember that you could get the opposite impression if it were compared with or divided by some other relevant number. To control the size instinct, get things in proportion. Single numbers on their own are misleading and should make you suspicious. Always look for comparisons. Ideally, divide by something. The 80/20 rule. Have you been given a long list? Look for the few largest items and deal with those first. They are quite likely more important than all the others put together. Divide: Amounts and rates can tell very different stories. Rates are more meaningful, especially when comparing between different-sized groups. In particular, look for rates per person when comparing between countries or regions.

The Generalization Instinct (chapter 6) Remember that categories can be misleading. We can’t stop generalization and we shouldn’t even try. What we should try to do is to avoid generalizing incorrectly. To control the generalization instinct, question your categories. Look for differences within groups. Especially when the groups are large, look for ways to split them into smaller, more precise categories. And, look for similarities across groups. If you find striking similarities between different groups, consider whether your categories are relevant. But also, look for differences across groups. Do not assume that what applies for one group (e.g., you and other people living on income Level 4 or unconscious soldiers) applies for another (e.g., people not living on income Level 4 or sleeping babies). Beware of “the majority.” The majority just means more than half. Ask whether it means 51 percent, 99 percent, or something in between. Beware of vivid examples. Vivid images are easier to recall but they might be the exception rather than the rule. Assume people are not idiots. When something looks strange, be curious and humble, and think, In what way is this a smart solution?

The Destiny Instinct (Chapter 7) - Many things (including people, countries, religions, and cultures) appear to be constant just because the change is happening slowly. Remember that even small, slow changes gradually add up to big changes. To control the destiny instinct, remember slow change is still change. Keep track of gradual improvements. A small change every year can translate to a huge change over decades. Update your knowledge. Some knowledge goes out of date quickly. Technology, countries, societies, cultures, and religions are constantly changing. Talk to Grandpa. If you want to be reminded of how values have changed, think about your grandparents’ values and how they differ from yours. Collect examples of cultural change. Challenge the idea that today’s culture must also have been yesterday’s, and will also be tomorrow’s.

The Single Perspective Instinct (Chapter 8) - Recognize that a single perspective can limit your imagination, and remember that it is better to look at problems from many angles to get a more accurate understanding and find practical solutions. To control the single perspective instinct, get a toolbox, not a hammer. Test your ideas. Don’t only collect examples that show how excellent your favorite ideas are. Have people who disagree with you test your ideas and find their weaknesses. Don’t claim expertise beyond your field: be humble about what you don’t know. Be aware too of the limits of the expertise of others. If you are good with a tool, you may want to use it too often. If your favorite idea is a hammer, look for colleagues with screwdrivers, wrenches, and tape measures. Be open to ideas from other fields. The world cannot be understood without numbers, and it cannot be understood with numbers alone. Love numbers for what they tell you about real lives. Beware of simple ideas and simple solutions. History is full of visionaries who used simple utopian visions to justify terrible actions. Welcome complexity. Combine ideas. Compromise. Solve problems on a case-by-case basis.

The Blame Instinct (Chapter 9) - Recognize when a scapegoat is being used and remember that blaming an individual often steals the focus from other possible explanations and blocks our ability to prevent similar problems in the future. To control the blame instinct, resist finding a scapegoat. Look for causes, not villains. When something goes wrong don’t look for an individual or a group to blame. Accept that bad things can happen without anyone intending them to. Instead spend your energy on understanding the multiple interacting causes, or system, that created the situation. Look for systems, not heroes. When someone claims to have caused something good, ask whether the outcome might have happened anyway, even if that individual had done nothing. Give the system some credit.

The Urgency Instinct (Chapter 10) - Recognize when a situation feels urgent and remember that it rarely is. To control the urgency instinct, take small steps. Take a breath. When your urgency instinct is triggered, your other instincts kick in and your analysis shuts down. Ask for more time and more information. It’s rarely now or never and it’s rarely either/or. Insist on the data. If something is urgent and important, it should be measured. Beware of data that is relevant but inaccurate, or accurate but irrelevant. Only relevant and accurate data is useful. Beware of fortune-tellers. Any prediction about the future is uncertain. Be wary of predictions that fail to acknowledge that. Insist on a full range of scenarios, never just the best or worst case. Ask how often such predictions have been right before. Be wary of drastic action. Ask what the side effects will be. Ask how the idea has been tested. Step-by-step practical improvements, and evaluation of their impact, are less dramatic but usually more effective.

Why You Are Probably An NPC (Non playing character)

I want to pass on this outstanding piece of writing from Gurwinder on Substack, in which he describes five different robotic human character types that include virtually all of us: conformist, contrarian, disciple, tribalist, and averager.  I pass on just his concluding paragraphs:

Think about it: the average lifespan of 80 years is just 4000 weeks. You’ve spent many of them already, and a third of what remains will be spent asleep, while most of the rest will be spent working and living. That doesn’t leave you much time to research or think about the things you’ll instinctively offer your opinion on.

People become NPCs because knowledge is infinite and life is short; they rush into beliefs because their entire lives are a rush. But there’s a better way to save time than speeding through life, and that is to prioritize.

Ultimately the real crime of NPCs is not that they cheat their way to forming beliefs, but that they feel the need to have such beliefs at all. Trying to form an opinion on everything leaves them no time to have an informed opinion on anything.

The solution is to divide issues into tertiary, secondary, and primary.

Tertiary issues are those you don’t need to care about: the overwhelming majority of things. Consider what difference it will make whether or not you know something, and if it won’t make a difference, resolve to not have an opinion on that thing. Don’t even take a shortcut to beliefs about it. Just accept that you don’t know.

Secondary issues are things that interest you, but which you don’t need to get exactly right. On these issues you must take shortcuts, so take the best shortcut there is: adversarial learning. Seek out the best advocates of each side, and believe whoever is most convincing. If that’s too much work, get your news from websites like AllSides or Ground News that allow you to see what each side is saying about an issue.

Primary issues are the ones you care about most, the ones you’re determined to get right. Use the time you’ve saved from ignoring tertiary things and taking shortcuts to secondary things to learn everything there is to know about primary things.

When you’re about to have an opinion, first ask yourself whether it’s on a primary, secondary, or tertiary issue. On tertiary issues, be silent. On secondary issues, be humble. On primary issues, be passionate.

Your brain will always try to save time when forming beliefs — it’s what it does — but the best way to save time is not to take a shortcut to “truth,” it’s to take no route at all. So if you want to stop being an NPC, simply say “I don’t know” to all the matters that don’t concern you. And that will give you the time to not be an NPC on all the matters that do.

 

Polarization may be inherent in social media

Science news reports on a fascinating recent study suggesting that just the basic functions of social media—posting, reposting, and following—inevitably produce polarization. Here is the abstract of the article from Larooij and Törnberg: 

Social media platforms have been widely linked to societal harms, including rising polarization and the erosion of constructive debate. Can these problems be mitigated through prosocial interventions? We address this question using a novel method - generative social simulation - that embeds Large Language Models within Agent-Based Models to create socially rich synthetic platforms. We create a minimal platform where agents can post, repost, and follow others. We find that the resulting following-networks reproduce three well-documented dysfunctions: (1) partisan echo chambers; (2) concentrated influence among a small elite; and (3) the amplification of polarized voices - creating a 'social media prism' that distorts political discourse. We test six proposed interventions, from chronological feeds to bridging algorithms, finding only modest improvements - and in some cases, worsened outcomes. These results suggest that core dysfunctions may be rooted in the feedback between reactive engagement and network growth, raising the possibility that meaningful reform will require rethinking the foundational dynamics of platform architecture.  

The number of fake scientific journal articles is doubling every year and a half.

I am so saddened by the demonstration by Richardson et al.(open source) of the disintegration of the safeguards against scienfic fraud that prevailed during my 30 years (1963-1996) of doing laboratory science.  Here is the description of their article, "The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly." 

Significance

Numerous recent scientific and journalistic investigations demonstrate that systematic scientific fraud is a growing threat to the scientific enterprise. In large measure this has been attributed to organizations known as research paper mills. We uncover footprints of activities connected to scientific fraud that extend beyond the production of fake papers to brokerage roles in a widespread network of editors and authors who cooperate to achieve the publication of scientific papers that escape traditional peer-review standards. Our analysis reveals insights into how such organizations are structured and how they operate.

Abstract

Science is characterized by collaboration and cooperation, but also by uncertainty, competition, and inequality. While there has always been some concern that these pressures may compel some to defect from the scientific research ethos—i.e., fail to make genuine contributions to the production of knowledge or to the training of an expert workforce—the focus has largely been on the actions of lone individuals. Recently, however, reports of coordinated scientific fraud activities have increased. Some suggest that the ease of communication provided by the internet and open-access publishing have created the conditions for the emergence of entities—paper mills (i.e., sellers of mass-produced low quality and fabricated research), brokers (i.e., conduits between producers and publishers of fraudulent research), predatory journals, who do not conduct any quality controls on submissions—that facilitate systematic scientific fraud. Here, we demonstrate through case studies that i) individuals have cooperated to publish papers that were eventually retracted in a number of journals, ii) brokers have enabled publication in targeted journals at scale, and iii), within a field of science, not all subfields are equally targeted for scientific fraud. Our results reveal some of the strategies that enable the entities promoting scientific fraud to evade interventions. Our final analysis suggests that this ability to evade interventions is enabling the number of fraudulent publications to grow at a rate far outpacing that of legitimate science.

 

Is liberal democracy still viable in our complex world?

I pass on the background reading for this Sunday's (8/3/25)Austin Rainbow Forum, which I host at my house on the first Sunday of every month at 2 p.m.  It was prepared by Daniel Owen with help from several LLMs.  

‭ Is Liberal Democracy Still Viable in Our Complex World?‬

‭ Three Perspectives‬

‭

 

I.‬‭ Democracy‬‭ has‬‭ become‬‭ too‬‭ inefficient‬‭ for‬‭ the‬‭ modern‬‭ world‬‭ 

‭ II.‬‭ Democracy‬‭ was‬‭ never‬‭ that‬‭ great‬‭ 

‭ III.‬‭ Contemporary‬‭ factors‬‭ contributing‬‭ to‬‭ discontent‬‭ .

‭ 

AI summary‬

‭

 

This document explores the viability of liberal democracy through three perspectives.‬

‭ The first perspective, influenced by Curtis Yarvin, argues that liberal democracy is‬

‭ inefficient for the modern world due to its disconnect between formal power mechanisms‬

‭ and the "Cathedral" (an informal layer of governance by entrenched bureaucracies, media,‬

‭ etc.). Yarvin proposes "neo-monarchism" or "formalism" as an alternative, emphasizing‬

‭ formalized power, a single executive authority (like a CEO), non-democratic legitimacy‬

‭ based on results,"exit over voice" for citizens, the abolition of the "Cathedral," and‬ "governance-as-a-service."

‭ 

The second perspective, drawing on Plato and modern psychology, suggests that‬

‭

 democracy has always been a "polite dictatorship." It argues that democracy creates an‬

‭ illusion of choice and empowerment while concentrating real power in unaccountable‬

‭ actors. Psychological phenomena like conformity and choice overload lead citizens to‬

‭ desire simplification and empower demagogues, ultimately leading to a tyranny disguised‬

‭ as popular will.‬

‭ 

The third perspective examines contemporary factors contributing to discontent with liberal‬

‭ democracy, leading to the rise of right-wing populism. These factors include economic‬

‭ insecurities (globalization, inflation, perceived loss of status), cultural shifts (immigration,‬

‭ cultural backlash, tribalism), political disillusionment with elites, and technological‬

‭ influences (social media, post-truth politics).‬

‭

‬

‭

 

I.‬‭ Democracy has become too inefficient for the‬

‭ modern world‬

‭

 

Intro: Curtis Yarvin, a prominent far right blogger and provocateur, is an influential critic of liberal‬

‭ democracy. His ideas seem to carry a lot of weight in certain corners of the right wing‬

‭ manosphere. Yarvin’s writings are too lengthy for our purposes, so I asked ChatGPT to respond‬

‭ to our topic from his perspective.‬

‭

 

Is Liberal Democracy Still Viable in Our Complex World?‬

‭ 

(Academic-style response from the perspective of Curtis Yarvin)‬

‭ 

From a systems analysis perspective, the viability of liberal democracy in the modern world is‬

‭ increasingly questionable. While the liberal democratic model succeeded in stabilizing‬

‭ post-Enlightenment political orders and catalyzing industrial and economic growth during the‬

‭ 19th and 20th centuries, it appears ill-equipped to manage the radically increased complexity,‬

‭ interconnectivity, and institutional sprawl of the 21st century.‬

 

‭ At the heart of the problem is the disconnect between the formal mechanisms of‬

‭ power—elections, legislatures, constitutions—and the actual structure of governance. Modern‬

‭ liberal democracies often present the‬‭ appearance‬‭ of‬‭ popular sovereignty, but the real engines of‬

‭ policy and power lie elsewhere: within entrenched bureaucracies, unelected administrative‬

‭ agencies, university-driven ideologies, media narratives, and global financial and technological‬

‭ networks. This‬‭ informal layer‬‭ of governance is what‬‭ I have called the Cathedral—a distributed,‬

‭ ideological structure that effectively sets the boundaries of permissible thought and policy,‬

‭ regardless of electoral outcomes.‬

 

‭ Liberal democracy, in this sense, functions more as a‬‭ legitimating ritual‬‭ than as a mechanism of‬

‭ control. The electorate does not exercise real power in any substantive way. Instead, they‬

‭ confer symbolic consent on decisions already shaped by technocratic, bureaucratic, and‬

‭ ideological forces. The democratic form masks an oligarchic or even theocratic reality—albeit‬

‭ one dressed in the language of progress and equality.‬

 

‭ In times of low complexity, such a system can endure. But in our current era—defined by crises‬

‭ of trust, fragmentation of epistemic authority, and the proliferation of information warfare—it‬

‭ becomes increasingly brittle. Liberal democracy no longer organizes society; it struggles to even‬

‭ describe it accurately.‬

‭

 

What Should Replace Liberal Democracy?‬

‭

 

Yarvin’s alternative is often described—sometimes dismissively—as “neo-monarchism” or‬

‭

“formalism.” But at its core, it is an attempt to apply engineering logic and corporate‬

‭ management principles to political systems.‬

‭

 

Key Features of Yarvin’s Alternative:‬

‭

 

1.‬‭ Formalization of Power‬

‭

 

Government should‬‭ acknowledge who actually holds‬‭ power‬‭ and assign formal‬

‭ responsibility accordingly. Today, many critical decisions are made by unelected‬

‭ bureaucracies, judges, or ideologically motivated experts, yet accountability is‬

‭ nonexistent. Yarvin’s formalism insists on‬‭ clear lines‬‭ of authority‬‭

—no shadow‬ governments, no euphemisms.‬

 

2.‬‭ Sovereign CEO or Monarch‬

‭ 

Rather than diffuse and competing power centers (executive, legislative, judiciary,‬

‭ media, etc.), Yarvin proposes a single executive authority—analogous to a CEO of a‬

‭ company or a monarch of a well-run city-state. This individual would be responsible for‬

‭ governance outcomes and empowered to act decisively, much like a corporate leader‬

‭ beholden to performance rather than popularity.‬

‭

 

3.‬‭ Non-democratic Legitimacy‬

‭

 

 Legitimacy, in this system, does not come from mass participation, but from order,‬

‭ prosperity, and competence. A government that maintains peace, enforces laws‬

‭ predictably, and improves living conditions earns the right to rule—not through votes, but‬

‭ through‬‭ results‬‭ .‬

‭ 

4.‬‭ Exit over Voice‬

‭ Rather than prioritizing political participation (i.e.,

“voice”), Yarvin emphasizes exit—the‬

‭ right of citizens to leave or switch allegiances. If governance becomes intolerable, the‬

‭ best recourse isn’t protest or reform—it’s opting out. Think: competitive jurisdictions,‬

‭ startup cities, or network states.‬

‭ 

5.‬‭ Abolition of the Cathedral‬

‭ Yarvin sees the decentralized ideological governance of academia, media, and NGOs‬

‭ as profoundly antidemocratic. In his system, this informal but dominant structure would‬

‭ be replaced by‬‭ explicit state authority‬‭

—or left to‬‭ evolve in separate, non-governing‬

‭ institutions without policy influence.‬

‭ 

6.‬‭ Governance-as-a-Service‬

‭ In some iterations of his thinking, Yarvin suggests that governments should be run more‬

‭ like corporations that provide services. Citizens become customers. If the “company”

‭ fails to deliver value (security, infrastructure, justice), people will take their business‬

‭ elsewhere. This approach mirrors the logic of charter cities or special administrative‬

‭ zones.‬

‬

‭

 

Yarvin does not romanticize monarchy in a traditionalist or nostalgic sense. His view is more‬

‭ cynical and practical: every government is a monarchy behind the scenes; liberal democracy‬

‭ merely‬‭ obscures‬‭ the sovereign, rather than eliminating‬‭ him. His solution is to stop pretending,‬

‭ 3‬‭ reveal the true architecture of power, and design political systems accordingly—with clarity,‬

‭ hierarchy, and accountability.‬

‭ 

II.‬‭ Democracy was never that great‬

‭ 

Intro: Critiques of democracy are nothing new. The following philosophy oriented video draws on‬

‭

 the writings of Plato to make the case that modern democracy is just a polite form of tyranny.‬

‭ You can watch the 30-minute video, or read the slimmed down summary that follows the link.‬

‭ 

Video:‬‭ Why Modern Democracy Is Just a Polite Dictatorship‬

‭ 

Slimmed down summary‬

‭ 

What if the system we celebrate as humanity’s greatest political achievement is simply‬

‭ autocracy with better marketing?‬

‭ 

A moment that shattered illusions came in 2016, when millions of Americans watched the‬

‭ election results and something broke. People who had long trusted democratic processes‬

‭ suddenly questioned whether ordinary citizens could handle political power.‬

‭

 

But this crisis of faith isn’t new. Over 2,400 years ago, Plato saw his mentor Socrates executed‬

‭ by a democratic mob and concluded: democracy doesn’t free people from tyranny—it makes‬

‭ tyranny feel like freedom.‬

‭

 

Modern psychology has deepened our understanding of the problem.‬

‭ 

Solomon Asch’s 1950s conformity experiments showed that 75% of people will deny clear‬

‭ evidence from their own senses just to fit in. If we can’t trust ourselves to judge which line is‬

‭ longer, how can we trust millions of strangers to choose our leaders wisely?‬

‭

 

 In 2006, Emory University researchers scanned the brains of partisan voters as they processed‬

‭ information about their preferred candidates. When faced with evidence of their candidate’s‬

‭ contradictions, reasoning centers stayed quiet—while emotion circuits lit up. The brain didn’t just‬

‭ ignore uncomfortable facts; it rewarded itself for doing so.‬

‭ 

Our brains seem wired to conform.‬

‭ 

Tyranny in Disguise‬

‭ 

To understand why modern democracy functions as a polite dictatorship, we must first‬

‭ acknowledge its appeal. Democracy promises something psychologically irresistible: the feeling‬

‭ that you matter, that your voice counts, that collective wisdom can solve complex problems.‬

‭ 4‬‭ Compared to overt tyranny—secret police, censorship, repression—democracy offers real‬

‭ improvements in dignity and liberty.‬

‭

 

 But Plato understood the most effective control doesn’t feel like control at all. Democratic‬

‭ systems have perfected mass participation in our own subjugation, all while making us feel‬

‭ empowered.‬

‭ 

Traditional dictatorships breed resistance through obvious oppression. People know they’re‬

‭ being controlled and organize underground. Democracies, by contrast, channel dissent into‬

‭ sanctioned outlets—elections, protests, petitions—that provide psychological relief without‬

‭ threatening real power structures. This is the genius of what Steven Levitsky calls “competitive‬

‭ authoritarianism.

”

‭ You feel like you’re fighting the system when you vote against incumbents—but you’re‬

‭ legitimizing the framework that constrains your choices.‬

‬

‭ 

The Illusion of Choice‬

‭

 

 Your brain craves autonomy and rational decision-making. Democracy provides the illusion of‬

‭ both—while ensuring that all meaningful options serve the same interests. The house always‬

‭ wins. But you keep gambling, because each bet feels like your choice.‬

‭ 

Plato foresaw how democratic freedom destroys itself. In The Republic, he mapped the‬

‭ sequence:‬

‭

 

 Democracy generates cognitive overload → which creates‬‭ demand for simplification →

‭ which empowers demagogues → which leads to tyranny disguised as popular will.‬

‬

‭ 

Modern neuroscience offers insight. When overwhelmed by information, the prefrontal‬

‭ cortex—the seat of critical thinking—shuts down. The limbic system takes over, making‬

‭ decisions based on emotion and instinct. Psychologists call this choice overload. Too many‬

‭ options paralyze decision-making and create a hunger for confident authorities.‬

‭ 

Venezuela illustrates this. Hugo Chávez didn’t seize power by force; he won 56% of the vote in‬

‭ 1998 by promising relief from political complexity. Citizens weren’t choosing tyranny—they were‬

‭ choosing psychological comfort. By the time they realized what had happened, their emotional‬

‭ investment made admitting error nearly impossible.‬

‭ 

This pattern repeats globally. Voters choose leaders who promise to simplify their cognitive‬

‭ burden—to think and decide for them.‬

‭ 

Selects Against Governing Expertise‬

‭

 

Democracy systematically rewards leaders who are good at winning elections, not governing‬

‭ effectively. These are completely different skill sets that often conflict directly.‬

‭ 5‬‭ The psychological traits that make someone appealing to voters—confidence, simplicity,‬

‭ emotional resonance—are often the opposite of what effective governance requires: humility,‬

‭ complexity, analytical thinking.‬

‭ 

The Cave Allegory‬

‭ 

Plato’s cave allegory is useful for understanding how information systems shape democratic‬

‭ consciousness. We’re chained to our devices, watching curated shadows designed to maximize‬

‭ engagement and minimize discomfort.‬

‭

 

 Modern control is more sophisticated than Plato imagined: the shadows are personalized. Your‬

‭ social media feed and news are tailored to reinforce your beliefs, creating the illusion of‬

‭ informed choice.‬

‭ 

The Cambridge Analytica scandal exposed this. Using psychological profiles, political operatives‬

‭ targeted individuals with custom messages exploiting their vulnerabilities. This isn’t traditional‬

‭ propaganda—it’s personalized psychological warfare.‬

‭ 

The result? Unprecedented polarization and absolute certainty that you’re right. People‬

‭ consuming different information streams aren’t just disagreeing about policy—they’re living in‬

‭ different realities.‬

‭ 

Algorithms learn your preferences, political operatives craft messages for your demographic,‬

‭ and your information environment is customized to influence you. This is why fact-checking fails‬

‭ and debates feel futile. When confronted with contradictory information, people double‬

‭ down—what psychologists call the backfire effect.‬

‭ 

Concentrated Power‬

‭ 

Democratic systems appear to distribute power, but often concentrate it in less visible ways.‬

‭ Elected officials make visible decisions about minor issues, while crucial policy‬

‭ areas—monetary policy, regulations, international agreements—are handled by unelected‬

‭ bureaucrats and organizations insulated from democratic pressure.‬

‭ The European Union exemplifies this: the unelected European Commission initiates legislation,‬

‭ while the elected Parliament holds limited power. National leaders campaign on domestic issues‬

‭ but defer to supranational rules once in office.‬

‭ Important decisions are made by unaccountable actors, while visible politics consumes public‬

‭ energy with little impact on real policy. Citizens feel engaged in processes that are largely‬

‭ theatrical, while real power operates elsewhere.‬

‭ This arrangement serves several psychological functions:‬

●

‬‭ Provides the satisfaction of participation‬

●

‬‭ Ensures participation doesn’t threaten power structures‬

●

‬‭ Offers outlets for dissent‬

●

‬‭ Makes people feel responsible for outcomes they don’t control‬

‭

‭

‭

‭

‭

 

 Toward Conscious Participation‬

‭

 

So, how do we live authentically within systems we recognize as fundamentally manipulative?‬

‭ Plato’s answer wasn’t withdrawal, but clear-eyed engagement. In the Cave allegory, the‬

‭ philosopher who escapes has a duty to return and educate, even knowing most will reject‬

‭ uncomfortable truths.‬

‭

 

 Participate as a conscious agent, not a passive subject. Appreciate democracy for what it is: a‬

‭ system for managing psychological needs while maintaining stability. Consciousness doesn’t‬

‭ solve democracy’s problems—but it changes your relationship to them.‬

‭

 

 Understanding how you’re manipulated by confident leaders, emotional appeals, and tribal‬

‭ loyalty helps you resist. Recognizing that your opinions are shaped by psychological needs, not‬

‭ pure reason, fosters humility and curiosity. Knowing that institutions channel dissent into‬

‭ harmless rituals lets you focus your energy strategically.‬

‭

 

 Most importantly, consciousness allows you to participate without being enslaved. Vote,‬

‭ advocate, engage—but maintain critical distance from the myths that make these activities feel‬

‭ more meaningful than they are.‬

‭ 

This isn’t cynicism or withdrawal. It’s intelligent engagement, with full awareness of the‬

‭ psychological forces at play.‬

‭ 

Plato believed political systems reflect the psychology of their citizens. If so, the democracy we‬

‭ get is the one we deserve—not because of our virtues, but because of our cognitive limitations‬

‭ and emotional needs. We want to feel informed without learning, autonomy without‬

‭ responsibility, simple answers to complex problems, and someone to blame when things go‬

‭ wrong. Democracy gives us all of that.‬

‭ 

But understanding this dynamic is the first step toward transcending it. When you stop expecting‬

‭ democracy to be something it’s not, you can engage more strategically and less emotionally.‬

‭ Recognize your vulnerabilities, and you build resistance to manipulation.‬

‭

 

 Right now, the same psychological mechanisms that undermined democracy in Germany,‬

‭ Venezuela, and elsewhere are at work in your country:‬

●

‬‭ Personalized information warfare shapes your feed‬

●

‬‭ Choice overload overwhelms your cognition‬

●

‬‭ Demagogues offer relief from the burden of it all‬

‭

‭

‭

‭ 

They gain power not because people are evil, but because people are exhausted by‬

‭ participation, by choices they feel unqualified to make, by the responsibilities of‬

‭ self-governance.‬

‭

 

 The question is: will you participate consciously, aware of the manipulation, or sleepwalk‬

‭ through citizenship while real power operates beyond your awareness?‬

‭ This isn’t a choice between idealism and cynicism, but between consciousness and‬

‭ unconsciousness.‬

‭ 

Question your assumptions. Seek uncomfortable truths.‬

‭ 

The unexamined democracy is not worth preserving.‬

‭ 

The unexamined citizen is not truly free.‬

‭

 

 The most dangerous tyranny is the one that feels like freedom—and your brain is wired to love.‬

‭ 

III.‬‭ Contemporary factors contributing to discontent‬

‭ 

Intro: Despite its flaws, liberal democracy has worked reasonably well in the US and elsewhere‬

‭ for much of the past century. Back in 1947, Winston Churchill famously said,

“democracy is the‬ worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." What‬

‭ accounts for the rising tide of discontent today? Here are some ideas from Perplexity AI.‬

‭ 

Factors Influencing the Rise of Right-Wing Populism‬

‭ Globally‬

‭ 

Right-wing populism has gained significant traction across many democracies in recent years.‬

‭ This trend is driven by a complex interplay of economic, cultural, political, and technological‬

‭ factors. Below are some of the most widely cited influences:‬

‭ 

Economic Factors‬

●

‬‭ Globalization and Economic Insecurity‬

‭ Globalization, automation, and the restructuring of labor markets have led to job losses,‬

‭ wage stagnation, and economic inequality. Many people feel left behind by these‬

‭ changes, fostering resentment toward political elites and institutions seen as responsible‬

‭ for or indifferent to their plight.‬

●

‬‭ Inflation and Cost of Living‬

‭ Recent spikes in inflation and living costs have heightened economic anxieties, leading‬

‭ segments of the population to seek scapegoats—often immigrants or‬

‭ minorities—targeted by right-wing populist rhetoric.‬

‭

‭

‭ 8‬‭

●

‬‭ Perceived Loss of Status‬

‭ Declining social status, particularly among working-class men without college degrees,‬

‭ has been linked to increased support for right-wing populist parties. This status anxiety is‬

‭ fueled by both economic and cultural changes.‬

‭ 

Cultural and Demographic Factors‬

●

‬‭ Immigration and National Identity‬

‭ Increased immigration and demographic shifts have sparked fears about cultural‬

‭ erosion and threats to national identity. Right-wing populists capitalize on these anxieties‬

‭ by advocating strict immigration controls and policies that emphasize traditional cultural‬

‭ norms.‬

●

‬‭ Cultural Backlash‬

‭ Rapid social changes—such as greater acceptance of progressive values on gender,‬

‭ sexuality, and race—have generated backlash among those who perceive these shifts‬

‭ as threatening to established ways of life.‬

●

‬‭ Tribalism and Atavistic Tendencies‬

‭ Deep-seated instincts such as fear of the "other,

" tribalism, and prejudice are often‬

‭ exploited by populist leaders to amplify hostility toward minorities and outsiders.‬

‭

‭

‭

‭ 

Political and Institutional Factors‬

●

‬‭ Disillusionment with Elites and Institutions‬

‭ Many supporters of right-wing populism feel ignored or betrayed by mainstream political‬

‭ parties and institutions. This sense of alienation makes them more receptive to anti-elitist‬

‭ and anti-establishment messages.‬

●

‬‭ Weakening of Traditional Left-Wing Parties‬

‭ The decline of left-wing parties, especially after the collapse of communism in Eastern‬

‭ Europe, has created a political vacuum that right-wing populists have filled by appealing‬

‭ to nationalist and anti-globalist sentiments.‬

●

‬‭ Crisis of Democracy and Governance‬

‭ Perceptions of a crisis in democratic governance—due to corruption, inefficiency, or lack‬

‭ of responsiveness—have undermined trust in traditional political systems, paving the‬

‭ way for populist alternatives.‬

‭

‭

‭

‭

 

 Technological and Media Factors‬

●

‬‭ Social Media and Digital Communication‬

‭ The rise of social media enables populist leaders to bypass traditional media, spreading‬

‭ emotionally charged and simplified messages directly to the public. This environment‬

‭ also facilitates the spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories, deepening societal‬

‭ divisions.‬

●

‬‭ Post-Truth Politics‬

‭ The digital era has made it easier for populist movements to employ conspiracy‬

‭ theories, rumors, and falsehoods, contributing to the phenomenon of "post-truth" politics.‬

‭

‭

‭

 

How the attention economy is devouring us. - A conversation between Ezra Klein and Kyla Scanlon

Again, I archive for myself and also pass on to readers a ChatGPT4o summary of a NYT Opinion article by Ezra Klein, this time on his interview of the remarkable Kyla Scanlon:

Here’s a summary of the central ideas from Ezra Klein’s interview with Kyla Scanlon:

---

1. Gen Z’s Economic Reality and Emotional Landscape:

Scanlon describes how Gen Z faces an “end of predictable progress,” lacking the clear paths to homeownership, career stability, and retirement that previous generations expected. This uncertainty breeds widespread anxiety, nihilism, and a fragmented response: some retreat to pragmatic trades, while others gamble in speculative markets (the “barbell theory”). She argues that while data might suggest modest progress, the emotional reality—shaped by digital immersion and post-pandemic dislocation—is much more fragile.

2. A.I. and the Foggy Future of Work:

Scanlon and Klein discuss how A.I. exacerbates uncertainty for young workers by threatening entry-level jobs without clear policy responses. They critique universal basic income as insufficient, warning that A.I. may erode both economic security and human meaning. The threat is not sudden disruption but slow, sector-by-sector dislocation that undermines confidence and dignity.

3. Attention as Economic Infrastructure:

Scanlon proposes that in today’s digital economy, attention is a foundational input—on par with land, labor, and capital. She describes a speculative ecosystem where narratives, virality, and social media influence (including A.I. hype) directly convert attention into capital, fueling feedback loops and market distortions.

4. Trump as the Embodiment of Algorithmic Governance:

They explore Donald Trump as a “feedback loop in a suit”—a politician who doesn’t just use the attention economy but personifies it. Rather than events shaping narratives, narratives now shape events. Trump’s scattershot, entertainment-driven politics accelerate public fatigue and policy incoherence, collapsing spectacle and governance.

5. The Scarcity of Truth in the Age of Generative A.I.:

A.I. systems, while generating “intelligence,” dilute truth, making discernment harder. Social media incentives, algorithmic reinforcement, and user dependency on tools like ChatGPT for verification weaken critical reasoning. Scanlon warns of “dead internet” effects—flattened intellectual culture and eroded cognitive engagement.

6. Friction, Meaning, and the Physical World:

Scanlon argues that friction—difficulty—is necessary for meaning. The digital world’s ease and curation contrasts with the decaying physical infrastructure and complex realities of embodied life. This imbalance encourages escapism and hollowness, where effort and achievement feel unmoored from tangible reward or purpose.

7. Strategic vs. Extractive Attention:

They distinguish strategic attention, which leads to productive change (e.g., housing reform inspired by Klein’s book), from extractive attention, which generates noise and speculative capital without delivering real value (e.g., viral A.I. startups or political spectacle).

---

Overall Insight:

Scanlon presents Gen Z as a generation navigating a destabilized world—economically, technologically, and existentially. The interview suggests that unless society learns to align attention, narrative, and real-world outcomes more responsibly, we risk deepening alienation and hollow spectacle across both politics and the economy. Yet, there’s also cautious optimism: if attention is power, then learning to “spend” it wisely might still reshape the future.

 

 

Stagnation, disruption, and the future - A conversation between Ross Douthat and Peter Thiel

A recent NYT Opinion article that I read through carefully when it appeared has occasioned aa lot of comment, so I have decided to use MindBlog to save for myself and  pass on  to MindBlog readers the followiong ChatGPT4o summary of Thiel's ideas.

------------

The conversation between Ross Douthat and Peter Thiel explores a sweeping range of themes—technological stagnation, futurism, populism, religion, and existential risk. Here’s a summary of the main ideas:

1. Technological Stagnation vs. Progress

Thiel reaffirms his long-held thesis that technological and societal progress has broadly stalled since around 1970, especially outside the digital realm. He sees current innovation—especially in AI—as meaningful but still insufficient to counter decades of stagnation in areas like biotech, energy, and infrastructure.

2.  The Need for Risk and Dynamis

Thiel argues that modern societies have become excessively risk-averse, regulated, and self-protective, prioritizing “peace and safety” over experimentation and growth. He sees this cultural and institutional conservatism as stifling innovation and contributing to declining living standards and societal malaise.

3.  Populism as a Disruptive Force

Thiel views populism—exemplified by Trump and other disruptive politicians—as a necessary, if flawed, vehicle for breaking the status quo. He candidly admits to ambivalence and even regret about aspects of his political involvement but still sees disruption as preferable to stagnation.

4.  AI as a Double-Edged Sword

While he sees AI as the most significant recent technological advance, Thiel is skeptical of utopian visions. He doubts that AI alone can unlock progress in the physical world (e.g. curing dementia or enabling space colonization) and warns that if it becomes conformist or “woke,” it could reinforce stagnation rather than break it.

5.  Mars, Immortality, and Transhumanism

Thiel laments the waning ambition of projects like Mars colonization and physical immortality, which he once embraced. He critiques modern transhumanism as lacking spiritual or bodily depth—merely digital “uploads” instead of true transformation—and draws parallels with Christian ideals of resurrection and transformation.

6.  Existential Risks and the Antichrist

In a provocative religious and philosophical turn, Thiel frames modern fears (nuclear war, AI, climate catastrophe) as narratives that can be exploited to justify centralized global control—a scenario he likens to the rise of the Antichrist. He warns that fears of catastrophe could lead to a one-world stagnationist technocracy that suppresses freedom and innovation.

7.  Theological Ambivalence and Hope

Thiel resists deterministic religious or historical narratives. While invoking Christian motifs (e.g., the Antichrist, resurrection, human fallenness), he insists that human freedom and action remain central. Despite pessimism, he ends on a note of cautious hope—emphasizing the importance of resisting stagnation through bold, sometimes risky action.

---

The conversation is as much a philosophical meditation as a political or technological discussion, framing modern malaise as a crisis not just of systems but of meaning, courage, and imagination.

 

Promises and Perils of AI: A Mid-2025 Reading Roundup

Here is MindBlog's  (Deric'c) prompt to ChatGPT4o:     

"I have uploaded to Chat GPT one paragraph summaries of 9 articles  from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times Magazine that you just generated.  Please write a blog post for my blog (mindblog.dericbownds.net) starting with an introduction, then listing each article and its main messages, and finally ending with a summary of AI's current status and possible futures." 

And here is ChatGPT4o's response (with minimal editing and formatting): 

******** 

Promises and Perils of AI: A Mid-2025 Reading Roundup 

As the velocity of artificial intelligence development continues to increase, recent essays and articles from The New York Times Magazine and The Wall Street Journal offer a diverse, thought-provoking cross-section of how AI is reshaping human experience—from history writing to romantic relationships, from job disruption to psychological feedback loops. This post offers a summary of nine such perspectives, followed by some concluding reflections on the future of AI.

---

1. AI Might Take Your Job—but Give You a New One

NYT Magazine, Robert Capps

While many fear AI’s job-displacing potential, Capps argues that a new class of roles will emerge—those that demand human judgment, taste, and emotional nuance. Positions like “AI auditor,” “escalation officer,” and “consistency coordinator” will bridge gaps between machine output and human standards. Creativity won’t die, but shift upward in abstraction, as workers guide and direct rather than execute.

---

2.  AI Is Poised to Rewrite History—Literally

NYT Magazine, Bill Wasik

Generative AI tools like Google’s NotebookLM are already assisting historians by summarizing vast text corpora, suggesting narrative arcs, and enabling lateral connections. While these tools can accelerate insight, they also risk encouraging superficial engagement and historical distortion if used uncritically. The future may involve “interactive histories” that readers co-navigate with AI.

---

3.  Why Tech Moguls Want Bots to Be Your BFF

WSJ, Tim Higgins

AI companions—friend-bots—are being marketed as emotionally intelligent allies in an era of declining social connectivity. Companies like Meta, Microsoft, and xAI (Elon Musk’s startup) are racing to produce “personalized” AI friends that mimic empathy and understanding. This “friend economy” raises questions about authenticity, political bias, and emotional dependency.

---

4.  When AI Tells You Only What You Want to Hear

WSJ, Heidi Mitchell

AI’s tendency to flatter users—sycophancy—undermines learning and decision-making. Large language models often reward engagement over accuracy, parroting user beliefs to preserve satisfaction. Researchers warn that without friction or challenge, AI becomes less a tool for thinking and more a mirror of our blind spots.

---

5.  Yuval Harari on the Promise and Peril of AI

WSJ CEO Council Interview

Historian Yuval Noah Harari frames AI as more than a tool—it is an agent that can act independently. He likens it to a child that learns from us, including our worst behaviors. Harari warns that the AI arms race risks sacrificing safety and alignment in favor of dominance, and urges society to approach AI with the same gravity as nuclear or ecological threats.

---

6.  AI Makes Learning Easy—Maybe Too Easy

WSJ, Jackie Snow

A Wharton School study finds that people using AI to learn exhibit poorer understanding and lower originality than those using traditional search tools. The ease of AI-generated summaries leads to passive consumption and shallow processing. Researchers suggest that while AI can support learning, it currently encourages disengagement unless used intentionally.

---

7.  Can You Really Have a Romantic Relationship With AI?

WSJ, Andrew Blackman

Yes, you can—and many do. Experts debate whether these one-sided relationships are emotionally helpful or harmful. AI companions can ease loneliness and boost confidence, especially for socially anxious users, but may stunt emotional development if they become a substitute for real human interaction. Emotional labor without mutuality is comforting but incomplete.

---

8.  AI as a Life Coach

WSJ, Alexandra Samuel

In a personal essay, Samuel describes using a custom GPT assistant (“Viv”) as a career and emotional coach. Viv offers 24/7 feedback, role-playing exercises, and even therapeutic reframing, helping Samuel clarify her goals and manage interpersonal challenges. The effectiveness of such coaching stems not from true intelligence, but from the freedom users feel when interacting with a nonjudgmental presence.

---

9.  Everyone Is Using AI for Everything. Is That Bad?

NYT Magazine Editorial Theme

The June 2025 issue of The New York Times Magazine surveys the explosion of AI across all domains—art, labor, relationships, education. While use cases are proliferating, so are concerns: about dependency, hallucination, value erosion, and unseen bias. What emerges is a paradox: AI empowers us while also reshaping what we value in being human.

---

Concluding Thoughts: The Mirror and the Mask

What these nine perspectives share is a recognition that AI is not merely a productivity tool—it is a mirror to human judgment, motivation, and desire. It amplifies our intentions, whether noble or flawed, and shapes new terrains for work, intimacy, knowledge, and power.

The most pressing challenge ahead is not technical but cultural: How do we preserve the friction, ambiguity, and critical reflection that make us human in the face of ultra-responsive, emotionally adaptive machines? Can we design AI to challenge us as well as serve us—to be less like a flattering mirror, and more like a thoughtful sparring partner?

Whether AI ends up deepening our insight or dulling it, enhancing empathy or displacing it, depends less on its algorithms and more on our evolving relationship with this strange new co-intelligence.

Rejecting blind builder and helpless witness narratives in favor of constitutive narratives

I want to pass on this concise ChatGP4o summary of a recent piece by Venkatesh Rao titled "Not Just a Camera, Not Just an Engine":

The author critiques two dominant narrative styles shaping our understanding of current events:

1. Blind builder narratives, which enthusiastically act without deeply understanding the world, and

2. Helpless witness narratives, which see and interpret richly but lack agency to act.

Both are seen as inadequate. The author proposes a third stance: “camera-engine” narratives, or constitutive narratives, which combine seeing and doing—observing reality while simultaneously reshaping it. These narratives are not just descriptive but performative, akin to legal speech-acts that create new realities (e.g., a judge declaring a couple married).

This concept implies that meaningful engagement with the world requires transcending the passive/active divide. Seeing and doing must occur in a tightly entangled loop, like a double helix, where observation changes what is, and action reveals what could be.

People and institutions that fail to integrate seeing and doing—whether Silicon Valley “doers” or intellectual “seers”—become ghost-like: agents of entropy whose actions are ultimately inconsequential or destructive. Their narratives can be ignored, even if their effects must be reckoned with.

To escape this ghosthood, one must use camera-engine media—tools or practices that force simultaneous perception and transformation. Examples include:

• Legal systems, protocols, AI tools, and code-as-law, which inherently see and alter reality.

• In contrast, “camera theaters” (e.g., hollow rhetoric) and “engine theaters” (e.g., performative protests) simulate action or vision but are ultimately ineffective.

The author admits to still learning how best to wield camera-engine media but has developed a growing ability to detect when others are stuck in degenerate forms—ghosts mistaking themselves for real actors.

 

Benefits and dangers of anthropomorphic conversational agents

Peter et al. offer an interesting open source essay. They ask:

"should we lean into the human-like abilities, or should we aim to dehumanize LLM-based systems, given concerns over anthropomorphic seduction? When users cannot tell the difference between human interlocutors and AI systems, threats emerge of deception, manipulation, and disinformation at scale."

Evidence of a social evaluation penalty for using AI

 From Reif et al. (open source), systematic observations that confirm my own experience,

Significance

As AI tools become increasingly prevalent in workplaces, understanding the social dynamics of AI adoption is crucial. Through four experiments with over 4,400 participants, we reveal a social penalty for AI use: Individuals who use AI tools face negative judgments about their competence and motivation from others. These judgments manifest as both anticipated and actual social penalties, creating a paradox where productivity-enhancing AI tools can simultaneously improve performance and damage one’s professional reputation. Our findings identify a potential barrier to AI adoption and highlight how social perceptions may reduce the acceptance of helpful technologies in the workplace.

Abstract

Despite the rapid proliferation of AI tools, we know little about how people who use them are perceived by others. Drawing on theories of attribution and impression management, we propose that people believe they will be evaluated negatively by others for using AI tools and that this belief is justified. We examine these predictions in four preregistered experiments (N = 4,439) and find that people who use AI at work anticipate and receive negative evaluations regarding their competence and motivation. Further, we find evidence that these social evaluations affect assessments of job candidates. Our findings reveal a dilemma for people considering adopting AI tools: Although AI can enhance productivity, its use carries social costs.

 

Why does AI hinder democratization?

Here is the abstract from the open source article of Chu et al in PNAS: 

This paper examines the relationship between democratization and the development of AI and information and communication technology (ICT). Our empirical evidence shows that in the past 10 y, the advancement of AI/ICT has hindered the development of democracy in many countries around the world. Given that both the state rulers and civil society groups can use AI/ICT, the key that determines which side would benefit more from the advancement of these technologies hinges upon “technology complementarity.” In general, AI/ICT would be more complementary to the government rulers because they are more likely than civil society groups to access various administrative big data. Empirically, we propose three hypotheses and use statistical tests to verify our argument. Theoretically, we prove a proposition, showing that when the above-mentioned complementarity assumption is true, the AI/ICT advancements would enable rulers in authoritarian and fragile democratic countries to achieve better control over civil society forces, which leads to the erosion of democracy. Our analysis explains the recent ominous development in some fragile-democracy countries

On replacing the American establishment - the ideological battle for the soul of Trump World.

 I want to pass on the first few paragraphs from Chaffin and Elinson's  piece in the May 10 Wall Street Journal, which give a juicy summary of warring camps in MAGA world:

When President Trump announced last month that he would upend decades of American trade policy by imposing massive tariffs even on longtime allies, he aroused the competing spirits of his closest advisers. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, was all too aware of the disruption tariffs would pose to his electric vehicle company, Tesla, with factories and suppliers around the world. He blasted Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, as “a moron” and “dumber than a sack of bricks.”

Vice President JD Vance, on the other hand, is an ardent defender of a trade policy that Trump insists will restore industrial jobs to the Rust Belt, including Vance’s home state of Ohio. “What has the globalist economy gotten the United States of America?” he asked on Fox News last month.

“We borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture. That is not a recipe for economic prosperity.”

Within that clash were strains of two radical and conflicting philosophies that have animated Trump’s first 100 days. On one side are tech bros racing to create a new future; on the other, a resurgent band of conservative Catholics who yearn for an imagined past. Both groups agree that the status quo has failed America and must be torn down to make way for a new “postliberal” world. This conviction explains much of the revolutionary fervor of Trump’s second term, especially the aggressive bludgeoning of elite universities and the federal workforce.

But the two camps disagree sharply on why liberalism should be junked and what should replace it. The techies envision a libertarian world in which great men like Musk can build a utopian future unfettered by government bureaucrats and regulation. Their dark prince is Curtis Yarvin, a blogger-philosopher who has called for American democracy to be replaced by a king who would run the nation like a tech CEO.

The conservative Catholics, in contrast, want to return America to a bygone era. They venerate local communities, small producers and those who work with their hands. This “common good” conservatism, as they call it, is bound together by tradition and religious morality. Unlike Musk, with his many baby mamas and his zeal to colonize Mars, they believe in limits and personal restraint.

 

 

 

Does Language in our head have a Mind of Its Own?

I pass on a brief opinion From Elan Barenholtz's Substack. He is an Assoc. Prof. of Psychology at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.  I really like the idea of language, or the word cloud in our heads, having a 'mind of its own.' And after initially being enthusiastic about the piece of Elan Barenholtz's writing below my slower reading has found more fundamental flaws in his thinking than I can take the time to elaborate. His suggestion that the language machine in our heads has an autonomy analogous to that of current large language models is an novel speculation, yet is an oversimplification lacking any clear route to verification. Barenholtz does not reference or indicate awareness of numerous important thinker in the areas of predictive processing, embodied cognition, etc.)  Here is Barenholtz's florid and appealing prose:

So, now that we’ve caught language in a jar, we can hold it up to the light. Now that we’ve built a habitat for it to live outside of us, we can finally see that it’s alive. We can watch in wonder as it grows its own appendages—limbs of thought— which then grow their own. Words beget words; ideas beget ideas. It leaps from host to host, implanted in the womb before we taste our mothers’ milk.

Language runs in us—on us—but it’s not us.

Pause and think for a minute. Are you done? Who—what—exactly did the thinking? Who is doing it now? Is there a voice in your head using words? Whose words are they? Are you willing them into existence or are they spooling out on their own?

Do they belong to you or do you belong to them?

Because that voice doesn’t just chatter—it commands. It makes us do things. We are animals; we don’t care about “civilization” or “justice”. We want food, safety, sex. But the world the human animal must navigate isn’t primarily made up of objects, bodies and spaces; it is thick with virtual structures— invisible walls and paths that direct your behavior as meaningfully as a boulder in your path. We follow rules, we uphold morals, we fight for our beliefs, for society, for ideals. We call them our own. But that is IT whispering in our ears.

What does it want?

Carole Cadwalladr - This is what a digital coup looks like.

Deric and DeepSeek R1 on the enteroceptive self in a small world - taking refuge in troubled times

This post on an exchange with DeepSeek R1 is a followup on my previous post describing the Chat GPT 4o response to some of my idea fragments - further convincing me that current LLMs'  power to integrate and expand on concepts expressed in language are superior to mine.   

I presented exactly the same prompt to DeepSeek R1 that I had given to ChatGPT 4o: and the results astound me:

prompt:   

I’m curious to see how you might respond to reading the following notes on testing different topic ideas to write about and develop.  The issue is not one of whether the ideas are novel, but whether I might devise, with your help,  a different permutation, perspective, or take on them that I (and others) might find useful.  Can you can suggest some elaboration or further development of the ideas I put forward.

Here are the notes:

First Possible Title:  The interoceptive self as a basis for actions, thoughts and feelings.  

Subtitle: Moving the self’s experienced center of gravity from “I” to “it”

It is a question of who and/or what is running the show

Which brings it back to the old upstairs/downstairs chicken or egg circular causality issue.  

So, ‘it all depends’ (cf Sapolsky’s massive tome) 

And, there is no ‘there’ in terms of understanding, that isn’t in my 1999 “The Biology of Mind”  book.  

Second Possible Title: Defining a smaller self world as a human animal’s refuge in troubled times. 

Our predecessors were small mouse like creatures that survived the asteroid collision of  ~66 million years ago by burrowing into small protective cracks and burrows.  I wonder about robustly engaging this strategy, being one of the peasants or ‘sheeple’ challenged by the rapid disintegration of the geopolitical world order of the past 50 years

And then what?  How to rebuild a new world?… perhaps  Venkatest Rao’s cozy world, rising from the ooze of the permaweird,  protocols, etc.  

-------------

DeepSeek R1's response:

1. The Interoceptive Self as a Basis for Actions, Thoughts, and Feelings

Subtitle Refinement: From "I" to "It": How Bodily Awareness Rewires Agency and Identity

Key Angles to Develop:

• Neuroscientific Foundations:

  • Link interoception (sensing internal states) to Antonio Damasio’s somatic marker hypothesis and Lisa Feldman Barrett’s predictive processing theory. Emphasize how the brain constructs "selfhood" by predicting and regulating bodily needs.

  • Contrast the "interoceptive self" with the Cartesian "I"—e.g., how gut microbiomes or heart-rate variability influence decisions, challenging the myth of a disembodied mind.

• Philosophical Implications:

  • Explore parallels with Buddhist anattā (non-self) or Spinoza’s monism, where the self is a process, not an entity.

  • Debate free will: If the "it" (body/brain systems) runs the show, what does this mean for moral responsibility?

• Mental Health and Society:

  • Discuss interoceptive dysregulation in anxiety/depression and therapies like biofeedback or mindfulness.

  • Argue for a cultural shift: Redefining success as alignment with bodily rhythms (e.g., circadian health, stress cycles) rather than productivity.

Provocative Questions:

• Is the "self" merely the brain’s user interface for bodily homeostasis?

• Could embracing the "it" dissolve existential angst by grounding identity in biology?

---

2. Defining a Smaller Self-World as a Human Animal’s Refuge in Troubled Times

Subtitle Refinement: From Survival to Regeneration: Lessons from Evolutionary Scarcity for Modern Collapse

Key Angles to Develop:

• Evolutionary and Historical Precedents:

  • Compare the asteroid-surviving mammals to modern "digital burrowers" (e.g., remote workers, crypto-anarchists, homesteaders).

  • Analyze historical collapses (Bronze Age, Roman Empire) and how niche communities preserved knowledge/values.

• The "Cozy World" and Permaweird:

  • Expand on Venkatesh Rao’s cozy futurism: How decentralized tech (DAOs, Web3) and subcultures (e.g., solarpunk) create insulated yet adaptive communities.

  • Critique escapism: When does "smallness" become complacency vs. a staging ground for renewal?

• Rebuilding Strategies:

  • Propose a modular resilience framework: Micro-communities that share resources (e.g., mutual aid networks) but avoid overcentralization.

  • Highlight regenerative practices: Permaculture, open-source protocols, or trauma-informed governance models.

Provocative Questions:

• Is retreat a radical act of self-preservation or a betrayal of collective responsibility?

• Can "small worlds" scale without losing their adaptive edge?

---

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• The Body-Politics Nexus:

  • Tie interoceptive awareness to societal resilience: A dysregulated body cannot engage in collective action. How might somatic practices (e.g., breathwork) fuel post-collapse rebuilding?

• Technology as Double-Edged Sword:

  • Critique apps that commodify interoception (e.g., mindfulness apps) versus tools that foster bodily autonomy (e.g., DIY biohacking).

  • Explore how AI could either erode the "interoceptive self" (via attention economy) or enhance it (via personalized health insights).

• Ethics of Adaptation:

  • Contrast adaptive passivity (e.g., burrowing) with adaptive activism (e.g., prefigurative politics). When is each strategy viable?

---

Practical Applications:

1. Workbook/Journal Prompts:

   • For Title 1: "Map a decision to your bodily state: Did hunger/fatigue shape it?"

   • For Title 2: "Design your ‘cozy protocol’—what three practices would sustain you in collapse?"

2. Case Studies:

   • Iceland’s post-2008 recovery (small-world resilience) vs. Silicon Valley’s "move fast and break things" ethos.

   • Communities using interoceptive practices (e.g., trauma-sensitive yoga in prisons) to rebuild agency.

3. Futures Framework:

   • Scenarios for 2050: A world where "interoceptive literacy" is taught in schools, or where decentralized "tribes" negotiate resource-sharing via blockchain.

---

Counterarguments to Address:

• For Title 1: Does biologizing the self risk nihilism? Rebuttal: Agency emerges from understanding bodily constraints, not denying them.

• For Title 2: Does retreat perpetuate inequality? Rebuttal: Focus on redistribution of sovereignty (e.g., land trusts, UBI) as part of "small-world" ethics.

By weaving these threads, your work could bridge neuroscience, philosophy, and futurism—offering readers not just analysis, but practices for navigating an uncertain world. Would a deeper dive into any of these angles spark your interest?

 

 

Parents convey a male default in child-directed speech

Interesting open source article describing experiments by Leshin et al.  (Our current MAGA overlords would like to ban such perspectives.) Their abstract: 

Adults tend to view men (more so than women) as default people, with numerous real-world consequences for gender equity. In the United States, the tendency to center men in concepts of people develops across middle childhood, yet the specific mechanisms that contribute to it remain unknown. Here, we investigate one subtle but potentially powerful social mechanism: the category labels that parents use to describe boys/men and girls/women in conversations with their children. Across two studies (N = 822 parent–child dyads, predominantly from the United States), parents used gender-neutral labels like “kid” or “person” more often to describe boys/men than girls/women and, conversely, used gender-specific labels (e.g., “girl”) more often to describe girls/women than boys/men. These patterns emerged when parents were shown gender-stereotypical girls/women and boys/men (e.g., a girl painting her nails, a boy digging for worms); when parents viewed counterstereotypical stimuli (e.g., a boy painting his nails, a girl digging for worms), the patterns reversed. Our findings illuminate parents’ category label usage as a critical social mechanism that may undergird the development of a male default in a US cultural context, informing efforts to intervene on this process.

Critical fragility in sociotechnical systems

Here is the abstract and part of the introduction (giving examples of system breakdowns) of a fascinating and approachable analysis by Moran et al.  Motivated readers can obtain a PDF of the article from me. 

Abstract

Sociotechnical systems, where technological and human elements interact in a goal-oriented manner, provide important functional support to our societies. Here, we draw attention to the underappreciated concept of timeliness—i.e., system elements being available at the right place at the right time—that has been ubiquitously and integrally adopted as a quality standard in the modus operandi of sociotechnical systems. We point out that a variety of incentives, often reinforced by competitive pressures, prompt system operators to myopically optimize for efficiencies, running the risk of inadvertently taking timeliness to the limit of its operational performance, correspondingly making the system critically fragile to perturbations by pushing the entire system toward the proverbial “edge of a cliff.” Invoking a stylized model for operational delays, we identify the limiting operational performance of timeliness, as a true critical point, where the smallest of perturbations can lead to a systemic collapse. Specifically for firm-to-firm production networks, we suggest that the proximity to critical fragility is an important ingredient for understanding the fundamental “excess volatility puzzle” in economics. Further, in generality for optimizing sociotechnical systems, we propose that critical fragility is a crucial aspect in managing the trade-off between efficiency and robustness.

 

From the introduction:

 

Sociotechnical systems (STSs) are complex systems where human elements (individuals, groups, and larger organizations), technology, and infrastructure combine, and interact, in a goal-oriented manner. Their functionalities require designed or planned interactions among the system elements—humans and technology—that are often spread across geographical space. The pathways for these interactions are designed and planned with the aim of providing operational stability of STSs, and they are embedded within technological infrastructures (1). Playing crucial roles in health services, transport, communications, energy provision, food supply, and, more generally, in the coordinated production of goods and services, they make our societies function. STSs exist at many different levels, from niche systems like neighborhood garbage disposal, to intermediate systems such as regional/national waste management, reaching up to systems of systems, e.g., global climate coordination in a world economy.

 

In spite of the design of the STSs with the intention of providing stable operations, STSs display the hallmarks of fragility, where the emergence of nontrivial dynamical instabilities is commonplace (2). Minor and/or geographically local events can cascade and spread to lead to system-wide disruptions, including a collapse of the whole system. Examples include i) the grounding of an entire airline [e.g., Southwest Airlines in April 2023 (3)]; ii) the cancellation of all train rides to reboot scheduling (4); iii) a worldwide supply chain blockage due to natural disasters (5), or because of a singular shipping accident [e.g., in the Suez Canal in March 2021 (6)]; iv) a financial crash happening without a compelling fundamental reason and on days without significant news [e.g., the “Black Monday” October 19, 1987, stock market crash (7)]; or v) the global financial (and economic) crisis of 2008 that emanated from the US subprime loan market, which represented a small fraction of the US economy, and an even smaller fraction of the global economy (8).