"The original intent of this newsletter was, broadly, to share “intel” on the world from a human perspective and, hopefully, a perspective oriented around truth discernment. That is, Truth with a capital-T. Truth as an object, an ideal. Truth as something to be sought and solved for. Truth as something that is falsifiable, conditional on new information coming to light. Truth as a North Star."
Some things I have read recently that relate to this:
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how to think about this. I can understand how "the effect of a message is more important than the truth of a message" is a rational position to take, especially if there's a chance (well, certainty) that others will take that tack.
But I can't shake the feeling that "conflict theory," that the truth value of a message is irrelevant, is (for lack of a better term) evil. From the first essay:
"This doesn’t mean conflict theory is always correct - it means it’s correct for mapping conflict arenas. When you’re actually in a cooperative space focused on building accurate models, mistake theory applies. But Twitter isn’t that space, and pretending it is doesn’t just make you vulnerable - it makes you fake."
But why isn't Twitter that space? There's no reason for Twitter to be a conflict space rather than a collaborative space. The only reason Twitter is a combat rather than collaborative space is because people expect it to be.
I feel like the only virtuous course of action is to act as if (almost) everywhere is a collaborative space where truth is paramount. Yes, there may be a subjective aspect as to which truths you broadcast, but you can back up those decisions with other truths. Other people may act in bad faith, may prioritize impact over truth; other people will also steal. That doesn't give you permission to steal. The truest version of our values, of our morality, is how we act when others do not abide by them. If you'll abandon your commitment to truth just because other do, why should I believe anything you say?
The increase in the availability of information has allowed people to selectively pick and choose which information best suits their priors. Most of the intense political disagreements today are not, at root, disagreements over objective facts (though many will try to say they are, and some of them arguably are, most notably transgenderism). They are disagreements in core value judgments. The recent ICE controversy is a perfect example of this. No one disputes the presence of people who have broken the country's immigration laws. The disagreement is between people who don't really even consider this a crime vs people who take it seriously.
You can try to cite facts in a way that suits your preferred narrative, but you generally can't change first-principle preferences, not over the Internet at least. For instance, I have heard the narrative that mass immigration is "good for the economy" repeated ad nauseum over the past few years. While I am interested in trying to make an empirical assessment of that claim, I am also willing to state up front that, to a large extent, I do not care. Generally speaking, I would prefer less immigrants over more economic growth. There is no real way for liberals to reason me out of that preference and vice versa.
As far as the general fervor and derangement of political discourse, it seems about the same to me as it has been for the last 10 years or so. There was a spike to a true fever pitch around 2020 and I believe this is because the COVID-19 response actually severely disrupted the lives of everyone, both online and off, more so than any other event in our lifetimes. It was impossible to ignore politics while governments were keeping their populations locked in their homes and shutting down their economies. You aren't seeing the same level of crash outs about ICE or orange man more generally because the fact of the matter is, none of it really affects normies very much.
>New Western (NW), a consortium of a few dozen Substackers with a shared vision of epistemic purity, was launched last year by Peter Banks and myself to iterate on these aspirations. The NW Discord community remains highly active, and maybe someday we’ll actually do something with the publication as we originally intended. In the meantime, shoot me a DM if you’d like to join the Discord. We’re always looking to add new members who are heterodox thinkers, open-minded, and conscientious.<
Unfortunately, I would advise people not to join this Discord server. I was a member for a time and while I believe it did a decent job in its mission at first, at some point certain members were introduced who were overtly hostile to discourse and chose to engage in puerile insults and vitriolic shit-stirring. At one point another member of the Discord, completely unprompted, posted "I can't believe we are still arguing with Person Online in 2026, I think he's literally retarded and should be kicked out of the server." This was just one example out of many. No moderation actions were taken and this behavior was freely allowed. While I tried to ignore it for a time, eventually I gave up and left, as I could no longer participate in the server at all without being flamed constantly.
As you can imagine, the people who decided to behave this way were partisan left-wingers who targeted me for my defense of right-wing viewpoints. The original vision of "epistemic purity" may be preserved so long as everyone speaking shares liberal priors, but if you step outside those bounds, this is how you can expect to be treated.
Idk man, you definitely liked to stir the pot and I noticed you wore people down with straw manning and even ad hominems yourself. I haven’t seen but you and just a few other people who weren’t able to get along in the server. There are about as many conservatives as liberals, your engagement probably skewed towards the latter given your right wing ideological positioning and whatnot.
This is a great article. Chapeau
Thank you comrade!
"The original intent of this newsletter was, broadly, to share “intel” on the world from a human perspective and, hopefully, a perspective oriented around truth discernment. That is, Truth with a capital-T. Truth as an object, an ideal. Truth as something to be sought and solved for. Truth as something that is falsifiable, conditional on new information coming to light. Truth as a North Star."
Some things I have read recently that relate to this:
https://open.substack.com/pub/qualiaadvocate/p/postmodernism-for-stem-types-a-clear?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around how to think about this. I can understand how "the effect of a message is more important than the truth of a message" is a rational position to take, especially if there's a chance (well, certainty) that others will take that tack.
But I can't shake the feeling that "conflict theory," that the truth value of a message is irrelevant, is (for lack of a better term) evil. From the first essay:
"This doesn’t mean conflict theory is always correct - it means it’s correct for mapping conflict arenas. When you’re actually in a cooperative space focused on building accurate models, mistake theory applies. But Twitter isn’t that space, and pretending it is doesn’t just make you vulnerable - it makes you fake."
But why isn't Twitter that space? There's no reason for Twitter to be a conflict space rather than a collaborative space. The only reason Twitter is a combat rather than collaborative space is because people expect it to be.
I feel like the only virtuous course of action is to act as if (almost) everywhere is a collaborative space where truth is paramount. Yes, there may be a subjective aspect as to which truths you broadcast, but you can back up those decisions with other truths. Other people may act in bad faith, may prioritize impact over truth; other people will also steal. That doesn't give you permission to steal. The truest version of our values, of our morality, is how we act when others do not abide by them. If you'll abandon your commitment to truth just because other do, why should I believe anything you say?
... this is why I'm not a politician.
The increase in the availability of information has allowed people to selectively pick and choose which information best suits their priors. Most of the intense political disagreements today are not, at root, disagreements over objective facts (though many will try to say they are, and some of them arguably are, most notably transgenderism). They are disagreements in core value judgments. The recent ICE controversy is a perfect example of this. No one disputes the presence of people who have broken the country's immigration laws. The disagreement is between people who don't really even consider this a crime vs people who take it seriously.
You can try to cite facts in a way that suits your preferred narrative, but you generally can't change first-principle preferences, not over the Internet at least. For instance, I have heard the narrative that mass immigration is "good for the economy" repeated ad nauseum over the past few years. While I am interested in trying to make an empirical assessment of that claim, I am also willing to state up front that, to a large extent, I do not care. Generally speaking, I would prefer less immigrants over more economic growth. There is no real way for liberals to reason me out of that preference and vice versa.
As far as the general fervor and derangement of political discourse, it seems about the same to me as it has been for the last 10 years or so. There was a spike to a true fever pitch around 2020 and I believe this is because the COVID-19 response actually severely disrupted the lives of everyone, both online and off, more so than any other event in our lifetimes. It was impossible to ignore politics while governments were keeping their populations locked in their homes and shutting down their economies. You aren't seeing the same level of crash outs about ICE or orange man more generally because the fact of the matter is, none of it really affects normies very much.
>New Western (NW), a consortium of a few dozen Substackers with a shared vision of epistemic purity, was launched last year by Peter Banks and myself to iterate on these aspirations. The NW Discord community remains highly active, and maybe someday we’ll actually do something with the publication as we originally intended. In the meantime, shoot me a DM if you’d like to join the Discord. We’re always looking to add new members who are heterodox thinkers, open-minded, and conscientious.<
Unfortunately, I would advise people not to join this Discord server. I was a member for a time and while I believe it did a decent job in its mission at first, at some point certain members were introduced who were overtly hostile to discourse and chose to engage in puerile insults and vitriolic shit-stirring. At one point another member of the Discord, completely unprompted, posted "I can't believe we are still arguing with Person Online in 2026, I think he's literally retarded and should be kicked out of the server." This was just one example out of many. No moderation actions were taken and this behavior was freely allowed. While I tried to ignore it for a time, eventually I gave up and left, as I could no longer participate in the server at all without being flamed constantly.
As you can imagine, the people who decided to behave this way were partisan left-wingers who targeted me for my defense of right-wing viewpoints. The original vision of "epistemic purity" may be preserved so long as everyone speaking shares liberal priors, but if you step outside those bounds, this is how you can expect to be treated.
Idk man, you definitely liked to stir the pot and I noticed you wore people down with straw manning and even ad hominems yourself. I haven’t seen but you and just a few other people who weren’t able to get along in the server. There are about as many conservatives as liberals, your engagement probably skewed towards the latter given your right wing ideological positioning and whatnot.
Notice that the author doesn't dispute my characterization, he tries to shift blame onto me.
Notice my characterization of nameless faceless commenters in the above post.
Jk but in all seriousness you’d benefit from being more charitable in the way you approach disagreement. We all would for that matter.