"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties." - Francis Bacon
There are those who over time are proven truthful and thus gain a reputation for accuracy, honesty and the most important -humility...a willingness to admit when wrong and correct. That none of these include any corporate outlets is why we're all here, and so bless them for providing us this opportunity.
Absolutely, yes. But, and I think this is important - even those who have built such a reputation must guard it fiercely as it can be rapidly lost, as having such a reputation does not protect against criticism. Anyone trying to put themselves beyond it immediately undermines whatever trust they've cultivated. It's a fundamentally different, more personal, and more open relationship than the 'reliable sources' model insisted upon by the establishment.
This is the first piece I have read that actually analyzes (correctly) what most of us do when evaluating positions/sources/what-we-read. This is a more important piece than the credit it will receive, sadly. Thanks for thinking this through and writing it down.
John, It's not the striking originality as much as taking something we all actually do and, if we thought about it, likely know...and writing it down so that others "not like us" can get some perspective. They do it, too, in other parts of their lives almost certainly, but I think it will give them some pause to consider their slavish devotion to "authoritative sources" with regard to a broader sphere. This has deep value.
In fact, an early version of these thoughts were delivered to the boomer in the bar from the piece. He seemed to get it, and I hope it helped him adjust his perspective.
The source-fetish is reproducing the pre-modern worldview of Scholastic science: the era in which every valid belief had to be based on the writings of a recognised authority, typically Aristotle. The era of the 'ipse dixit' citation ('ipse dixit', he said it himself).
Early modern natural philosophers had to fight like tigers against this pre-modern approach.
Getting people to focus on evidence rather than assertion by a trusted authority remade the West. The current regression guarantees a new dark age. As Richard Feynman once said, 'science is a belief in the ignorance of the experts'.
I'd suggest the modern approach is even worse. At least the Scholastic reverence for Aristotle (and the Bible for that matter) placed reliance on a relatively invariant source text that was difficult to modify (since you basically had to forge a passage). The modern version of epistemological authoritarianism demands faith in an endlessly mutable series of official pronouncements that can be modified on the fly to suit the aims of the ruling class.
Very good point. I'd develop it further. The Scholastics required considerable skills in literacy coupled with very well developed skills in using their memories. They were also expected to be pretty good at debate and dialogue. The late Scholastics were influenced by the humanistic studies of the Renaissance which included the development of very rigorous analysis of source material in dead languages. To cap it off, schoolboys undertaking elite level education were expected to master the application of classical rhetoric to the study of very demanding texts and had to demonstrate the ability to produce varied forms and styles on demand. Regardless of the content of their beliefs or the sources they cited, they used their minds and the invariant source text had to be handled with care and rigour.
Also, I suspect that in some cases deferring to an endless stream of constantly varied opinions possibly helps to conceal a lack of mastery, while the evasion of responsibility ensures that problems with methodology are dealt with by an appeal to consensus. It all helps to misdirect attention from where it might do well-deserved reputational damage.
This is an opportunity to make a plug for the relevance of Pierre Bayle. Voltaire observed that Bayle had been the first man in history to write a book that could teach anyone how to think for themselves. It is harder to imagine higher praise than that.
Bayle, a Huguenot who settled in Rotterdam, wrote a multi-volume dictionary that covered science, philosophy, history, religion and literature. Bayle's methodology was interesting. He looked at every available perspective, no matter how obscure or preposterous. He treated all views with equal reserve. He exhausted every aspect of each issue and tested arguments against the evidence and rival arguments. The reader makes their way through a dense mass of notes, footnotes and notes within notes. After being exposed to the complexity of the material and the controversies of religion and literary criticism, the reader is left to make up their own mind.
Bayle's willingness to ask hard questions coupled with his refusal to explain his own preferences left everyone confused about his genuine beliefs. He was revered by the leading natural philosophers of his day, practically everyone of whom corresponded or visited him. He was translated into English by a man who was (if I recall correctly) one of Newton's pallbearers.
Bayle's dictionary was reasonably well known to serious scholars across Europe until the late 19th c. Now he is known only to specialists in 17th c literature and science and antiquarians. His approach remains the gold standard.
"Despite this, academic scientists almost never make the connection between the shortcomings of the peer review system, and the unreliability of the literature. They'll usually say that while it isn't perfect, it's the best we've got, and better than nothing. In fact, it is worse than nothing, because it leads directly to pernicious complacency: a paper has passed peer review, so why bother trying to replicate the results? It's that mindset that allowed shit results to accumulate in the literature to the point where a 'replication crisis' could become a crisis in the first place."
1000 times, this! I have heard so many academics in conferences respond to "Uhm... isn't that a really bad data set to use?" with "Yes, but it is the best we have." Of course, if you were to scream back "THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU DO ANALYSIS ON IT AT ALL?!" it would make you the crazy guy in the room, because apparently that answer is good enough. Everyone in academia knows in their heart of hearts that the goal is to publish a lot and get tenure then grants blah blah blah; finding truth, or even avoiding adding to the pile of misunderstanding and falsehoods, is a distant priority for 95% of researchers.
"Everyone in academia knows in their heart of hearts that the goal is to publish a lot and get tenure then grants blah blah blah; finding truth, or even avoiding adding to the pile of misunderstanding and falsehoods, is a distant priority for 95% of researchers."
Yep. That's why they're relieved when they get an easy review.
I find it nausea inducing. It cheapens the entire enterprise, renders it hollow and meaningless.
What is even worse is that it would probably be a step up if reviewers just waved everything through. Then it would work a lot more like SSRN where people just toss things up "Hey, I did this thing, have at it." Instead you get reviewers who tank papers they don't like, whether because it contradicts their work, or they don't like some political aspect, or whatever. We might have managed to place ourselves in the nadir of utility, where doing better review or worse review would actually be an improvement on the current state.
If peer review doesn't even catch the out and out frauds, what the hell is the point of allowing any filter?
That's my view precisely. Throw it all out as soon as it's ready, and let people pick at it immediately. Errors would get ripped apart much faster. Many eyes, light bugs.
"Peace is not something you can force on anything or anyone... much less upon one's own mind. It is like trying to quiet the ocean by pressing upon the waves. Sanity lies in somehow opening to the chaos, allowing anxiety, moving deeply into the tumult, diving into the waves, where underneath, within, peace simply is." — Gerald G. May
And on a more practical point... the disconnect of academia/govt/NGO/media world is why I gravitated to the private sector (small business, cuz big corporate just as bad...) years ago.
The peer review process where it’s publish or perish means that everyone is too busy trying to publish their own substandard papers to check anything. Having to “earn” the right to work on the hard and interesting problems by publishing at an excessive rate soured academia for me; that and the politics of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch your’s. I think these things get worse every year. It’s reduced to the point now where those that are in receipt of pharma funding will often write a pharma friendly abstract that is contradicted by the contents of the paper at least in part.
The internet is great because you can access the writings and opinions of people in Russia for instance to see what is actually going on. Normies aren’t interested in doing this which is why the propaganda works so effectively on them. Still some questions remain unanswered; I have a sneaking feeling the early “mistakes” are to get rid of a load of obsolete tanks and military that have no survivability on the modern battlefield of drones, and are just consuming resources. Seems to have been the Russian way in the past. I am also wondering when their cyberwarfare capability will show up. I have a sneaking feeling it will occur at a very convenient time to push internet restrictions and further destabilise the financial system in the West at the most opportune time to push for CBDCs.
Is a desire for authorial transparency a foolish boomer ideal? I find myself immersed in the substack world where all pundits are anon (irksome), yet form a community promoting each other (good thing except that it reinforces anonymity).
Is it beyond the pale to point to one's own influences, other than nods to other substackers? Who are the writers that have names that you consider worthy? And how would you describe your politics/worldview? Can you let the John Carter mask slip a little?
Sorry to bombard you w/ so many interrogatories. I'll try to buffer the aggression by offering my own bio/influences and hope you will reciprocate as you see fit. I'm a boomer (as you know) but not a normie. Detest the legacy media. Real name William Thistlethwaite. Live in NYS, US. Married late, living w/ wife, no kids. Got red pilled by 9/11, tho I'd been a truth seeker for 15 years before that, cutting my teeth on the JFK aftermath. I'm conspiracy thinking w/ an ideological bias to the Right. Post-Catholic, neo-Gnostic, anti-Zionist, anti-neocon. Don't follow Q. I like a lot of writers at Unz and Occidental Observer. I get more information from books than podcasts as you'd expect from a boomer. I value good prose and good grammar.
Pseudonymity is a defense mechanism. In the current climate, where one's life can be rapidly destroyed for heterodox views, those who would say what they really think must do so from behind a veil. Those who speak under their own names must always be more circumspect, and in consequence are usually less interesting.
This is something that boomers, who grew up in a free society, do not generally understand at a visceral level. Formative experiences in a far more tolerant climate, combined with the relative financial and professional protection provided by age, combine to make boomers much willing to express themselves openly under their real names.
I had a friend, now deceased, from the Beat era. Kind of a mentor. Dale hated being referred to as part of the Silent Gen. He'd write all kinds of controversial stuff in letters to the local Hoboken newspaper and at the end of each letter he'd list his phone number. His nom de plume was T Weed (midnite toker). Had many intellectual enemies in town but nobody ever much bothered to call him on his pluck. Yes, that was a freer time (80's). I get that but I admired his bravery all the same because no one else I knew w/ non-liberal views was doing such combative public service.
You're not writing anything all that controversial imo and yet won't even say what writers you like. Won't offer a shred of bio. Do you really think the thought police care about small fry like us so much that their vigilant minions are just waiting for a step out of line to stomp on your White Privilege?
The pitfall I foresee looming is unless you offer an embodied style, there's considerable risk that everything you believe to be so heterodox will become mere left-brained, bloodless, abstract commomplace. C'mon, Manhunter from Mars. Find a way to start living up to your pseudonym.
Or maybe I'm just barking up the wrong generational tree and need to move on. Not in anger but w/ some measure of gladiatorial regret.
I don't think you realize how bad things are; most boomers don't. Views you might consider uncontroversial are anathema to the thought police. The Internet crawls with legions of Antifa conducting OSINT operations, doxxing people by systematically collating whatever information they can find. They can patiently watch a pseudonym for years across multiple platforms. Once doxxed, one becomes unemployable in the regular economy. Having seen this happen to many of my friends, I've developed cautious habits. Throwing out identifying personal details is the online equivalent of running at a machine gun nest.
So far as writers go, I just don't have the energy. I read extensively; listing the authors that have most influenced me over the years would take a while, much too long for a reply in the comments. Perhaps I'll do a full post about it at some point.
I've been thinking about starting a substack, to focus at least in part on this topic, finding firm footing in this fractured and disintegrating narrative landscape. I've been a long time student of such narratives, and I am astonished and appalled at how predatory and cruel the process has become especially for the oblivious normie.
I like your method. It' pretty much how I gather information and make my decisions. The Good Citizen had a good reply about not including corporate outlets, which I agree with. Granted, I am sure that there a few alt-media sites that perpetuate the idea that they are free and independent, when in fact they may be controlled opposition, but eventually you can see through it.
A lot of times, just by reading other's comments you can gather information as well and come to a logical consensus on a subject. They don't have to be writer's, just ordinary people from all walks of life. Ordinary people aren't as stupid and gullible as the elite want you to believe, and that will be there downfall. Linking once again @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
While I have a similar process in many ways, I still like and make use of the "reliable source" heuristic. Sticking to independent sources, I gravitate towards those individuals that I perceive to have motivations and values aligned with my own. These are my "reliable sources". People like you, Robert Barnes, Jeff Deist, Chris Martenson, Mathew Crawford, Michael McConkey, other anon substackers etc. Then, I just let interest guide me to keep learning enjoyable. For current events, these sources generally point to the highest quality independent sources for particular issues (as you've done here with slavland). Maybe one of these days I'll trust the wrong person and end up believing something stupid, but usually I cross check anything that doesn't resonate. I know it might seem like I'm setting myself up to be in an echo chamber, but I feel like I understand my ideological adversaries more than well enough, and exposure to those ideas and positions is toxic to ratiocination. So even though you don't believe in reliable sources, I just wanted to thank you for being one of my favorite reliable sources!
The unstated nuance in my argument is that while no source is really treated as 100% reliable, some will have higher weights assigned than others. And of course, in practice some get zeroed out - for instance, if they're clearly speaking on behalf of known bad actors. However, amongst those who contribute in good faith, there's a rich diversity of world views, no one of which is 100% accurate. Achieving cognitive parallax by accessing as many viewpoints as possible is the only way to achieve any sort of depth of insight.
Reflecting on this comment has helped me realize I do routinely monitor comments sections and my facebook (I'm friends with a lot of folks on the far left having grown up a unitarian universalist) in an effort to achieve cognitive parallax. I'd never heard that term before. I like it and look forward to using it. As a funny aside, my very favorite guitar is called a "parallaxe", and I love it even more now.
On a slightly related note, I've discovered that our local libraries will only purchase books from "reputable publishers," which translates to top 40 chic lit and pop culture, with a heavy emphasis on cookbooks and graphic novels. Very difficult to find even a 'classic,' let alone nonfiction that is not dedicated to the Narrative of the Day. So I end up buying a lot more books than I have bookshelf space.
My approach to judging quality of content is perhaps too simplistic — read widely, then apply common sense. I just don't have time to do deep research these days.
Seems similar in brick and mortar bookstores. I find it essentially impossible to locate something that looks interesting enough to bother reading.
I wasn't really describing a deep research process - more something that happens almost automatically and subconsciously when you hold all information to be provisional. Although of course, when doing a deep dive the same mindset is essential.
Oh, yes — the closest bookstore to me is a Barnes&Noble, almost an hour away, and every time I go there, they have fewer books, but more and more toys and other useless junk. Online bookstores aren't the best, but pretty much my only option now.
Understood re: deep research. Agreed re: not taking anything as Absolute Truth until sufficiently verified through one's own filter / life experience / worldview. But it's an exhausting effort these days, isn't it, having to sift through so much dreck to find something worth consideration. It's to the point that I just don't believe much of anything I hear / read / see. Which is kind of pathetic...
You're describing what sounds like a more general case of Gell-Mann amnesia. Total breakdown in the concept of authority, because they're mostly idiots. I like it.
The compromising of all so-called authoritative sources of information certainly doesn't help the case of the Source Truster, but they were always open to cognitive subversion via institutional capture precisely due to their lazy source-trusting heuristic.
I have a bevy of friends and associates who’s first response to anything I say that contradicts anything they believe is “who/what are your sources “.
My reply (knowing that if I cite anything specific it will be challenged and dismissed) is that I read everything. Then sift and balance. And then formulate my own perspective. So then they must need challenge only me. And of course when they cite, I can dismiss. Within a close circle of friends and family and everyday associations (those one wishes most to enlighten) it is better to gently tilt them off balance and have them reach for greater stability. As the old adage says, “You can lead a mule to water but you can’t make him drink”
I have two children. When they were younger they were most concerned about fashion, clothing and worried about being current.
I told them simply, that fashion is whatever you wear with total confidence.
That they could wear anything they wanted and be “fashionable” as long as they did not doubt themselves. To be confident in their “argument”. Labels (sources) were irrelevant.
And you use the term “boomer” quite a bit.
We are not all as befuddled as your recent acquaintance.
I've found that even when a source is given that reinforces my viewpoint it is rarely looked at by the other party. On the rare occasion that it is they will invariably try to discredit it by some "fact checker" like Snopes. It is discouraging when you interact with people who clearly don't want to think critically.
There are those who over time are proven truthful and thus gain a reputation for accuracy, honesty and the most important -humility...a willingness to admit when wrong and correct. That none of these include any corporate outlets is why we're all here, and so bless them for providing us this opportunity.
Absolutely, yes. But, and I think this is important - even those who have built such a reputation must guard it fiercely as it can be rapidly lost, as having such a reputation does not protect against criticism. Anyone trying to put themselves beyond it immediately undermines whatever trust they've cultivated. It's a fundamentally different, more personal, and more open relationship than the 'reliable sources' model insisted upon by the establishment.
This is the first piece I have read that actually analyzes (correctly) what most of us do when evaluating positions/sources/what-we-read. This is a more important piece than the credit it will receive, sadly. Thanks for thinking this through and writing it down.
It's probably not as original as all that. Share it around, though! (Which reminds me, forgot to add share buttons, argh).
John, It's not the striking originality as much as taking something we all actually do and, if we thought about it, likely know...and writing it down so that others "not like us" can get some perspective. They do it, too, in other parts of their lives almost certainly, but I think it will give them some pause to consider their slavish devotion to "authoritative sources" with regard to a broader sphere. This has deep value.
Thank you.
In fact, an early version of these thoughts were delivered to the boomer in the bar from the piece. He seemed to get it, and I hope it helped him adjust his perspective.
The source-fetish is reproducing the pre-modern worldview of Scholastic science: the era in which every valid belief had to be based on the writings of a recognised authority, typically Aristotle. The era of the 'ipse dixit' citation ('ipse dixit', he said it himself).
Early modern natural philosophers had to fight like tigers against this pre-modern approach.
Getting people to focus on evidence rather than assertion by a trusted authority remade the West. The current regression guarantees a new dark age. As Richard Feynman once said, 'science is a belief in the ignorance of the experts'.
I'd suggest the modern approach is even worse. At least the Scholastic reverence for Aristotle (and the Bible for that matter) placed reliance on a relatively invariant source text that was difficult to modify (since you basically had to forge a passage). The modern version of epistemological authoritarianism demands faith in an endlessly mutable series of official pronouncements that can be modified on the fly to suit the aims of the ruling class.
Very good point. I'd develop it further. The Scholastics required considerable skills in literacy coupled with very well developed skills in using their memories. They were also expected to be pretty good at debate and dialogue. The late Scholastics were influenced by the humanistic studies of the Renaissance which included the development of very rigorous analysis of source material in dead languages. To cap it off, schoolboys undertaking elite level education were expected to master the application of classical rhetoric to the study of very demanding texts and had to demonstrate the ability to produce varied forms and styles on demand. Regardless of the content of their beliefs or the sources they cited, they used their minds and the invariant source text had to be handled with care and rigour.
Also, I suspect that in some cases deferring to an endless stream of constantly varied opinions possibly helps to conceal a lack of mastery, while the evasion of responsibility ensures that problems with methodology are dealt with by an appeal to consensus. It all helps to misdirect attention from where it might do well-deserved reputational damage.
Thank you for that Richard Feynman quote; I must add it to my repertoire.
This is an opportunity to make a plug for the relevance of Pierre Bayle. Voltaire observed that Bayle had been the first man in history to write a book that could teach anyone how to think for themselves. It is harder to imagine higher praise than that.
Bayle, a Huguenot who settled in Rotterdam, wrote a multi-volume dictionary that covered science, philosophy, history, religion and literature. Bayle's methodology was interesting. He looked at every available perspective, no matter how obscure or preposterous. He treated all views with equal reserve. He exhausted every aspect of each issue and tested arguments against the evidence and rival arguments. The reader makes their way through a dense mass of notes, footnotes and notes within notes. After being exposed to the complexity of the material and the controversies of religion and literary criticism, the reader is left to make up their own mind.
Bayle's willingness to ask hard questions coupled with his refusal to explain his own preferences left everyone confused about his genuine beliefs. He was revered by the leading natural philosophers of his day, practically everyone of whom corresponded or visited him. He was translated into English by a man who was (if I recall correctly) one of Newton's pallbearers.
Bayle's dictionary was reasonably well known to serious scholars across Europe until the late 19th c. Now he is known only to specialists in 17th c literature and science and antiquarians. His approach remains the gold standard.
Fascinating. Thanks for that bit of history.
Excellent and well written!
"Despite this, academic scientists almost never make the connection between the shortcomings of the peer review system, and the unreliability of the literature. They'll usually say that while it isn't perfect, it's the best we've got, and better than nothing. In fact, it is worse than nothing, because it leads directly to pernicious complacency: a paper has passed peer review, so why bother trying to replicate the results? It's that mindset that allowed shit results to accumulate in the literature to the point where a 'replication crisis' could become a crisis in the first place."
1000 times, this! I have heard so many academics in conferences respond to "Uhm... isn't that a really bad data set to use?" with "Yes, but it is the best we have." Of course, if you were to scream back "THEN WHY THE FUCK DID YOU DO ANALYSIS ON IT AT ALL?!" it would make you the crazy guy in the room, because apparently that answer is good enough. Everyone in academia knows in their heart of hearts that the goal is to publish a lot and get tenure then grants blah blah blah; finding truth, or even avoiding adding to the pile of misunderstanding and falsehoods, is a distant priority for 95% of researchers.
"Everyone in academia knows in their heart of hearts that the goal is to publish a lot and get tenure then grants blah blah blah; finding truth, or even avoiding adding to the pile of misunderstanding and falsehoods, is a distant priority for 95% of researchers."
Yep. That's why they're relieved when they get an easy review.
I find it nausea inducing. It cheapens the entire enterprise, renders it hollow and meaningless.
What is even worse is that it would probably be a step up if reviewers just waved everything through. Then it would work a lot more like SSRN where people just toss things up "Hey, I did this thing, have at it." Instead you get reviewers who tank papers they don't like, whether because it contradicts their work, or they don't like some political aspect, or whatever. We might have managed to place ourselves in the nadir of utility, where doing better review or worse review would actually be an improvement on the current state.
If peer review doesn't even catch the out and out frauds, what the hell is the point of allowing any filter?
That's my view precisely. Throw it all out as soon as it's ready, and let people pick at it immediately. Errors would get ripped apart much faster. Many eyes, light bugs.
What's the term for the diametric opposite of Pareto-optimised?!
Hmmm... Pareto-borked? Pareto-Impaired?
💯 🙌 ❤️
"Peace is not something you can force on anything or anyone... much less upon one's own mind. It is like trying to quiet the ocean by pressing upon the waves. Sanity lies in somehow opening to the chaos, allowing anxiety, moving deeply into the tumult, diving into the waves, where underneath, within, peace simply is." — Gerald G. May
And on a more practical point... the disconnect of academia/govt/NGO/media world is why I gravitated to the private sector (small business, cuz big corporate just as bad...) years ago.
The peer review process where it’s publish or perish means that everyone is too busy trying to publish their own substandard papers to check anything. Having to “earn” the right to work on the hard and interesting problems by publishing at an excessive rate soured academia for me; that and the politics of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch your’s. I think these things get worse every year. It’s reduced to the point now where those that are in receipt of pharma funding will often write a pharma friendly abstract that is contradicted by the contents of the paper at least in part.
The internet is great because you can access the writings and opinions of people in Russia for instance to see what is actually going on. Normies aren’t interested in doing this which is why the propaganda works so effectively on them. Still some questions remain unanswered; I have a sneaking feeling the early “mistakes” are to get rid of a load of obsolete tanks and military that have no survivability on the modern battlefield of drones, and are just consuming resources. Seems to have been the Russian way in the past. I am also wondering when their cyberwarfare capability will show up. I have a sneaking feeling it will occur at a very convenient time to push internet restrictions and further destabilise the financial system in the West at the most opportune time to push for CBDCs.
Is a desire for authorial transparency a foolish boomer ideal? I find myself immersed in the substack world where all pundits are anon (irksome), yet form a community promoting each other (good thing except that it reinforces anonymity).
Is it beyond the pale to point to one's own influences, other than nods to other substackers? Who are the writers that have names that you consider worthy? And how would you describe your politics/worldview? Can you let the John Carter mask slip a little?
Sorry to bombard you w/ so many interrogatories. I'll try to buffer the aggression by offering my own bio/influences and hope you will reciprocate as you see fit. I'm a boomer (as you know) but not a normie. Detest the legacy media. Real name William Thistlethwaite. Live in NYS, US. Married late, living w/ wife, no kids. Got red pilled by 9/11, tho I'd been a truth seeker for 15 years before that, cutting my teeth on the JFK aftermath. I'm conspiracy thinking w/ an ideological bias to the Right. Post-Catholic, neo-Gnostic, anti-Zionist, anti-neocon. Don't follow Q. I like a lot of writers at Unz and Occidental Observer. I get more information from books than podcasts as you'd expect from a boomer. I value good prose and good grammar.
Pseudonymity is a defense mechanism. In the current climate, where one's life can be rapidly destroyed for heterodox views, those who would say what they really think must do so from behind a veil. Those who speak under their own names must always be more circumspect, and in consequence are usually less interesting.
This is something that boomers, who grew up in a free society, do not generally understand at a visceral level. Formative experiences in a far more tolerant climate, combined with the relative financial and professional protection provided by age, combine to make boomers much willing to express themselves openly under their real names.
I had a friend, now deceased, from the Beat era. Kind of a mentor. Dale hated being referred to as part of the Silent Gen. He'd write all kinds of controversial stuff in letters to the local Hoboken newspaper and at the end of each letter he'd list his phone number. His nom de plume was T Weed (midnite toker). Had many intellectual enemies in town but nobody ever much bothered to call him on his pluck. Yes, that was a freer time (80's). I get that but I admired his bravery all the same because no one else I knew w/ non-liberal views was doing such combative public service.
You're not writing anything all that controversial imo and yet won't even say what writers you like. Won't offer a shred of bio. Do you really think the thought police care about small fry like us so much that their vigilant minions are just waiting for a step out of line to stomp on your White Privilege?
The pitfall I foresee looming is unless you offer an embodied style, there's considerable risk that everything you believe to be so heterodox will become mere left-brained, bloodless, abstract commomplace. C'mon, Manhunter from Mars. Find a way to start living up to your pseudonym.
Or maybe I'm just barking up the wrong generational tree and need to move on. Not in anger but w/ some measure of gladiatorial regret.
I don't think you realize how bad things are; most boomers don't. Views you might consider uncontroversial are anathema to the thought police. The Internet crawls with legions of Antifa conducting OSINT operations, doxxing people by systematically collating whatever information they can find. They can patiently watch a pseudonym for years across multiple platforms. Once doxxed, one becomes unemployable in the regular economy. Having seen this happen to many of my friends, I've developed cautious habits. Throwing out identifying personal details is the online equivalent of running at a machine gun nest.
So far as writers go, I just don't have the energy. I read extensively; listing the authors that have most influenced me over the years would take a while, much too long for a reply in the comments. Perhaps I'll do a full post about it at some point.
Good bye.
I've been thinking about starting a substack, to focus at least in part on this topic, finding firm footing in this fractured and disintegrating narrative landscape. I've been a long time student of such narratives, and I am astonished and appalled at how predatory and cruel the process has become especially for the oblivious normie.
I like your method. It' pretty much how I gather information and make my decisions. The Good Citizen had a good reply about not including corporate outlets, which I agree with. Granted, I am sure that there a few alt-media sites that perpetuate the idea that they are free and independent, when in fact they may be controlled opposition, but eventually you can see through it.
A lot of times, just by reading other's comments you can gather information as well and come to a logical consensus on a subject. They don't have to be writer's, just ordinary people from all walks of life. Ordinary people aren't as stupid and gullible as the elite want you to believe, and that will be there downfall. Linking once again @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Another great one John.
For my simple mind, I revert to a smell-test.
If it stinks, verify it's shit, otherwise, do as you wish.
30% have no "skepticism". They just fall into the hole.
Another 30%, have too much. They bypass the hole, not 5-Why-ing.
The remaining 40%, stop, look at the hole, verify it exists, then ask who dug the whole hole....and proceed to ask more questions...
There is a bell curve for everything.
While I have a similar process in many ways, I still like and make use of the "reliable source" heuristic. Sticking to independent sources, I gravitate towards those individuals that I perceive to have motivations and values aligned with my own. These are my "reliable sources". People like you, Robert Barnes, Jeff Deist, Chris Martenson, Mathew Crawford, Michael McConkey, other anon substackers etc. Then, I just let interest guide me to keep learning enjoyable. For current events, these sources generally point to the highest quality independent sources for particular issues (as you've done here with slavland). Maybe one of these days I'll trust the wrong person and end up believing something stupid, but usually I cross check anything that doesn't resonate. I know it might seem like I'm setting myself up to be in an echo chamber, but I feel like I understand my ideological adversaries more than well enough, and exposure to those ideas and positions is toxic to ratiocination. So even though you don't believe in reliable sources, I just wanted to thank you for being one of my favorite reliable sources!
Lol. Thanks!
The unstated nuance in my argument is that while no source is really treated as 100% reliable, some will have higher weights assigned than others. And of course, in practice some get zeroed out - for instance, if they're clearly speaking on behalf of known bad actors. However, amongst those who contribute in good faith, there's a rich diversity of world views, no one of which is 100% accurate. Achieving cognitive parallax by accessing as many viewpoints as possible is the only way to achieve any sort of depth of insight.
Reflecting on this comment has helped me realize I do routinely monitor comments sections and my facebook (I'm friends with a lot of folks on the far left having grown up a unitarian universalist) in an effort to achieve cognitive parallax. I'd never heard that term before. I like it and look forward to using it. As a funny aside, my very favorite guitar is called a "parallaxe", and I love it even more now.
On a slightly related note, I've discovered that our local libraries will only purchase books from "reputable publishers," which translates to top 40 chic lit and pop culture, with a heavy emphasis on cookbooks and graphic novels. Very difficult to find even a 'classic,' let alone nonfiction that is not dedicated to the Narrative of the Day. So I end up buying a lot more books than I have bookshelf space.
My approach to judging quality of content is perhaps too simplistic — read widely, then apply common sense. I just don't have time to do deep research these days.
Seems similar in brick and mortar bookstores. I find it essentially impossible to locate something that looks interesting enough to bother reading.
I wasn't really describing a deep research process - more something that happens almost automatically and subconsciously when you hold all information to be provisional. Although of course, when doing a deep dive the same mindset is essential.
Oh, yes — the closest bookstore to me is a Barnes&Noble, almost an hour away, and every time I go there, they have fewer books, but more and more toys and other useless junk. Online bookstores aren't the best, but pretty much my only option now.
Understood re: deep research. Agreed re: not taking anything as Absolute Truth until sufficiently verified through one's own filter / life experience / worldview. But it's an exhausting effort these days, isn't it, having to sift through so much dreck to find something worth consideration. It's to the point that I just don't believe much of anything I hear / read / see. Which is kind of pathetic...
In many ways it's a reversion to the pre-modern norm. You can believe only what you've seen with your own eyes. Everything else is hearsay.
You're describing what sounds like a more general case of Gell-Mann amnesia. Total breakdown in the concept of authority, because they're mostly idiots. I like it.
The compromising of all so-called authoritative sources of information certainly doesn't help the case of the Source Truster, but they were always open to cognitive subversion via institutional capture precisely due to their lazy source-trusting heuristic.
Well said.
I have a bevy of friends and associates who’s first response to anything I say that contradicts anything they believe is “who/what are your sources “.
My reply (knowing that if I cite anything specific it will be challenged and dismissed) is that I read everything. Then sift and balance. And then formulate my own perspective. So then they must need challenge only me. And of course when they cite, I can dismiss. Within a close circle of friends and family and everyday associations (those one wishes most to enlighten) it is better to gently tilt them off balance and have them reach for greater stability. As the old adage says, “You can lead a mule to water but you can’t make him drink”
Precisely. It's the argument that matters, not the source.
Yes, as you say, precisely.
I have two children. When they were younger they were most concerned about fashion, clothing and worried about being current.
I told them simply, that fashion is whatever you wear with total confidence.
That they could wear anything they wanted and be “fashionable” as long as they did not doubt themselves. To be confident in their “argument”. Labels (sources) were irrelevant.
And you use the term “boomer” quite a bit.
We are not all as befuddled as your recent acquaintance.
I was using boomer in a descriptive rather than pejorative sense in this case, the point of the essay not being to rag on my parents' generation.
My own parents raised me in a similar fashion as regards fashion, a lesson that's saved me a lot of money over the years. Good for you.
Haha, good for them, also.
But fashion was merely illustrative.
Yes, I got that.
Thanks
And I compliment you on your writing - clear, precise and a pleasure to read.
I've found that even when a source is given that reinforces my viewpoint it is rarely looked at by the other party. On the rare occasion that it is they will invariably try to discredit it by some "fact checker" like Snopes. It is discouraging when you interact with people who clearly don't want to think critically.