Language

September 30, 2025

28 Cognitive Distortions

Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. They can convince us that untrue things are true, or vice versa.

Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive — the very opposite of healthy, critical thinking.

These unhelpful ways of thinking can limit one’s ability to function and excel in the world. Cognitive distortions are linked to anxiety, depression, addiction, and eating disorders. They reinforce negative thinking loops, which tend to compound and worsen over time.

Irrational thinking: And how to counter it

Every day, our minds take shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information we encounter. These shortcuts—cognitive distortions—helped our ancestors survive in environments where quick judgments meant the difference between life and death. But in today’s complex world, where we’re making decisions about careers, relationships, investments, and strategy, these same mental patterns can systematically lead us astray.

Cognitive distortions are systematic patterns of thought that can lead to inaccurate or irrational conclusions. These distortions often serve as mental traps, skewing our perception of reality and affecting our emotional well-being.

The good news? Simply knowing these distortions (as well as other common psychological biases) exist makes you a better thinker. Research in metacognition shows that awareness is the first step toward correction. You can’t debug code you don’t know is buggy, and you can’t fix thinking patterns you can’t see.

Here’s the hard truth: everyone experiences these distortions. The difference between mediocre and exceptional decision-makers isn’t that one group never falls into these traps—it’s that they’ve trained themselves to spot the patterns, pause, and course-correct. They’ve built systems to counteract their brain’s default programming.

Types of cognitive distortion

What types of cognitive distortion should we be aware of? Let’s delve into three common types: emotional reasoning, counterfactual thinking, and catastrophizing.

Emotional Reasoning: This distortion involves using one’s emotions as a barometer for truth. For example, if you feel anxious, you might conclude that something bad is going to happen, even if there’s no objective evidence to support that belief. Emotional reasoning can create a self-perpetuating cycle: your emotions validate your distorted thoughts, which in turn intensify your emotions.
Counterfactual Thinking: This involves imagining alternative scenarios that could have occurred but didn’t. While this can be useful for problem-solving and learning, it becomes a cognitive distortion when it leads to excessive rumination and regret. For instance, thinking “If only I had done X, then Y wouldn’t have happened” can make you stuck in a loop of what-ifs, preventing you from moving forward.
Catastrophizing: This is the tendency to imagine the worst possible outcome in any given situation. It’s like always expecting a minor stumble to turn into a catastrophic fall. This distortion can lead to heightened stress and anxiety, as you’re constantly bracing for disaster.

But there are many more mental pitfalls to watch out for besides just these 3. The table below catalogues some of the most common cognitive distortions that shape (and warp) human thinking. As you read through them, you’ll likely recognize patterns from your own mental habits. That moment of recognition isn’t a weakness—it’s the beginning of cognitive sovereignty. The path to better decisions starts with knowing when your brain is trying to take shortcuts, and choosing to think deliberately instead.

Consider this your debugging toolkit for the most important software you’ll ever run: your own mind.

Cognitive distortions list

Cognitive distortion	Explanation	Example
all-or-nothing thinking	viewing everything in absolute and extremely polarized terms	“nothing good ever happens” or “I’m always behind”
blaming	focusing on other people as source of your negative feelings, & refusing to take responsibility for changing yourself; or conversely, blaming yourself harshly for things that were out of your control	“It’s my boss’s fault I’m always stressed at work, or conversely, “It’s all my fault that the project failed, even though I had no control over the budget cuts.”
catastrophizing	belief that disaster will strike no matter what, and that what will happen will be too awful to bear	If I don’t get this promotion, my life will be ruined and I’ll end up homeless.
counterfactual thinking	A kind of mental bargaining or longing to live in the alternate timeline where one had made a different decision	If only I had studied harder for that exam, I wouldn’t be in this situation now.
dichotomous thinking	viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms	“If I don’t get a perfect score on this test, then I’m a complete failure.”
discounting positives	claiming that positive things you or others do are trivial, or ignoring good things that have happened to you	“I got a promotion, but it’s not a big deal; anyone could have done it.”
emotional reasoning	letting feelings guide interpretation of reality; a way of judging yourself or your circumstances based on your emotions	“I feel like a failure, so I must be one.”
filtering	mentally “filters out” the positive aspects of a situation while magnifying the negative aspects	Even though I got a promotion and a raise, I can’t stop thinking about the one negative comment my boss made during my performance review.
fortune-telling	predicting the future negatively	I just know I’m going to fail this test, even though I’ve studied for weeks.
framing effects	tendency for decisions to be shaped by inconsequential features of choice problems	Choosing the “90% fat-free” yogurt over the “10% fat” yogurt, even though they are nutritionally identical, because the positive framing sounds healthier.
halo effect	belief that one’s success in a domain automagically qualifies them to have skills and expertise in other areas	Because someone is a successful actor, I assume they must also be a brilliant political commentator.
illusory correlation	tendency to perceive a relationship between two variables when no relation exists	Every time I wash my car, it rains, so I must be causing the rain.
inability to disconfirm	reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict negative thoughts	Despite being shown evidence of her good work, she clung to the belief that she was incompetent.
intuitive heuristics	tendency when faced with a difficult question of answering an easier question instead, typically without noticing the substitution	When asked if they are a happy person, someone might answer if they are happy right now, instead of considering their overall happiness.
just-world hypothesis	belief that good things tend to happen to good people, while bad things tend to happen to bad people	She believes that because she works hard and is a good person, she is guaranteed to win the lottery, while bad things only happen to those who deserve it.
labeling	assigning global negative traits to self & others; making a judgment about yourself or someone else as a person, versus seeing the behavior as something they did that doesn’t define them as an individual	“I’m a complete idiot for making that mistake,” instead of “I made a mistake.”
ludic fallacy	in assessing the potential amount of risk in a system or decision, mistaking the real randomness of life for the well-defined risk of casinos	A gambler believes that since a roulette wheel has landed on red five times in a row, it’s more likely to land on black next, mistaking the independent probability of each spin for a predictable pattern.
magical thinking	a way of imagining you can wish reality into existence through the sheer force of your mind. Part of a child developmental phase that not everyone grows out of.	If I just wish hard enough, I can make my dream job appear without applying for it.
magnification	exaggerating the importance of flaws and problems while minimizing the impact of desirable qualities and achievements	Even though I successfully completed the complex project, I can’t stop focusing on the minor typo I made in one email.
mind reading	assuming what someone is thinking w/o sufficient evidence; jumping to conclusions	My boss didn’t say good morning, so she must be angry with me.
negative filtering	focusing exclusively on negatives & ignoring positives	Even after receiving a glowing performance review, she could only dwell on the one minor suggestion for improvement.
nominal realism	child development phase where names of objects aren’t just symbols but intrinsic parts of the objects. Sometimes called word realism, and related to magical thinking	A child believing that if you call a dog a “cat,” it will actually become a cat, demonstrates nominal realism.
overgeneralizing	making a rule or predicting globally negative patterns on the basis of single incident	Because I tripped on the sidewalk today, I know it’s going to be a terrible week.
projection	attributing qualities to external actors or forces that one feels within and either a) wishes to promote and have echoed back to onself, or b) eradicate or squelch from oneself by believing that the quality exists elsewhere, in others, but not in oneself	He accused his coworker of being lazy, when in reality, he was struggling with his own motivation.
provincialism	the tendency to see things only from the point of view of those in charge of our immediate in-groups	She couldn’t understand why anyone would disagree with her team’s strategy, assuming their way was the only correct approach because it’s what her superiors believed.
shoulds	a list of ironclad rules one lives and punishes oneself by	“I should always be perfect, and if I’m not, I’m a complete failure.”
teleological fallacy	illusion that you know exactly where you’re going, knew exactly where you were going in the past, & that others have succeeded in the past by knowing where they were going	I always knew I would become a successful entrepreneur because every step I took, even the detours, perfectly led me to this point.
what if?	keep asking series of ?s on prospective events & being unsatisfied with any answers	What if I fail the exam, and what if that means I’ll never get into college, and what if my whole future is ruined because of this one test?

More related to cognitive distortions:

30 Common psychological biases ↗

These systematic errors in our thinking and logic affect our everyday choices, behaviors, and evaluations of others.

Top Mental Models for Thinkers ↗

Model thinking is an excellent way of improving our cognition and decision making abilities.

24 Logical fallacies list ↗

Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

September 28, 2025

Black and White Thinking

Black and white thinking is the tendency to see things in extremes, viewing the world through a very polarized lens. Even complex moral issues are seen as clearcut, with simple right and wrong answers and no gray areas in between.

Also referred to as all-or-nothing thinking or dichotomous thinking, black and white thinking is a very rigid and binary way of looking at the world. Black and white thinkers tend to categorize things, events, people, and experiences as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuance or shades of gray. This can manifest in various aspects of their lives including relationships, decision-making, and self-evaluation. Black and white thinking can be a defense mechanism, as it provides a sense of certainty and control in situations that are complex, uncertain, or anxiety-provoking.

For example, a person who engages in black and white thinking may view their work performance as either completely successful or a complete failure, without considering any middle ground. They may view themselves as either a “good” or “bad” person, based on a single action or mistake. This type of extreme thinking can lead to feelings of extreme anxiety, depression, and self-doubt, as well as difficulties in personal and professional relationships.

Black and white thinking in political psychology

Black and white thinking can also be seen in political or social contexts, where individuals categorize people or groups as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuances or complexities. This type of thinking can lead to polarizing beliefs, rigid ideologies, and an unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue or compromise.

The origins of black and white thinking are complex and multifaceted, but it can stem from a variety of factors, including childhood experiences, cultural and societal influences, and psychological disorders including personality disorder. For example, individuals who have experienced trauma or abuse may engage in black and white thinking as a way to cope with the complexity and ambiguity of their experiences. Similarly, cultural or societal influences that promote a strict adherence to binary categories can also contribute to black and white thinking.

Psychological disorders such as borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders are also associated with black and white thinking. For example, individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) may see themselves or others as either completely good or completely bad, without any middle ground. This type of thinking can lead to unstable relationships, impulsive behavior, and emotional dysregulation.

Narcissists too, especially malignant narcissists, tend to exhibit black and white thinking, with the frequent framing of any narrative as being primarily about themselves (good/The Hero) and everyone else (bad/The Other).

Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era

The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking

The modern information ecosystem has created unprecedented conditions for black and white thinking to flourish. Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, systematically promote content that evokes strong emotional responses—often content that presents complex issues in oversimplified, polarizing terms.

Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms

Contemporary digital platforms operate on engagement metrics that inadvertently reward binary thinking:

Filter Bubble Formation: Recommendation algorithms create echo chambers where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs
Engagement Optimization: Content that provokes outrage or strong agreement receives higher distribution (and ultimately, revenue), marginalizing nuanced perspectives
Attention Economy Dynamics: The competition for limited attention spans incentivizes simplified, emotionally charged messaging over complex analysis — going straight for the jugular of common mental heuristics works

Information Processing Under Cognitive Load

Research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that when individuals experience high cognitive load—a common state in our information-saturated environment—they default to simplified decision-making heuristics. This neurological tendency combines with digital information delivery systems to create systematic biases toward binary categorization.

Contemporary Political Manifestations

Black and white thinking has become increasingly prominent in political discourse, with profound implications for democratic institutions and social cohesion.

Institutional Polarization Patterns

Recent decades have witnessed unprecedented levels of political polarization across multiple institutional domains:

Legislative Dynamics: Congressional voting patterns show dramatic increases in party-line voting, with bipartisan legislation becoming increasingly rare. This reflects not just strategic positioning but fundamental shifts in how political actors conceptualize policy problems and solutions.

Media Ecosystem Fragmentation: The proliferation of ideologically aligned media sources enables individuals to construct information diets that reinforce binary worldviews. Traditional journalistic ethics of objectivity and balance in a fundamentally evidentiary role have been challenged by partisan media models that explicitly advocate for particular political perspectives.

Electoral Coalition Building: Political campaigns increasingly rely on mobilizing base supporters through appeals to fundamental differences with opponents, rather than building broad coalitions through compromise and incremental policy development.

Identity-Based Political Cognition

Modern political psychology research reveals how black and white thinking intersects with identity formation:

Social Identity Theory: Individuals derive significant psychological satisfaction from in-group membership and out-group differentiation
Motivated Reasoning: People process political information in ways that protect their group identities and existing belief systems
Moral Foundations: Different political coalitions emphasize different moral frameworks, creating seemingly irreconcilable worldview differences

Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts

Black and white thinking creates cascade effects across multiple institutional systems:

Democratic Governance Challenges

Compromise Mechanisms: Effective democratic governance requires negotiation and compromise between competing interests. Binary thinking undermines these processes by framing compromise as betrayal of fundamental principles.

Policy Implementation: Complex policy challenges—from healthcare to climate change to economic inequality—require nuanced, multifaceted solutions. Binary thinking promotes oversimplified policy approaches that often fail to address underlying systemic issues.

Constitutional Design: Democratic institutions assume citizens capable of evaluating competing claims and making informed choices. Black and white thinking can undermine these foundational assumptions necessary to making democracy work.

Economic System Implications

Market Dynamics: Binary thinking in economic contexts can create boom-bust cycles, as investors and consumers oscillate between extreme optimism and pessimism without recognizing gradual trends and mixed signals.

Innovation Ecosystems: Complex technological and business model innovation requires tolerance for ambiguity and iterative development. Binary thinking can stifle innovation by demanding immediate, clear success metrics. It turns out that diversity is good to the bottom line, actually.

Labor Relations: Effective workplace dynamics require ongoing negotiation between competing interests. Binary thinking can transform routine workplace disagreements into fundamental conflicts.

Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis

Understanding black and white thinking requires sophisticated analytical frameworks:

The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model

Black and white thinking rarely operates in isolation but typically forms part of broader cognitive bias patterns:

Confirmation Bias: Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs
Availability Heuristic: Overweighting easily recalled examples
Fundamental Attribution Error: Attributing others’ behavior to character rather than circumstances
Group Attribution Error: Assuming individual group members represent entire groups

Systems Thinking Applications

Effective analysis of black and white thinking requires systems-level perspective:

Feedback Loops: How binary thinking creates self-reinforcing cycles that become increasingly difficult to break

Emergence Properties: How individual cognitive patterns create collective social and political dynamics

Leverage Points: Identifying where interventions might most effectively disrupt binary thinking patterns

Historical Pattern Recognition

Historical analysis reveals recurring patterns in how societies navigate between binary and nuanced thinking:

Crisis Periods: Times of social stress typically increase binary thinking as individuals seek certainty and clear action frameworks

Institutional Adaptation: How democratic institutions evolve mechanisms to manage polarization and maintain governance capacity

Cultural Evolution: How societies develop norms and practices that promote or discourage binary thinking

Contemporary Case Studies

Social Media Discourse Patterns

Analysis of millions of social media posts reveals systematic patterns in how binary thinking spreads:

Viral Content Characteristics: Posts that go viral disproportionately feature binary framing of complex issues
Engagement Metrics: Binary content generates higher levels of shares, comments, and emotional reactions
Network Effects: Binary thinking spreads through social networks more rapidly than nuanced analysis

Political Movement Dynamics

Examination of contemporary political movements reveals how binary thinking shapes organizational development:

Movement Mobilization: Binary framing helps movements build initial coalition support by clarifying friend-enemy distinctions

Strategic Communication: Binary messaging dominates political advertising and fundraising appeals

Coalition Maintenance: Binary thinking can help maintain group cohesion but may limit strategic flexibility

black and white thinking as a tool of dictators around the world

Crisis Response Patterns

Analysis of responses to major crises—from pandemics to economic disruptions to international conflicts—demonstrates how binary thinking affects collective decision-making:

Policy Development: Crisis conditions often promote binary policy choices that may not address underlying complexity

Public Communication: Crisis communication frequently relies on binary framing to motivate public compliance with policy measures

International Relations: Crisis situations can push diplomatic relations toward binary alliance structures

Neurological and Psychological Foundations

Understanding black and white thinking requires examining its neurological and psychological foundations:

Cognitive Processing Systems

System 1 vs System 2 Thinking: Daniel Kahneman’s research demonstrates how automatic, intuitive thinking (System 1) tends toward binary categorization, while deliberative thinking (System 2) enables more nuanced analysis.

Threat Detection Mechanisms: Evolutionary psychology suggests that binary thinking may have adaptive advantages in environments requiring quick threat assessment, but becomes maladaptive in complex modern contexts.

Cognitive Load Theory: When individuals experience high cognitive load, they default to simplified decision-making processes that favor binary categorization.

Developmental Psychology Perspectives

Moral Development Stages: Lawrence Kohlberg’s research on moral development shows how individuals progress from binary moral thinking toward more sophisticated ethical reasoning frameworks.

Identity Formation: Erik Erikson’s work on identity development demonstrates how binary thinking can serve important functions during identity formation periods but may become problematic if it persists into adulthood.

Attachment Theory: Insecure attachment patterns can promote binary thinking about relationships and social situations as defensive mechanisms.

Organizational and Institutional Responses

Educational System Adaptations

Educational institutions increasingly recognize the need to develop students’ capacity for nuanced thinking:

Critical Thinking Curricula: Programs specifically designed to help students recognize and resist binary thinking patterns

Media Literacy: Training students to recognize how information systems promote simplified thinking

Interdisciplinary Approaches: Educational approaches that demonstrate how complex problems require multiple perspectives and methodological approaches

Democratic Institution Reforms

Various proposals aim to reduce the institutional incentives for binary thinking:

Electoral System Design: Ranked-choice voting and other electoral innovations that reward coalition-building over polarization

Deliberative Democracy: Institutional mechanisms that bring citizens together for structured discussion of complex policy issues

Legislative Process Reform: Procedural changes that incentivize negotiation and compromise over partisan positioning

Technology Platform Governance

Growing recognition of how digital platforms shape thinking patterns has led to various reform proposals:

Algorithm Transparency: Requiring platforms to disclose how their algorithms prioritize content

Engagement Metric Alternatives: Developing metrics beyond simple engagement that reward constructive discourse

Digital Literacy: Public education initiatives to help users recognize and resist algorithmic manipulation

Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking

Individual-Level Interventions

Mindfulness Practices: Regular mindfulness meditation has been shown to increase tolerance for ambiguity and reduce automatic binary categorization.

Cognitive Behavioral Techniques: Specific therapeutic approaches for identifying and challenging binary thought patterns.

Exposure to Complexity: Deliberately seeking out information sources and experiences that present complex, nuanced perspectives on important issues.

Perspective-Taking Exercises: Structured practices for understanding how situations appear from multiple viewpoints.

Community-Level Initiatives

Dialogue and Deliberation Programs: Community-based initiatives that bring together people with different perspectives for structured conversation about local issues.

Collaborative Problem-Solving: Community projects that require cooperation across different groups and perspectives.

Civic Education: Educational programs that help citizens understand how democratic institutions work and why compromise is essential for effective governance.

Cross-Cutting Social Connections: Initiatives that help people form relationships across traditional dividing lines.

Institutional Design Principles

Procedural Safeguards: Institutional mechanisms that slow down decision-making processes to allow for more deliberative consideration of complex issues.

Stakeholder Inclusion: Decision-making processes that systematically include multiple perspectives and interests.

Transparency and Accountability: Mechanisms that make decision-making processes visible and subject to public scrutiny.

Adaptive Management: Institutional frameworks that allow for policy adjustment based on evidence and changing circumstances.

Implications for Democratic Resilience

The prevalence of black and white thinking poses significant challenges for democratic governance:

Representation and Legitimacy

Electoral Representation: Binary thinking can undermine representative democracy by making it difficult for elected officials to represent diverse constituencies with complex, sometimes conflicting interests.

Institutional Legitimacy: When citizens view political institutions through binary lenses, it becomes difficult to maintain the shared commitment to democratic norms necessary for effective governance.

Minority Rights: Binary thinking can threaten minority rights by reducing complex questions of individual liberty and collective welfare to simple majority-minority power dynamics.

Policy Development and Implementation

Evidence-Based Policy: Effective policy development requires careful consideration of evidence, trade-offs, and unintended consequences—all of which are undermined by binary thinking.

Policy Adaptation: Democratic institutions must be able to adapt policies based on new evidence and changing circumstances, which requires tolerance for complexity and ambiguity.

Cross-Sector Coordination: Modern policy challenges often require coordination across different levels of government and between public and private sectors, which is complicated by binary thinking.

Future Research Directions

Understanding and addressing black and white thinking requires ongoing research across multiple disciplines:

Technology and Cognition

AI and Decision-Making: How artificial intelligence systems might be designed to promote nuanced rather than binary thinking.

Digital Environment Design: Research on how different digital interface designs affect cognitive processing and decision-making.

Virtual Reality and Perspective-Taking: How immersive technologies might be used to help individuals understand complex situations from multiple perspectives.

Political Psychology and Behavior

Motivation and Binary Thinking: Research on what motivates individuals to adopt or resist binary thinking patterns in political contexts.

Group Dynamics: How binary thinking spreads through social networks and political organizations.

Leadership and Framing: How political leaders can effectively communicate about complex issues without resorting to binary framing.

Institutional Design and Reform

Comparative Democratic Systems: Analysis of how different democratic institutions manage polarization and promote constructive political discourse.

Experimental Governance: Small-scale experiments with different institutional designs that might reduce incentives for binary thinking.

Technology Governance: Research on how to regulate digital platforms in ways that promote constructive rather than polarizing discourse.

Toward cognitive complexity

Black and white thinking represents a fundamental challenge to effective individual decision-making, social cooperation, and democratic governance. While binary thinking may have served adaptive functions in simpler environments, the complexity of modern challenges requires more sophisticated cognitive frameworks.

Addressing this challenge requires coordinated efforts across multiple levels—from individual practices that promote cognitive flexibility to institutional reforms that reduce incentives for polarization. The stakes are particularly high for democratic societies, which depend on citizens’ capacity to engage constructively with complexity and difference.

The path forward requires neither naive optimism nor cynical resignation, but rather sustained commitment to developing our collective capacity for nuanced thinking about complex problems. This involves both protecting democratic institutions from the corrosive effects of extreme polarization and actively building new capabilities for constructive engagement across difference — knowing that some will disagree and continuously fight us on reforms.

Understanding black and white thinking is not merely an academic exercise but an urgent practical necessity for navigating the challenges of the 21st century. By developing more sophisticated analytical frameworks and practical interventions, we can work toward societies that are both more thoughtful and more effective at solving complex collective problems.

Getting “separation of state” backwards

Prominent Christian nationalist David Barton re-interprets the famous 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists to allege support for a “one-way wall” between church and state. Barton contends that Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” was intended to protect religious institutions from government interference rather than ensuring the government’s secular nature. By advocating for this one-directional barrier, Barton seeks to justify the integration of religious principles into public policy and government actions — improbably, given the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Barton and his fellow Christian nationalists are either intentionally or unfathomably not taking the logical next step in the chain of power and authority: if the government is informed, infused, or even consumed by religious dogma and doctrine, then is that government not by definition infringing on the rights of any citizens that happens not to believe in that code or creed?

The answer, as we well know from the colonization of America itself, is YES. We left the Church of England in large part to worship of our own accord — and to make money, of course. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington were especially concerned about religious liberty and the neutrality of government in religious matters.

Thus, in large part, the ideas of the Christian nationalists are misinterpretations at best, and willful invention at worst. In some it is clearly a naked power grab and not much more — think of Trump holding an upside-down Bible in Lafayette Square. In general, Christian nationalism doesn’t actually seem very Christian at all.

Whether they are True Believers or Opportunistic Cynics, the Christian nationalist organizations and right wing groups on this list — as well as a number of prominent individuals within these organizations — represent a threat to democracy as we know it — especially with Project 2025 so close to coming to fruition in a second Trump administration. Best we get a look at who they are.

June 1, 2025

NPD: Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a mental health condition characterized by (as the name implies) narcissism, including a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a lack of empathy for others, and a need for admiration. People with NPD often have an inflated sense of self-importance and believe they are special or unique in some way. They may be preoccupied with fantasies of power, success, beauty, or ideal love. However, behind their grandiose façade, they often have fragile self-esteem and are highly sensitive to criticism or rejection.

NPD is part of the Cluster B family of personality disorders. People with NPD tend to exhibit odd, sometimes bizarre behaviors — including word salad, emotional abuse, and other tactics of emotional predators — that are offputting to others and tend to have serious effects on the individual’s life.

NPD diagnosis

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) outlines the following diagnostic criteria for NPD:

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, characterized by a sense of self-importance and an exaggerated sense of achievements and talents.
Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited power, success, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
Belief that they are special and unique and can only be understood by other high-status people or institutions.
Need for excessive admiration.
Sense of entitlement, expecting to be treated in a special way or given priority.
Exploitation of others for personal gain; using the tactics of emotional predators; narcissistic abuse.
Lack of empathy, an inability to recognize or care about the feelings and needs of others.
Envy of others or a belief that others are envious of them.
Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

The symptoms of NPD may vary in intensity and presentation, but they are typically stable and longstanding. The condition may start in early adulthood and may be diagnosed only after adolescence, as it is difficult to differentiate between normal developmental narcissism and pathological narcissism in childhood.

A helpful mnemonic to help conceptualize and remember the traits of people with narcissistic personality disorder is “SPECIAL ME”3:

Letter	Trait
S	Sense of self-importance
P	Preoccupation with power, beauty, success
E	Entitled
C	Can only be around special people
I	Interpersonally exploitative
A	Arrogant
L	Lack empathy
M	Must be admired
E	Envious of others

NPD: Lack of empathy

People with NPD may have difficulty in maintaining close relationships because of their lack of empathy and preoccupation with themselves. They may feel entitled to special treatment and have unrealistic expectations of others. They may exploit others for personal gain and may become angry or hostile when their expectations are not met. Additionally, they may struggle with criticism or rejection and may react with narcissistic rage or humiliation.

NPD is often co-occurring with other mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. It may also be comorbid with other personality disorders, particularly Borderline Personality Disorder, as individuals with BPD may exhibit traits of NPD, such as a need for attention and admiration.

Treatment for NPD often involves psychotherapy, particularly psychoanalytic or psychodynamic therapies, which aim to explore the underlying psychological factors contributing to the disorder. Cognitive-behavioral therapy may also be effective in addressing maladaptive beliefs and behaviors associated with NPD. However, individuals with NPD may be resistant to therapy, as they may not recognize the need for treatment or may be unwilling to acknowledge their role in the dysfunction.

Types of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Grandiose Narcissism: This form is characterized by arrogance, dominance, and a need for admiration. Individuals may appear self-confident and assertive but are often preoccupied with fantasies of success and power. This is the classic version of the narcissist that most people think of when they think of NPD.
Vulnerable Narcissism: Unlike the grandiose type, vulnerable narcissists are sensitive and insecure, often feeling unrecognized and inadequate. They may harbor intense envy and resentment towards others and are prone to feeling victimized.
Malignant Narcissism: Malignant narcissists combine aspects of NPD with antisocial behavior, aggression, and sometimes even sadism. This type can be dangerous, as they lack empathy and remorse and may exploit or manipulate others without concern.
Covert Narcissism: This type manifests as hidden or masked narcissism, where individuals may not outwardly display arrogance but still harbor grandiose fantasies and exhibit a lack of empathy. They often feel misunderstood and neglected, leading to passive-aggressive behavior.
Communal Narcissism: Communal narcissists see themselves as especially caring or altruistic, often emphasizing their contributions to others. However, these acts are driven by a desire for recognition and praise rather than genuine empathy or compassion.

Examples of Public Figures Behaving Narcissistically

Numerous public figures throughout history and in contemporary culture have exhibited behaviors commonly associated with narcissism—such as grandiosity, a need for admiration, lack of empathy, and a sense of entitlement. Below is a list of just some of the notable examples, along with brief descriptions of their narcissistic behaviors.

Historical Figures

Adolf Hitler: Demonstrated extreme grandiosity, cultivated a personality cult, rejected criticism, and showed a complete disregard for the suffering of others. His belief in his own infallibility and ruthless pursuit of power are classic narcissistic traits.
Napoleon Bonaparte: Known for his grandiose self-image, insatiable thirst for power, and willingness to sacrifice countless lives for personal glory.
Joseph Stalin: Exhibited a massive cult of personality, paranoia, and disregard for human suffering, all while glorifying his own image as the nation’s savior.
Alexander the Great: Obsessed with personal glory and his supposed divine lineage, eliminating anyone who opposed him.
Mao Zedong: Built a personality cult, rejected criticism, and sacrificed millions for his vision, showing little empathy or remorse.
King Henry VIII: Ruthless pursuit of power and personal desires, including the execution of wives and rejection of religious authority for personal gain.
Caligula: Roman emperor remembered for self-deification, sadism, and demanding worship.
Jim Jones: Cult leader who manipulated and controlled followers, culminating in the Jonestown mass suicide, reflecting extreme narcissistic exploitation.

Modern and Contemporary Figures

Donald Trump: Frequently cited as a textbook example of narcissistic behavior, including self-promotion, thin-skinned reactions to criticism, need for admiration, and prioritizing personal image over collective goals.
Kanye West (Ye): Known for public outbursts, controversial statements, and self-aggrandizing acts (e.g., comparing himself to Jesus, seeking the spotlight at award shows), as well as a chronic need for validation and attention.
Kim Kardashian: Promotes her wealth and lifestyle, seeks constant attention, and is often involved in controversies that keep her in the public eye.
Madonna: Openly acknowledges her craving for attention and limelight, and has been described as exploitative and demanding in her professional relationships.
Oprah Winfrey: Cited for excessive self-importance and grandiosity, with actions and branding that often center her own persona.
Taylor Swift: Manages her public image with meticulous control, frequently uses her art to highlight her own experiences, and seeks admiration from fans, blending vulnerability with grandiosity.
Jenny McCarthy: Publicly claimed to have scientific proof ignored by authorities, reflecting a sense of special knowledge and self-importance.
Suzanne Somers: Promoted her own health products as miracle cures, despite lacking medical credentials, demonstrating self-aggrandizement and entitlement.
Joan Crawford: Hollywood actress reportedly obsessed with public image, perfectionism, and control, with abusive behavior toward her children as documented in “Mommie Dearest”.

Common Narcissistic Behaviors Observed

Public meltdowns and controversy-seeking actions (e.g., Twitter rants, on-stage interruptions)
Image obsession and status-driven lifestyle choices (luxury displays, curated social media)
Exploitative or transactional relationships (using others for personal gain or status)
Dismissal of criticism and hypersensitivity to perceived slights

These examples illustrate how narcissistic traits can manifest in public life, often amplified by fame and power. While not all of these individuals have a clinical diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, their public behaviors align with many of the disorder’s hallmark traits.

Learn more about narcissism

Narcissism and Cluster B: Evil hiding in plain sight

Covert Narcissism

Narcissism Books

Machiavellianism

Pathocracy Definition: Are we in one?

May 24, 2025

What is cosmism ideology?

Russian cosmism ideology still alive in Silicon Valley

What is cosmism: The Russian Philosophy Secretly Driving Silicon Valley’s Wildest Dreams

When Elon Musk talks about making humanity a “multiplanetary species” or when tech billionaires pour millions into defeating death itself, they’re not just indulging sci-fi fantasies. They’re channeling a century-old Russian philosophy that once inspired Soviet cosmonauts—and now quietly shapes Silicon Valley‘s most ambitious projects.

From Orthodox Monks to Space Dreams

The story begins in 1890s Russia with Nikolai Fyodorov, an Orthodox Christian librarian with an audacious idea: humanity’s ultimate purpose was to use science to resurrect every person who had ever died and then expand into the cosmos. This wasn’t just philosophical speculation—Fyodorov believed technology could literally overcome death and fulfill what he called humanity’s “Common Task.”

His followers, known as cosmists, took these ideas in fascinating directions. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, a schoolteacher who became the father of astronautics, famously declared that “Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever.” Meanwhile, geochemist Vladimir Vernadsky envisioned human intelligence merging with technology to create a planetary “sphere of mind”—a concept that would later influence everything from Soviet planning to modern AI development.

What made cosmism unique was its blend of mystical spirituality and hardcore science. These weren’t just dreamers; they were serious researchers who saw technological progress as a path to spiritual transcendence.

The Soviet Space Race’s Secret Sauce

When the Bolsheviks took power, cosmist ideas found an unexpected home in communist ideology. Both movements shared a belief in radically remaking humanity and conquering natural limitations. The results were striking:

Lenin’s Mummy: When Vladimir Lenin died in 1924, the decision to preserve his body wasn’t just political theater. Leonid Krasin, who oversaw the mummification, was deeply influenced by Fyodorov’s resurrection theories. Lenin’s tomb became a symbol of faith that socialist science would eventually conquer death itself.

April 10, 2025

Conservatives vs. Reactionaries

What’s the difference between conservatives and reactionaries?

In short:

A conservative wants to preserve the status quo (or change it slowly).
A reactionary wants to reverse progress and return to a previous order — often an idealized or mythologized past.

The Core Difference:

Conservative	Reactionary
Wants to conserve existing institutions, traditions, and social order.	Wants to restore a past order — often rejecting modernity altogether.
Accepts some gradual change if necessary to preserve stability.	Sees recent changes (modernization, liberalization) as corruptions that must be undone.
May negotiate with progress or adapt slowly.	Opposes progress on principle — progress is the problem.

Historical Example:

Conservative:

→ Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution, but didn’t want to destroy parliamentary government. He wanted to preserve traditions and institutions to prevent chaos.

Reactionary:

→ Joseph de Maistre welcomed authoritarian monarchy and theocracy after the French Revolution, believing divine right rule was the only cure for societal decay.

In Modern Terms:

A conservative in America might say: “We shouldn’t rush into sweeping changes — we need to preserve family values, religious freedom, and limited government.”
A reactionary might say: “Modern society is degenerate. We need to abolish democracy, bring back monarchy or biblical law, and return to the way things were before feminism, secularism, or civil rights.”

Where It Gets Tricky:

Many reactionaries call themselves conservatives — especially in American politics — because “reactionary” is usually a pejorative term today.

But ideologically:

Conservatives = cautious, incremental, defensive of the present order.
Reactionaries = revanchist, nostalgic, hostile to modernity.

In Summary:

All reactionaries are right-wing extremists, but not all conservatives are reactionaries.

Conservatives defend the status quo.
Reactionaries want to roll back history.

Spectrum of Political Attitudes Towards Change

Position	Attitude Toward Change	View of the Past	View of the Future	Examples
Radical / Revolutionary	Overthrow existing system	Irrelevant or oppressive past	Build something entirely new	Anarchists, Communists, Revolutionaries
Progressive / Liberal	Reform existing system	Learn from past mistakes	Improve society incrementally	Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Liberals
Conservative	Preserve system as-is or allow very slow change	Respect traditions	Stability is more important than change	Traditional Conservatives, Libertarians (sometimes)
Reactionary	Undo modern changes, return to past order	The past was better / pure	Restore lost greatness	Christian Nationalists, Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists

March 27, 2025

About me

I was lucky enough to be one of the first professional tech bloggers, still work in digital media, and avidly keep up with the technology sector. Back in the proverbial day I covered the rise of social media from the launches and earliest days of Facebook (aka Meta), Twitter (aka X), YouTube, and a host of graveyard denizens from Friendster to MySpace (anyone remember tribe.net?!). I lived and worked in Silicon Valley for a time and became disillusioned with much of the ideology while remaining avidly interested in the pockets still driven by the idea of democratizing access to information.

Now I love tinkering with tools (especially AI, automation, and data analysis) as well as writing personal and experimental stuff on my blog(s). I’m also excited about the rise of decentralized social media projects like Bluesky, Mastodon, and other platforms meant to challenge surveillance capitalism and corporate dominance of the public square.

a mythical "corporate greed" supervillain as imagined by Midjourney AI

I’ve also been a political activist since my college years, and especially since 2015 have been pretty intensely into politics — which, among many other things, has led to an ongoing protracted “re-factoring” of what I thought I knew about American history.

An academic by temperament, I research various topics at depth as a “serious amateur.” For the past 9+ years I’ve been studying fascism, authoritarianism, narcissism, cults, disinformation, conspiracy theories, dark money, and Christian nationalism and their tributaries — many of which share intersection points. My love of information management keeps me juggling multiple projects and exploring the connections between topics worth taking a closer look at; I’m an incorrigible generalist in a specialists’ world, while craving meaningful depth into each subject.

Inspiration

I am motivated by some of the old school values of the internet — towards openness, democratization of information, shining light into dark spaces, giving a voice to the people beyond the gatekeepers of major media, and more. It’s lost a fair amount of that spirit now in the corporate scrum to own its vast landscapes, but it can still be found here and there — and I hope to offer another little output on the stormy seas for those who wander and wish to not feel lost.

I like to experiment and make new things as constantly as I can, which right now involves a lot of AI tools, including ChatGPT, Midjourney, Perplexity, NotebookLM, Leonardo.ai, Opus Clip, Descript, Replicate, Flux, Ideogram, RunwayML, Sora, minimax, Napkin AI, Suno V4, and others. It feels like the most exciting thing since the dawning of the internet age itself.

Ethics

I don’t take any sponsorship money for this site, because I’m not interested in tailoring my point of view towards whatever maximizes profit. In part because commerce content is my day job, I do monetize (for a pittance) through affiliate links to books — the kind of product I can get behind recommending strongly to people. It also helps me understand what my audience is most interested in, and allows me to track what people find compelling enough to take action on. If you click on my book links and end up ordering something from Amazon or bookshop, it helps me understand how better to interest and serve this audience. So please feel free to do so, but not obligated.

March 27, 2025

24 Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.

By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.

In an age of information overload, critical thinking has never been more essential. Whether you’re analyzing a news story, debating with friends, or writing a persuasive essay, your ability to recognize and avoid faulty reasoning can be the difference between clarity and confusion, persuasion and propaganda. At the heart of this effort lies this powerful concept of logical fallacies.

Types of logical fallacies

Logical fallacies fall into one of two main clusters:

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies occur when there’s a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, rendering the conclusion invalid—even if the premises are true. Think of formal fallacies as broken logic circuits: they don’t connect, even if the parts look sound.

Example:

If it’s raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must be raining.
(This is a classic fallacy known as affirming the consequent.)

Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies, on the other hand, relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure. These occur when the premises don’t adequately support the conclusion, even if the structure appears valid.

These informal logical fallacies are more common in everyday conversation and rhetoric. Informal fallacies usually stem from misused language, assumptions, or appeals to emotion rather than flawed logic alone. They’re trickier to spot because they often feel intuitive or persuasive.

Example:

Everyone’s doing it, so it must be right.
(This is the bandwagon fallacy—popular doesn’t mean correct.)

Within each of these two clusters is a number of different logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:

Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.

Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:

Fallacy	Definition	Example
Ad Hominem	Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument	“You can’t trust his economic policy ideas. He’s been divorced three times!”
Appeal to Authority	Using an authority’s opinion as definitive proof without addressing the argument itself	“Dr. Smith has a PhD, so her view on climate change must be correct.”
Appeal to Emotion	Manipulating emotions instead of using valid reasoning	“Think of the children who will suffer if you don’t support this policy!”
Appeal to Nature	Arguing that because something is natural, it is good, valid, or justified	“Herbal supplements are better than medication because they’re natural.”
Appeal to Tradition	Arguing that something is right because it’s been done that way for a long time	“We’ve always had this company policy, so we shouldn’t change it.”
Bandwagon Fallacy	Appealing to popularity as evidence of truth	“Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good.”
Begging the Question	Circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise	“The Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Black-and-White Fallacy	Presenting only two options when more exist	“Either we cut the entire program, or we’ll go bankrupt.”
Cherry Picking	Selectively using data that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence	“Global warming can’t be real because it snowed last winter.”
Correlation vs. Causation	Assuming that because two events occur together, one caused the other	“Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.”
Equivocation	Using a word with more than one meaning in a misleading way	“Evolution is just a theory, so it shouldn’t be taught as fact.” (Equivocating between scientific theory and casual speculation)
Fallacy of Composition	Inferring that something is true of the whole because it’s true of a part	“This cell is invisible to the naked eye, so the whole animal must be invisible too.”
Fallacy of Division	Inferring that something is true of the parts because it’s true of the whole	“The university has an excellent reputation, so every professor there must be excellent.”
Genetic Fallacy	Evaluating an argument based on its origins rather than its merits	“That idea came from a socialist country, so it must be bad.”
Hasty Generalization	Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased	“I had two bad meals at restaurants in Italy, so Italian cuisine is terrible.”
Middle Ground Fallacy	Assuming that a compromise between two extremes must be correct	“Some people say the Earth is flat, others say it’s round. The truth must be that it’s somewhat flat and somewhat round.”
No True Scotsman	Redefining terms to exclude counterexamples	“No true environmentalist would drive an SUV.” When shown an environmentalist who drives an SUV: “Well, they’re not a true environmentalist then.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc	Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B	“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game, so my socks caused our victory.”
Red Herring	Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue	“Why worry about environmental problems when there are so many people who can’t find jobs?”
Slippery Slope	Arguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences	“If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!”
Straw Man	Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack	“Vegetarians say we should eat no meat at all and let farmers go out of business.” (When they actually argue for reduced meat consumption)
Texas Sharpshooter	Cherry-picking data clusters to fit a pattern	“Look at these cancer cases clustered in this neighborhood – it must be caused by the power lines!” (While ignoring similar neighborhoods with power lines but no cancer clusters)
Tu Quoque	Avoiding criticism by turning it back on the accuser	“You say I should quit smoking, but you used to smoke too!”
Burden of Proof	Claiming something is true while putting the burden to disprove it on others	“I believe in ghosts. Prove to me that they don’t exist.”

How to identify logical fallacies

Spotting fallacies takes practice, but these tips can help sharpen your skills:

Slow down and dissect the argument. Look at the premises and conclusion—do they logically connect?
Watch for emotional appeals. If an argument relies more on stirring feelings than presenting evidence, be cautious.
Ask: what’s being left out? Many fallacies omit key context or alternate explanations.
Compare to real-world examples. Would the logic hold up elsewhere?

Everyday example:
“If we allow students to redo assignments, next they’ll expect to retake tests, and eventually no deadlines will matter at all.”
— This is a slippery slope fallacy. One action doesn’t necessarily lead to an extreme outcome.

Why avoiding logical fallacies matters

Logical fallacies don’t just weaken arguments—they erode trust, obscure truth, and inflame discourse. Here’s why learning to avoid them is critical:

In personal arguments: Fallacies can escalate tension and derail meaningful conversation.
In academic writing: Sound reasoning is the backbone of scholarship; fallacies undermine credibility.
In public discourse and media: Propaganda and misinformation often rely on fallacious reasoning to manipulate opinion. Recognizing these tactics is key to resisting them.

In a world where bad actors exploit fallacies for influence and profit, being fallacy-literate is a form of intellectual self-defense.

Logical fallacies quiz

Want to see if you know your logical fallacies? Just take our handy quiz and get them on lock as part of your foundational knowledge and model thinking library.

Logical Fallacies Quiz

Score: 0/0

Definitions Mode

Definition:

Which logical fallacy is this?

(Currently showing: Definition)

Example:

Which logical fallacy is demonstrated in this example?

(Currently showing: Example)

A Comprehensive Timeline of Russian Electoral Interference: From Imperial Russia to the Digital Age

Russian election interference around the globe has a much longer history than most people realize, extending back centuries rather than decades. This interference has evolved alongside Russia‘s own political transformations, from imperial ambitions to Soviet ideology to modern geopolitical objectives under Vladimir Putin. Recent actions, particularly during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, represent not an anomaly but the continuation and evolution of long-established patterns of behavior designed to shape foreign politics to Russian advantage.

The Imperial Russian Roots of Electoral Interference

Russia’s involvement in foreign electoral politics dates back to the early 18th century. Following a period when Poland had been the dominant power that once occupied Moscow, the tables turned as Russia grew in strength. Under Peter the Great and his successors, Russia began systematically meddling in Poland’s electoral politics by bribing Polish nobles to vote against attempts to strengthen the Polish central government and national army. This early form of interference was aimed at keeping a neighboring power weak and malleable to Russian interests.

This pattern culminated at the end of the 18th century when Russia, alongside Austria and Prussia, partitioned the Polish state among themselves, effectively erasing Poland from the map. Poland would remain part of the Russian Empire until World War I when it finally regained independence. This early example established a precedent that would continue in various forms through subsequent Russian regimes.

The Birth of Soviet Electoral Interference

After the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviet approach to electoral interference took on an ideological dimension. In 1919, Vladimir Lenin founded the Communist International (Comintern), an organization designed to unite communist parties worldwide and foment revolution abroad. The Comintern distributed funding and supported propaganda operations in various countries to help communist parties compete more effectively in elections, with the ultimate goal of having these parties assume power and eventually abolish national borders.

While Lenin’s vision of global communist revolution was not realized, the Comintern’s activities generated significant paranoia in Western democracies like the United States and United Kingdom, where fears of Soviet manipulation of democratic processes took root. This marked the beginning of a more systematic approach to electoral interference that would be refined during the Soviet era.

Post-World War II: Aggressive Soviet Electoral Manipulation

After World War II, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin aggressively interfered in elections across Eastern Europe, particularly in countries like East Germany, Hungary, and Poland. These operations foreshadowed many tactics that would later be employed by Putin’s Russia. The Soviet Union manipulated voter rolls, falsified vote counts, and distributed massive amounts of propaganda through posters, pamphlets, and leaflets to influence public opinion.

These elections were effectively rigged, resulting in communist parties coming to power across Eastern Europe and subsequently ending competitive elections in these nations. This period represents one of the most successful campaigns of electoral interference in modern history, as it resulted in the establishment of Soviet-aligned governments throughout the Eastern Bloc.

March 13, 2025

Book Review: Amusing Ourselves to Death — Neil Postman

Fake News, illustrated to accompany Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

A Summary and Review of Neil Postman’s Prophetic Analysis

Neil Postman’s 1985 masterpiece, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” stands as one of the most prescient cultural critiques of our time. Though written specifically about television’s impact on American public discourse, its insights have only gained relevance in today’s internet-dominated world. This book offers an essential framework for understanding how entertainment values have infiltrated and transformed our political landscape.

Book Summary

Postman’s Central Argument

At its core, Postman’s thesis is elegantly simple yet profound: the medium through which we communicate fundamentally shapes what we communicate. The form of our discourse defines its content and limits what ideas can be effectively expressed. In Postman’s analysis, television—with its emphasis on visual stimulation, fragmentation, and entertainment—inevitably transforms all content into entertainment, regardless of its significance or purpose.

Postman begins by establishing a crucial distinction between two dystopian visions: George Orwell’s 1984 with its authoritarian Newspeak and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Where Orwell feared those who would ban books and restrict information, Huxley feared that we would become a trivial culture, where there would be no reason to ban books because no one would want to read them. Postman argues that Huxley’s fear, not Orwell’s, was prophetic—we are being undone not by oppression but by our appetite for distraction.

The Transition from Typography to Television

A significant portion of the book is devoted to contrasting America’s earlier print-based culture with its television-dominated present. Postman characterizes the 18th and 19th centuries as the “Age of Exposition,” where rational, linear, complex arguments could flourish. By contrast, the late 20th century represented the “Age of Show Business,” where entertainment values reign supreme.

In the typographic age, Postman argues, public discourse was coherent, serious, and rational. He points to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where audiences would listen attentively to hours of complex argumentation, as emblematic of this era. The written word, by its nature, encourages abstract and critical thinking, logical organization, and sustained attention.

Television, by contrast, communicates primarily through images that appeal to emotions rather than reason. Its content is necessarily fragmented, decontextualized, and designed to entertain rather than inform. Postman coins the phrase “peek-a-boo world” to describe how television presents disconnected snippets of information without context or coherence. The medium’s “Now…This” approach to news presentation—where a serious story about war might be followed immediately by a commercial or light-hearted feature—creates a world where everything is presented with equal weight and significance.

The Consequences for Public Discourse

According to Postman, television’s transformation of discourse into entertainment has profound consequences for how we understand and engage with politics, religion, education, and other serious domains of public life.

In politics, substance gives way to image; complex policy discussions are replaced by personality contests and emotional appeals. Campaigns become marketing exercises rather than forums for substantive debate. Politicians are judged not by their ideas but by their ability to entertain and create compelling visual narratives.

In education, the emphasis shifts from developing critical thinking to making learning “fun” and visually stimulating. Serious engagement with ideas becomes secondary to keeping students entertained and engaged through spectacle.

Even religion, when adapted to television, becomes a form of entertainment—with telegenic preachers, emotional music, and simplified messaging replacing theological depth and contemplative practice.

Amusing Ourselves to Death looks at how TV turns even serious news into sheer entertainment

Relevance to the Internet Age

Though written before the rise of the internet, social media, and smartphones, Postman’s analysis has proven remarkably applicable to our current media landscape. If anything, the trends he identified have accelerated and intensified in the digital age.

Amplification of Television’s Effects

The internet has magnified many of television’s problematic aspects. Information is even more fragmented, attention spans shorter, and the line between news and entertainment increasingly blurred. Social media platforms like TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook prioritize emotional engagement and entertainment value over informational substance or accuracy.

The smartphone has brought this entertainment-centered approach to communication into every moment of our lives. We now carry the means of constant distraction in our pockets, available at any moment when serious thought or engagement becomes uncomfortable.

New Challenges in the Digital Era

The internet age has also introduced new dimensions that Postman couldn’t have fully anticipated. Unlike television, which created passive consumers of content, social media has transformed us into active “prosumers” who both consume and produce content. This has democratized media creation but also accelerated the spread of disinformation and misinformation and further blurred the line between fact and fiction.

The algorithmic nature of content delivery has created filter bubbles where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs. This has contributed to political polarization and the fragmentation of shared reality that Postman warned about.

The constant stream of notifications, updates, and new content has further diminished our capacity for sustained attention and deep engagement with complex ideas. We increasingly consume information in bite-sized chunks optimized for maximum emotional impact rather than intellectual substance.

Political Implications

Nowhere are Postman’s insights more relevant than in the realm of politics. The rise of political figures who excel at entertainment but lack substantive policy knowledge illustrates his core thesis. Political discourse increasingly resembles reality television, with emphasis on conflict, personality, and emotional appeals rather than thoughtful policy debate.

The proliferation of conspiracy theories and misinformation highlights another consequence of entertainment-driven discourse: when emotional resonance matters more than factual accuracy, truth itself becomes relative and subject to entertainment value. We can no longer tell fact from fiction or truth from lying — which is incredibly problematic for a democracy fueled by good decision-making.

Critical Analysis

Strengths of Postman’s Arguments

Postman’s greatest strength lies in his ability to connect the structural properties of media with their cultural effects. Rather than simply lamenting the content of television programming, he demonstrates how the medium itself shapes what can be communicated through it. This media ecology approach provides a powerful framework for understanding not just television but all forms of communication technology.

His recognition that we face a Huxleyan rather than Orwellian threat has proven extraordinarily prescient. The greatest danger to democracy is not censorship but the voluntary surrender of our capacity for critical thinking in exchange for endless entertainment.

Postman’s clear, engaging prose makes complex media theory accessible without sacrificing intellectual rigor. He practices what he preaches by presenting his arguments in a linear, logical fashion that demands and rewards careful reading.

Limitations and Counterarguments

Despite his prescience, Postman occasionally romanticizes the age of print, overlooking the ways in which books and newspapers could also distort or trivialize important issues. The “golden age” of rational discourse he describes had significant limitations in terms of who could participate and what perspectives were represented.

Some critics argue that Postman underestimates people’s ability to engage critically with visual media. Television and internet content are not inherently incapable of conveying complex ideas, though they may make it more difficult.

Postman’s focus on the negative aspects of electronic media also leads him to downplay potential benefits, such as increased access to information, the ability to witness distant events firsthand, and new forms of community building. The digital age has enabled important social movements and given voice to previously marginalized perspectives in ways that merit acknowledgment.

Personal Reflection: The Allure of Political Entertainment

What makes Postman’s analysis so valuable today is its ability to explain the phenomenon of political entertainment. The transformation of politics into a branch of the entertainment industry has profoundly altered how we select and evaluate our leaders.

Political campaigns increasingly resemble reality television competitions, complete with dramatic confrontations, personality-based narratives, and emotionally charged moments designed to go viral. Policy discussions, when they occur at all, are simplified to sound bites and slogans rather than substantive analysis.

The result is a political culture where entertainment value often trumps competence, where the ability to capture attention matters more than the ability to govern effectively. This helps explain why political figures with backgrounds in entertainment have gained prominence, and why traditional politicians increasingly adopt the tactics of entertainers.

Perhaps most concerning is how this entertainment-driven approach to politics has eroded our shared foundation of facts. When politics becomes primarily about emotional engagement rather than problem-solving, truth becomes secondary to narrative appeal. We increasingly select our facts based on their compatibility with our preferred political story rather than evaluating political stories based on their compatibility with facts.

Postman’s analysis helps us recognize these trends not as random developments but as the logical consequences of our media environment. Understanding this connection is the first step toward reclaiming a more substantive approach to political discourse.

Conclusion

“Amusing Ourselves to Death” remains essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the transformation of public discourse in the digital age. Postman’s insights help us recognize how our media shape not just what we think about, but how we think.

The challenge Postman presents is not to abandon new media forms but to approach them with awareness of their biases and limitations. We must develop the media literacy to recognize when we are being entertained rather than informed, and the discipline to seek out forms of communication that encourage deeper engagement with ideas.

In an age where entertainment values increasingly dominate every aspect of public life, Postman’s warning remains urgent: a society that allows its capacity for serious discourse to atrophy may indeed amuse itself to death. The greatest tribute we can pay to Postman’s work is to heed this warning by cultivating forms of communication that nurture our capacity for reason, empathy, and thoughtful civic engagement.

March 12, 2025

Who is Joe Lonsdale?

Joe Lonsdale: A Key Player in Silicon Valley’s Emerging Right-Wing

In the world of Silicon Valley, where liberal politics often dominate the landscape, Joe Lonsdale stands out as one of tech’s most influential right-wing voices. Co-founder of data analytics giant Palantir Technologies and investment firm 8VC, Lonsdale has emerged as a significant figure not just in technology and venture capital, but in right-wing political circles as well.

The Thiel Connection: Mentorship and Collaboration

Lonsdale’s career has been deeply intertwined with that of Peter Thiel, the billionaire entrepreneur and right-wing political donor. Their relationship began during Lonsdale’s college years at Stanford University, where he was editor-in-chief of The Stanford Review, a publication Thiel had co-founded years earlier. This shared intellectual foundation would prove formative for their future collaborations.

After graduating from Stanford with a computer science degree in 2004, Lonsdale joined Thiel at Clarium Capital, a global macro hedge fund. As an early executive there, Lonsdale helped grow the fund to $8 billion in assets under management, working closely with Thiel and absorbing his contrarian investment philosophy and political worldview.

The most significant product of their partnership came in 2004, when they co-founded Palantir Technologies along with Alex Karp, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. Named after the all-seeing stones from “The Lord of the Rings,” Palantir focused on data analytics with applications in defense, intelligence, and corporate settings. The company received early investment from the CIA‘s venture fund, In-Q-Tel, setting it on a path to become deeply embedded in government and defense work—a connection that would later align with Lonsdale’s political activities.

Building an Empire: From Palantir to 8VC

While Lonsdale left his operational role at Palantir in 2009, he continued as an advisor while launching a series of new ventures. He founded Addepar, a wealth management platform now managing over $4 trillion in assets, and co-founded OpenGov, which provides cloud-based software for government budgeting.

In 2015, Lonsdale founded 8VC, a venture capital firm that now manages over $6 billion in capital. Through 8VC, he has invested in companies like Oculus, Guardant Health, Oscar, Wish, and Flexport, expanding his influence throughout the tech industry. The firm’s name itself reflects Lonsdale’s philosophy—the number 8 representing infinity when turned sideways, suggesting limitless potential.

Joe Lonsdale, tech billionaire and right-wing backer of Musk and Trump

Political Activities and Right-Wing Advocacy

Unlike many Silicon Valley elites, Lonsdale has been unabashedly outspoken about his right-wing political views. Following in the footsteps of his mentor Thiel, he has emerged as an active Republican donor and fundraiser, using his considerable wealth and influence to support right-wing candidates and causes.

In 2020, Lonsdale made headlines when he joined the exodus of tech leaders leaving San Francisco for more conservative locales, relocating his family and business to Austin, Texas. He publicly criticized California’s “disrepair,” citing high taxes, regulations, and progressive policies as his reasons for leaving—a move that solidified his status as a vocal critic of liberal governance.

Lonsdale’s political advocacy extends beyond campaign contributions. He co-founded the Cicero Institute, a policy think tank focused on market-oriented solutions to healthcare, housing, and criminal justice reform. The institute promotes conservative approaches to these issues, advocating for reduced regulation and private-sector solutions.

Perhaps his most ambitious political-adjacent project is the University of Austin (UATX), which he co-founded as an alternative to what he sees as the liberal orthodoxy dominating higher education. The university aims to promote so-called “intellectual diversity” and “free speech“, reflecting Lonsdale’s belief that traditional universities have become too politically homogeneous.

The New Right of Silicon Valley

Together with Thiel, Lonsdale represents a new brand of tech-enabled Republicanism. This movement combines traditional Republican values of (in this case extremely) limited government and free markets with a Silicon Valley ethos of disruption and technological optimism. It stands apart from both establishment Republicanism and populist right-wing movements, offering a vision of conservative politics infused with the language and tools of technology.

Lonsdale has used his platform to advocate for American innovation and entrepreneurship, arguing that technological advancement, not government intervention, is the solution to society’s problems. His American Optimist initiative promotes this vision through podcasts and other media, featuring conversations with entrepreneurs, scientists, and policy experts who share his techno-optimistic worldview.

Joe Lonsdale and Elon Musk

Joe Lonsdale and Elon Musk know each other, and have collaborated on various ventures. Lonsdale has been a supporter of Musk’s initiatives both politically and in business. His firm 8VC invested in Musk’s Boring Company during its Series C funding round. He also contributed $1 million to America PAC, a super PAC backing Donald Trump‘s 2024 presidential campaign run by Musk. Their relationship extends to political endeavors, with Lonsdale described as a friend and “political confidant” of Musk.

In a recent interview, Lonsdale discussed Musk’s influence on various sectors, highlighting their shared perspectives on innovation and technology. Lonsdale has publicly expressed support for Musk’s acquisition of Twitter, now rebranded as X — while privately being one of the venture’s investors.

Personal Life and Legacy

On a personal level, Lonsdale married Tayler Cox in 2016, and they have five children together. Their family life, now based in Austin, reflects the traditional values that inform his political perspective.

With an estimated net worth of $425 million, Lonsdale uses his wealth not just for political activities but also for philanthropy, often directed toward causes aligned with his conservative values. He and his wife are active donors in various philanthropic pursuits, though these typically reflect his market-oriented approach to solving social problems.

The Future of Right-Wing Tech

At just 42 years old, Lonsdale’s influence in both technology and politics continues to grow. As one of the youngest members ever to appear on Forbes’ Midas List, his investment decisions shape the future of technology, while his political advocacy helps define a new strain of tech right-wing forces.

Following Thiel’s playbook but developing his own distinctive voice, Lonsdale represents a generation of tech leaders who are attacking Silicon Valley’s liberal consensus. And with fellow tech titan buddy Elon Musk now Chief Buddy, these energetically right-wing tech oligarchs with enormous power over our daily lives already are unsettlingly close to the White House.

March 12, 2025

Meme Wars Book Review

Meme Wars: How Digital Culture Became a Weapon Against Democracy

In their groundbreaking book “Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America,” researchers Joan Donovan, Emily Dreyfuss, and Brian Friedberg offer a chilling examination of how internet culture has been weaponized to undermine democratic institutions. Far from being a distant academic analysis, this book serves as an urgent warning about the very real dangers facing our democracy in the digital age.

When Internet Jokes Become Political Weapons

Remember when memes were just harmless internet jokes? Those days are long gone. “Meme Wars” meticulously documents how these seemingly innocent cultural artifacts have evolved into powerful weapons in a coordinated assault on American democracy — a form of information warfare that tears at our very ability to detect fantasy from reality at all, something that Hannah Arendt once warned of as a key tool of authoritarian regimes.

What makes this transformation particularly insidious is how easy it is to dismiss. After all, how could crudely drawn frogs and joke images possibly be a threat to democracy? Yet the authors convincingly demonstrate that this dismissive attitude is precisely what has allowed far-right operatives to wield memes so effectively.

The book reveals how figures like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Nick Fuentes, and Roger Stone have mastered the art of meme warfare. These digital provocateurs understand something that traditional political institutions have been slow to grasp: in today’s media environment, viral content can bypass established gatekeepers and directly shape public opinion at scale.

The Digital Radicalization Pipeline

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of “Meme Wars” is its detailed examination of what the authors call the “redpill right” and their techniques for radicalizing ordinary Americans. The process begins innocuously enough—a provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithm—but can quickly lead vulnerable individuals down increasingly extreme ideological paths.

This digital radicalization operates through sophisticated emotional manipulation. Content is carefully crafted to trigger outrage, fear, or a sense of belonging to an in-group that possesses hidden truths. Over time, these digital breadcrumbs lead users into alternative information ecosystems that gradually reshape their perception of political reality.

From Online Conspiracy to Capitol Insurrection

“Meme Wars” provides what may be the most comprehensive account to date of how online conspiracy theories materialized into physical violence on January 6th, 2021. The authors trace the evolution of the “Stop the Steal” movement from fringe online forums to mainstream platforms, showing how digital organizing translated into real-world action.

The book presents the Capitol insurrection as the logical culmination of years of digital warfare. Participants like “Elizabeth from Knoxville” exemplify this new reality—simultaneously acting as insurrectionists and content creators, live-streaming their participation for online audiences even as they engaged in an attempt to overthrow democratic processes.

This fusion of digital performance and physical violence represents something genuinely new and dangerous in American politics. The insurrectionists weren’t just attacking the Capitol; they were creating content designed to inspire others to join their cause.

Inside the Digital War Rooms

What sets “Meme Wars” apart from other analyses of digital extremism is the unprecedented access the authors gained to the online spaces where anti-establishment actors develop their strategies. These digital war rooms function as laboratories where messaging is crafted, tested, and refined before being deployed more broadly.

The authors document how these spaces identify potential recruits, gradually expose them to increasingly extreme content, and eventually mobilize them toward political action. This sophisticated recruitment pipeline has proven remarkably effective at growing extremist movements and providing them with dedicated foot soldiers.

The Existential Threat to Democracy

At its core, “Meme Wars” is a book about the fundamental challenge digital manipulation poses to democratic governance. By deliberately stirring strong emotions and deepening partisan divides, meme warfare undermines the rational discourse and shared reality necessary for democratic deliberation.

The authors make a compelling case that these tactics represent an existential threat to American democracy. What’s more, the digital warfare techniques developed in American contexts are already being exported globally, representing a worldwide challenge to democratic institutions.

Confronting the Challenge

Perhaps the most important contribution of “Meme Wars” is its insistence that we recognize digital threats as real-world dangers. For too long, online extremism has been dismissed as merely virtual—something separate from “real” politics. The events of January 6th definitively shattered that illusion.

While the book doesn’t offer easy solutions, it makes clear that protecting democracy in the digital age will require new approaches from institutions, platforms, and citizens alike. We need digital literacy that goes beyond spotting fake news to understanding how emotional manipulation operates online. We need platforms that prioritize democratic values over engagement metrics. And we need institutions that can effectively counter extremist narratives without amplifying them.

A Must-Read for Democracy’s Defenders

“Meme Wars” is not just a political thriller, though it certainly reads like one at times. It is a rigorously researched warning about how extremist movements are reshaping American culture and politics through digital means. For anyone concerned with the preservation of democratic institutions, it should be considered essential reading.

The authors — including Joan Donovan, widely known and respected as a foremost scholar on disinformation — have performed a valuable service by illuminating the hidden mechanics of digital manipulation. Now it’s up to all of us to heed their warning and work to build democratic resilience in the digital age. The future of our democracy may depend on it.

February 27, 2025

Newspeak Dictionary

George Orwell’s 1984 lexicon is a lingua franca of authoritarianism, fascism, and totalitarianism. Newspeak words have the stamp of boots on pavement, the stench of disinformation, and are most likely to be found in the mouths of Trumpians and the chryons of the OAN Network.

The terse portmanteus are blunt and blocky, like a brutalist architecture vocabulary. Their simplicity indicates appeal to the small-minded masses for easily digested pablum.

What is Newspeak?

Newspeak is a fictional language created by George Orwell for his dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The language serves as an essential tool for the oppressive regime, known as The Party, to control and manipulate the population of Oceania. Newspeak is intentionally designed to restrict the range of thought, eliminate words that convey dissent or rebellion, and enforce political orthodoxy. The language accomplishes this by reducing the complexity of Newspeak vocabulary and grammar, condensing words into simplified forms, and eliminating synonyms and antonyms. The Party aims to eliminate the potential for subversive thoughts by ensuring that the language itself lacks the necessary words and expressions to articulate them.

In Orwell’s world, Newspeak works hand in hand with the concept of “doublethink,” which requires individuals to accept contradictory beliefs simultaneously. This manipulation of language and thought is central to maintaining the Party’s power and control over the populace. Newspeak translation is often the exact opposite of the meaning of the words said.

Newspeak’s ultimate goal is to render dissent and rebellion impossible by making the very thoughts of these actions linguistically unexpressable. As a result, Newspeak serves as a chilling representation of how language can be weaponized to restrict personal freedoms, suppress independent thought, and perpetuate an authoritarian regime.

Newspeak Rises Again

Those boots ring out again, from Belarus to Hungary to the United States. There are book burnings and the defunding of libraries in multiple states. From Ron DeSantis to Trumpian anti-intellectualism to the rampant proliferation of conspiracy theories, It’s a good time to brush up on the brutalism still actively struggling to take hold.

The following is a list of all Newspeak words from 1984.

Newspeak 1984 Dictionary

Newspeak term	Definition
ante	The prefix that replaces before
artsem	Artificial insemination
bb	Big Brother
bellyfeel	The blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhite	To accept whatever one is told, regardless of the facts. In the novel, it is described as “…to say that black is white when [the Party says so]” and “…to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”.
crimestop	To rid oneself of unorthodox thoughts that go against Ingsoc’s ideology
crimethink	Thoughts and concepts that go against Ingsoc, frequently referred to by the standard English “thoughtcrime”, such as liberty, equality, and privacy, and also the criminal act of holding such thoughts
dayorder	Order of the day
dep	Department
doubleplusgood	The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively good”, such as excellent, fabulous, and fantastic
doubleplusungood	The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively bad”, such as terrible and horrible
doublethink	The act of simultaneously believing two, mutually contradictory ideas
duckspeak	Automatic, vocal support of political orthodoxies
facecrime	A facial expression which reveals that one has committed thoughtcrime
Ficdep	The Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
free	The absence and the lack of something. “Intellectually free” and “politically free” have been replaced by crimethinkful.
–ful	The suffix for forming an adjective
fullwise	The word that replaces words such as fully, completely, and totally
goodthink	A synonym for “political orthodoxy” and “a politically orthodox thought” as defined by the Party
goodsex	Sexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage
goodwise	The word that replaced well as an adverb
Ingsoc	The English Socialist Party (i.e. The Party)
joycamp	Labour camp
malquoted	Inaccurate representations of the words of Big Brother and of the Party
Miniluv	The Ministry of Love, where the secret police interrogate and torture the enemies of Oceania (torture and brainwashing)
Minipax	The Ministry of Peace, who wage war for Oceania
Minitrue	The Ministry of Truth, who manufacture consent by way of lies, propaganda, and distorted historical records, while supplying the proles (proletariat) with synthetic culture and entertainment
Miniplenty	The Ministry of Plenty, who keep the population in continual economic hardship (starvation and rationing)
Oldspeak	Standard English
oldthink	Ideas from the time before the Party’s revolution, such as objectivity and rationalism
ownlife	A person’s anti-social tendency to enjoy solitude and individualism
plusgood	The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “very good”, such as great
plusungood	The word that replaced “very bad”
Pornosec	The pornography production section (Porno sector) of the Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
prolefeed	Popular culture for entertaining Oceania’s working class
Recdep	The Ministry of Truth’s Records Department, where Winston Smith rewrites historical records so they conform to the Party’s agenda
rectify	The Ministry of Truth’s euphemism for manipulating a historical record
ref	To refer (to someone or something)
sec	Sector
sexcrime	A sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for procreation
speakwrite	A machine that transcribes speech into text
Teledep	The Ministry of Truth’s Telecommunications Department
telescreen	A two-way television set with which the Party spy upon Oceania’s population
thinkpol	The Thought Police, the secret police force of Oceania’s government
unperson	An executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
upsub	An upwards submission to higher authority
–wise	The only suffix for forming an adverb

Newspeak Dictionary Quiz

Claude Artifacts made this in one prompt. Imagine this power to generate study aids for a wide variety of students at all levels. If I had had this as a kid…

Newspeak Quiz: Test Your Ingsoc Vocabulary

Welcome to the interactive Newspeak quiz! This quiz will help you learn the terminology of Oceania’s official language through fun repetition. Demonstrate your goodthink by mastering these terms – your commitment to linguistic purity will surely be recognized by the Party.

Beginner

Intermediate

Advanced

Term → Definition

Definition → Term

Score: 0/0

Review Your Answers

Creation of New Words in Newspeak

One of the most fascinating and insidious aspects of Newspeak is the methodical creation of new words. This process is not only about inventing new terms but also about streamlining and simplifying the language to ensure it serves the purposes of the Party. Here’s how this process works:

1. Compounding Words

In Newspeak, many new words are created by combining existing ones. This technique, known as compounding, helps to streamline communication by reducing longer phrases into single, concise terms. For example:

Goodthink: A compound of “good” and “think,” meaning orthodox thought, or thoughts that align with Party doctrine.
Oldthink: A combination of “old” and “think,” referring to thoughts that are based on outdated, pre-revolutionary beliefs and values.

By merging words in this manner, Newspeak eliminates the need for descriptive phrases, thereby simplifying language and controlling thought.

2. Prefixes and Suffixes

Newspeak employs prefixes and suffixes to create new words and alter the meanings of existing ones. This method ensures that language remains efficient and devoid of any unnecessary complexity. Some common prefixes and suffixes include:

Un-: This prefix is used to form the negative of any word, thereby eliminating the need for antonyms. For example, “unhappy” replaces “sad.”
Plus- and Doubleplus-: These prefixes intensify the meaning of words. “Plusgood” means very good, while “doubleplusgood” means excellent or extremely good.
-wise: This suffix is used to form adverbs. For instance, “speedwise” means quickly.

Through these prefixes and suffixes, Newspeak ensures that language remains consistent and simplified, reinforcing the Party’s control over thought.

3. Simplification of Grammar

The creation of new words in Newspeak is also characterized by the simplification of grammar. Irregular verbs and noun forms are abolished, making all words conform to a delimited list of regular patterns. For example:

Think: In Newspeak, the past tense of “think” would simply be “thinked,” and the past participle would also be “thinked,” eliminating irregular forms like “thought.”
Knife: Plural forms are regularized, so “knife” becomes “knifes” instead of “knives.”

This grammatical regularization reduces the cognitive load required to learn and use the language, further limiting the scope for complex or critical thought.

4. Abolition of Synonyms and Antonyms

Newspeak systematically removes synonyms and antonyms to narrow the range of meaning, engendering black and white thinking. Each concept is reduced to a single, unambiguous word, eliminating nuances and shades of meaning:

Good: The word “good” stands alone without synonyms like “excellent,” “great,” or “superb.” Intensifiers like “plus-” and “doubleplus-” are used instead.
Bad: Instead of having a separate word like “bad,” Newspeak uses “ungood.” This not only simplifies vocabulary but also imposes a binary way of thinking.

By removing synonyms and antonyms, Newspeak reduces the complexity of language, ensuring that only Party-approved ideas can be easily communicated.

5. Creation of Euphemisms

In Newspeak, euphemisms are crafted to mask the true nature of unpleasant or controversial realities, aligning language with Party propaganda. For instance:

Joycamp: A euphemism for forced labor camps, designed to make the concept seem more palatable and less threatening.
Minipax: Short for the Ministry of Peace, which actually oversees war. The euphemistic name helps to disguise its true function.

These euphemisms help to distort reality, making it easier for the Party to maintain control over the population’s perceptions and beliefs.

Disinformation Dictionary ↗

Disinformation is a practice with a unique Orwellian lexicon all its own, collated in this disinformation dictionary.

Essential thinkers on authoritarian personality theory ↗

The authoritarian personality is characterized by excessive strictness and a propensity to exhibit oppressive behavior towards perceived subordinates.

How did they get this way? Are people born with authoritarian personalities, or is the authoritarian “made” predominately by circumstance?

Pathocracy Definition: Are we in one? ↗

Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the “evil of Cluster B“), hold significant power.

February 25, 2025

“A republic, not a democracy” came from segregationists

You’ll hear a common retort on the extreme right that now holds sway in the mainstream Republican Party, in response to protests about the dismantling of democracy in this country — that we’re “a republic, not a democracy.” Right off the bat, a republic is a form of democracy — so they are claiming something akin to having a Toyota and not a car. It makes no logical sense, and is based in simple ignorance of civics and basic political philosophy.

But it manages to get worse — the origins of the bully taunt “a republic, not a democracy” are located in the segregationist movement. Specifically, the concept comes from the pro-segregation book You and Segregation, written in 1955 by future Senator Herman E. Talmadge.

John Birch Society loonies laud “a republic, not a democracy”

The “republic, not a democracy” meme would go on to be featured in the John Birch Society Blue Book — an organization so toxically extremist that even conservative darling William F. Buckley distanced himself from them. They feared the idea that increasing democratization would be a shifting balance of power away from white conservative men, and they spun numerous conspiracy theories to explain this as the result of nefarious undercover plot to overthrow Western Civilization.

In reality, the trend towards greater democracy is something the Founders themselves envisioned — though they likely could not have imagined how it would turn out. They believed fiercely in self-governance, and a clear separation from the tyranny of kings.

They wanted us to amend our Constitution, and to look at them in hindsight not as saintly gods but as mere men — who could govern themselves just as well as any reasonably earnest group of human beings could also do. At the time, arguably, they would have said “group of men” — but they were products of their time, and their worldview was limited to a patriarchal frame. Philosophically speaking, the Declaration of Independence is clear in its lofty goals — if its author was not so clear in his personal behavior regarding the equality of all persons.

That is what Abraham Lincoln meant by the “better angels” of our nature — that though we are fallible humans who make mistakes and have hubris and repeat the same idiocies again and again, we yet strive to become better than what we currently are. It’s noble, and inspiring, and is the better basis for a nation to unify around than that of hatred, bigotry, and petty revenge that the current Trump 2.0 administration stands for.

February 23, 2025

On Lying and Politics — Hannah Arendt

Hannah Arendt, author of "On Lying and Politics"

Hannah Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” is a collection of two seminal essays that explore the complex relationship between truth, lies, and political power. The book, published in 2022, includes “Truth and Politics” (1967) and “Lying in Politics” (1971), along with a new introduction by David Bromwich.

Key Themes of “On Lying and Politics”

The nature of political lies

Arendt argues that the phenomenon of lying in politics is not new, and that truthfulness has never been considered a political virtue. She posits that lies have long been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings, reflecting a deep-seated tension between truth and politics. However, Arendt also warns that excessive lying by political classes can lead to totalitarianism, where reality becomes entirely fictional.

Types of truth

Arendt distinguishes between two types of truth: factual and rational. She argues that factual truth is more vulnerable to political manipulation, as it is not self-evident and can be challenged like opinions. Rational truth, on the other hand, is more resilient as it can be reproduced through logical reasoning. Others can more easily verify on their own whether a rational truth checks out, whereas they cannot as easily go fact-finding — particularly about far-flung things that happen well outside their ken.

The impact of lies on democracy

Arendt explores how organized lying can tear apart our shared sense of reality, replacing it with a fantasy world of manipulated evidence and doctored documents. She argues that in a democracy, honest disclosure is crucial as it is the self-understanding of the people that sustains the government. This aligns with the idea that totalitarian governments can warp even the language itself, a la George Orwell’s Newspeak language in the classic novel 1984.

a scary world of disinformation, analyzed by the great Hannah Arendt

A Tale of Two Essays

“Truth and Politics” (1967)

In this essay, Arendt examines the affinity between lying and politics. She emphasizes that the survival of factual truth depends on credible witnesses and an informed citizenry. The essay explores how organized lying can degrade facts into mere opinions, potentially leading liars to believe their own fabrications in a self-deluding system of circular logic.

“Lying in Politics” (1971)

Written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, this essay applies Arendt’s insights to American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War and the official lies used to justify it were primarily exercises in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than achieving strategic objectives.

Arendt’s perspective on political lying

Arendt views lying as a deliberate denial of factual truth, interconnected with the ability to act and rooted in imagination. She argues that while individual lies might succeed, lying on principle ultimately becomes counterproductive as it forces the audience to disregard the distinction between truth and falsehood.

Contemporary relevance

Arendt’s work remains highly relevant today, perhaps even more so than when it was written. Her analysis of how lies can undermine the public’s sense of reality and the dangers of political self-deception resonates strongly in our current political climate of disinformation, manipulation, and radicalization.

Today, even natural disasters are politicized — spawning dangerous conspiracy theories that do actual harm by discouraging people from getting help, among other tragedies of ignorance. And the right-wing is almost zealous about retconning the history trail and shoving things down the memory hole, including “rebranding” the J6 insurrection as a “day of love” and imagining away Donald Trump’s 34 felony counts.

Not to mention, the incredible contribution from Big Tech — whose tech bros have seen to it that political technology, and the study of professional manipulation, is alive and well. It’s been in the zeitgeist for a couple of decades now, and is now being accelerated — by the ascendancy of AI, Elon Musk, and the Silicon Valley branch of the right-wing wealth cult (Biden called it the tech-industrial complex).

“On Lying and Politics” feels fresh today

Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” provides a nuanced exploration — and a long-term view — of the role of truth and lies in political life. While acknowledging that lying has always been part of politics, Arendt warns of the dangers of excessive and systematic lying, particularly in democratic societies.

Her work continues to offer valuable insights into the nature of political deception and its impact on public life and democratic institutions. We would be wise to hear her warnings and reflect deeply on her insights, as someone who lived through the Nazi regime and devoted the remainder of her life’s work to analyzing what had happened and warning others. The similarities to our current times are disturbing and alarming — arm yourself with as much information as you can.

Language

Irrational thinking: And how to counter it

Types of cognitive distortion

Cognitive distortions list

More related to cognitive distortions:

Black and white thinking in political psychology

Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era

The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking

Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms

Information Processing Under Cognitive Load

Contemporary Political Manifestations

Institutional Polarization Patterns

Identity-Based Political Cognition

Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts

Democratic Governance Challenges

Economic System Implications

Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis

The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model

Systems Thinking Applications

Historical Pattern Recognition

Contemporary Case Studies

Social Media Discourse Patterns

Political Movement Dynamics

Crisis Response Patterns

Neurological and Psychological Foundations

Cognitive Processing Systems

Developmental Psychology Perspectives

Organizational and Institutional Responses

Educational System Adaptations

Democratic Institution Reforms

Technology Platform Governance

Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking

Individual-Level Interventions

Community-Level Initiatives

Institutional Design Principles

Implications for Democratic Resilience

Representation and Legitimacy

Policy Development and Implementation

Future Research Directions

Technology and Cognition

Political Psychology and Behavior

Institutional Design and Reform

Toward cognitive complexity

Related concepts and further reading

More topics related to black and white thinking:

Getting “separation of state” backwards

NPD diagnosis

NPD: Lack of empathy

Types of Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Examples of Public Figures Behaving Narcissistically

Historical Figures

Modern and Contemporary Figures

Common Narcissistic Behaviors Observed

Learn more about narcissism

What is cosmism: The Russian Philosophy Secretly Driving Silicon Valley’s Wildest Dreams

From Orthodox Monks to Space Dreams

The Soviet Space Race’s Secret Sauce

In short:

The Core Difference:

Historical Example:

Conservative:

Reactionary:

In Modern Terms:

Where It Gets Tricky:

In Summary:

Spectrum of Political Attitudes Towards Change

Inspiration

Ethics

Types of logical fallacies

Formal Fallacies

Informal Fallacies

How to identify logical fallacies

Why avoiding logical fallacies matters

Logical fallacies quiz

Read more related to logical fallacies:

A Comprehensive Timeline of Russian Electoral Interference: From Imperial Russia to the Digital Age

The Imperial Russian Roots of Electoral Interference

The Birth of Soviet Electoral Interference

Post-World War II: Aggressive Soviet Electoral Manipulation

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business