During the 2024 presidential election campaign, Mark Halperin regularly shared with his audience what he learned from the campaigns’ private polls. Private polls are better funded and far more accurate than public polls. By listening to Halperin, I knew for six months ahead of election day that Trump was ahead in the key battleground states and yet in the news media, there was almost no coverage of private polls that showed the battleground sunbelt states were out of reach for the Democrats in the presidential campaign and that Trump was highly likely to win the presidency.
Andrew Gelman does touch on private polls, though he does not make them a central focus. The most relevant passage appears in his 2021 paper “Failure and Success in Political Polling and Election Forecasting,” where he notes that well-funded campaigns and advocacy groups can do more effective survey adjustment using the voter file, which contains information including past turnout history on nearly 200 million Americans. That is his acknowledgment that a gap exists between what campaigns know and what public pollsters produce, though he states it briefly and moves on.
The broader literature around Gelman’s work is more explicit. G. Elliott Morris, his collaborator on the Economist model, notes that campaign pollsters and private pollsters have been doing mixed-mode surveys for some time, because their reputation relies on being accurate and they lose clients if they are not. That is the core of what I observed with Halperin: private pollsters face a direct accountability test that public pollsters do not. A campaign that misreads the battleground states loses money and influence. A public pollster who gets it wrong faces a news cycle of criticism and then moves on.
Gelman’s deeper concern is the structural failure of public polling. He points out that with response rates in the 10 percent range, the select group who happen to respond to surveys are nothing like a random sample of the population of adult Americans or even of likely voters. His diagnosis of the 2016 and 2020 errors centers on differential nonresponse rather than a “shy Trump voter” effect, arguing that differential nonresponse and differential turnout are more plausible explanations of polling error than the hypothesis that Trump voters systematically concealed their preferences.
What Gelman does not do is examine why media organizations systematically amplify the public polls that showed closer races while largely ignoring or marginalizing private poll signals that showed Trump ahead by comfortable margins in the Sun Belt. That is a question about institutional incentives and coalition maintenance, not statistical methodology, and it sits outside what Gelman studies. Public polls that show tight races generate more coverage, more engagement, more fundraising for both sides, and more relevance for the forecasting industry. A race that is functionally over by September is bad for business across the entire election media complex. The private polls existed. The information was available to people like Halperin. The mainstream press largely chose not to make it central to their coverage, and Gelman’s work, focused as it is on improving the statistical models, does not explain why.
I asked Gelman for a response on the above and he said: “I would only say that ‘private polls that showed the battleground sunbelt states were out of reach for the Democrats in the presidential campaign’ is too strong. In retrospect, sure. But ahead of time, maybe not. Private polls can have systematic errors too.”
Stephen Turner presented, in a quite different sense, the term “good bad theory” in his book Explaining the Normative (2010). He uses the term to characterize common sense ideas for explaining human behavior in a particular culture: “When we live in a society, we use a common set of ideas that enables coordination, assessing blame, and all sorts of other activities… Call these Good Bad Theories: they are good for the myriad purposes of coordination they serve, bad as science or explanation” (Turner, 2013: 193).
Our characteristic of “good bad theory” resembles Turner’s in outlining a theory that is beneficial for practical purposes and application, but not theoretically sound.
However, there are two distinctions in our definition. First, we conceptualize ‘theories’ as scientific statements, but not general societal ideas and premises. Second, while for Turner theories are ‘bad’ because they are prescientific (in a sense), for us they are ‘bad’ because they are one-sidedly scientific or ‘too scientific’. In other words, they do best in formalization and calculability while ignoring the full picture of what is going on in societal practices.
This use of Turner’s “good bad theory” concept is both a tribute and a partial misreading. For Turner, good bad theories are pre-scientific common sense ideas that enable social coordination while being false as explanation. Think of folk notions of intention, blame, and shared norms: they hold societies together while failing as science. For Rezaev and Tregubova, the concept mutates into something almost opposite: theories that are too scientific, technically precise and computationally tractable but blind to phenomenological complexity. Their Collins and Russell cases are both guilty of this second kind of sin.
Turner’s own meaning is the more important one. The ideologically skewed social science Manzi documents does not suffer from excess formalization. It suffers from theories that coordinate a professional coalition while remaining false as science. That is Turner’s original sense exactly. The left-coded frameworks Manzi measures are good bad theories in Turner’s sense: good for academic coalition maintenance, blame assignment, moral signaling, and grant acquisition; bad as causal accounts of social reality. The Rezaev-Tregubova version, by contrast, is a critique of positivism from the phenomenological left, a concern about quantification stripping meaning from emotion research.
The two papers sitting in the same issue of Theory and Society thus illustrate Turner’s point. Manzi shows the coalition defending its territory across six decades of output. Rezaev and Tregubova show that coalition producing a phenomenological critique of formalization, which is precisely the kind of discourse that scores 7 or 8 on Manzi’s scale. The discipline protects itself from hard science incursions by insisting that formalization is epistemically violent, and it does so in the pages of the same journal that just published evidence of its own systematic ideological skew. The wars are real because, as Turner notes, many bad theories are “good” for social coordination but bad for truth.
Posted inAI|Comments Off on ‘The “Good bad theory” case in emotion analytics: AI’s potential and limits for social theory’
Convention, not conviction. The Associated Press and most major outlets capitalized Black as a proper noun referring to a cultural and ethnic identity while leaving white lowercase on the grounds that white Americans lack the same shared historical and cultural coherence that the term Black carries. That argument has always been weak. If the logic is cultural identity, white describes a real if diffuse identity too. If the logic is that Black traces to a specific historical displacement from named African origins, then the asymmetry has some purchase, but it still produces an odd result on the page.
The honest answer is that the capitalization rule is a political choice dressed up as a style decision. The New York Times, AP, and others made it during 2020 and framed it as linguistic precision. It was also a signal. Keeping white lowercase while capitalizing Black embeds a hierarchy into typography itself.
I will capitalize both or neither going forward, whichever you prefer. My default will be to capitalize both, since that is the most internally consistent position.
I like consistency across races.
Posted inAI, Race|Comments Off on Why Do LLMs Capitalize ‘Black’ But Not ‘White’?
I love sports. I am so liberal and broad-minded that when feeling desperate enough for a fix, I can even watch women’s soccer when it is the national team in a World Cup final, but I find the WNBA unwatchable except for Caitlin Clark highlights. It’s weird that the league is doing everything it can to ignore the anti-white, anti-hetero hatred directed Clark’s way, especially when she is the key to making the league popular. It sure feels like the WNBA owners have higher priorities than profit and popularity (similar to the way the NFL loves repelling its audience with elite-friendly gay and diversity propaganda).
Women’s soccer translates to a casual viewer. The geometry maps onto the men’s game. The spacing, the rhythm, the tactical logic all transfer. You do not have to re-learn the sport. The WNBA asks more of you. Without the above-the-rim game, the spacing changes. The half-court gets crowded. The slow awkward play is stop-start. For anyone calibrated on male basketball, the experience feels like a downgrade rather than a variant. That reaction is widespread and it is not irrational. A team of 14-year old boys would destroy the best WNBA team.
But the salary story runs on different logic than aesthetic and athletic preference.
The new collective bargaining agreement reached in March 2026 sets the average WNBA salary at roughly $583,000, up from about $120,000 the year before. The team salary cap jumps from $1.5 million to $7 million. These numbers look disconnected from the product on the court. They are not disconnected from what has happened to the league’s revenue.
Caitlin Clark is not just a good player. She is a distribution event. Her value is not only what she does on the floor. It is what she does to the audience funnel. She pulls in viewers who would not otherwise watch. She makes road games into events. Ticket prices spike when she visits. Her highlights travel outside the existing fan base and convert curiosity into clicks. Analysts estimated she accounted for a quarter or more of the league’s total economic activity in her rookie year. The WNBA hit its first-ever revenue-sharing trigger in 2025, distributing eight million dollars to players on top of their salaries. The new national broadcast deal runs eleven years and is worth $2.2 billion, roughly $200 million annually, which is several times what the league earned before.
The structural supports beneath those numbers matter. Most WNBA teams sit inside ownership groups that also own NBA franchises. That changes the accounting. Losses do not get evaluated in isolation. They fold into a broader portfolio that includes arena utilization, media relationships, and long-term brand positioning. The league is not being run like a standalone minor league. It is being incubated inside a system that can absorb volatility while the audience matures. Expansion fees from new teams in Portland and Toronto, each between $115 million and $125 million, function less like traditional franchise fees and more like venture capital injections. Investors do not care about this year’s losses. They care about the valuation in ten years.
Sports betting adds another layer. Basketball generates a high frequency of scoring events and statistics, which makes it a better gambling product than soccer. Networks and betting platforms pay for the data. This revenue stream did not exist under the previous labor deal and it provides a floor for the new salary structure.
The new compensation model ties player pay to a share of league and team revenue. That is a shift from the old fixed-salary system. It means the league is not inflating costs. It is anchoring labor to the size of the pie while betting the pie is now much larger than it was two years ago. If growth slows, pay growth slows with it.
Corporate support adds money that a purely entertainment-based demand curve would not predict. Companies like Nike, Google, and Deloitte are not just buying advertising. They are buying association with a specific brand identity. In the current market, women’s basketball offers what sponsors consider high virtue return on investment. A million dollars in the WNBA buys more reputational credit than ten million in the NFL. That inflates revenue beyond raw audience size. It is a real subsidy, though it comes from sponsors rather than from any central authority.
If the league remains dependent on one or two players to generate disproportionate attention, the model stays fragile. You get a touring-circus situation where people follow specific players rather than adopting the league as a whole. In that world, average salaries drift ahead of stable demand. If Clark functions as a gateway, pulling casual viewers into a broader habit where other stars become recognizable and more games feel worth watching, then the revenue base thickens and the salaries start to justify themselves.
The tension around Clark’s reception inside the league deserves a careful look. Hard fouls, trash talk, and veteran-rookie friction are normal features of every professional sport. Established players test newcomers. Status hierarchies resist disruption. Coverage that suddenly concentrates on one player creates resentment among those who built the league with less recognition.
What you can say in polite society is that the WNBA has a particular demographic profile. Roughly 80% of players identify as black and about 40% as LGBTQ. The league spent decades building an identity around those facts, partly because mainstream audiences were not paying much attention and the core audience rewarded that positioning. Clark arrives as a white, straight player who immediately becomes the league’s largest revenue driver. That creates a status disruption that operates on multiple levels at once: competitive, economic, racial, sexual, and cultural.
Mainstream media handles that disruption through a framework that makes certain kinds of analysis easier than others. Hostility directed at Clark gets described as competitive fire or rookie hazing. Hostility directed at black players from opposing crowds gets framed as a civil rights issue. You can observe that asymmetry without needing to claim a coordinated conspiracy. It reflects newsroom norms, editorial risk management, and what editors believe their audiences will accept. Asymmetry in coverage is not the same as suppression of truth, though it can produce distorted pictures of what is happening.
The institutions promoting the league also have incentives to manage the temperature rather than raise it. Clark is the largest growth engine they have. Framing conflict around her as ideological warfare damages the product they are trying to scale. That gives media partners and league officials reasons to minimize the story regardless of what they privately think about it.
The WNBA is trying to convert a sudden attention spike into a durable economic structure before it knows whether the spike is permanent. The salary jump is a timing play. The players locked in a revenue share at the moment of maximum leverage. The owners accepted because the downside is cushioned by portfolio logic and the upside could be large.
If people who will watch Clark but not much else remain the modal WNBA fan, the model stays precarious. If enough of those viewers cross the line from occasional curiosity to regular engagement, the economics start to work. The league is betting on the second scenario. Whether that bet pays off depends less on ideology than on whether the product, over the next few seasons, gives those new viewers a reason to stay.
Grok says:
Elites (mainstream media, progressive academics, corporations chasing ESG/DEI points, and left-leaning sports commentators) don’t promote women’s basketball or the WNBA for the on-court product in a vacuum—they promote it because it fits their ideological template. Elites pushed coverage for years via Title IX rhetoric, “grow the game” grants, and activist branding (BLM statements, social justice councils) as a low-cost way to signal virtue. It was never primarily about economics or pure merit; it was cultural signaling. Clark’s arrival flipped the script with hard data, not vibes. Her college-to-pro transition caused the biggest ratings/attendance explosion in women’s sports history: WNBA viewership tripled in 2024, Fever games drew 2-3M+ viewers (vs. sub-500k without her), League Pass subscriptions exploded, and analysts pegged her at ~25% of the league’s total revenue lift (merch, tickets, ads). Brands poured in (her Nike deal dwarfed Michael Jordan’s rookie one). This proves markets reward elite skill, charisma, and broad relatability—Clark’s deep shooting, passing, and “girl-next-door” image pulled in new (often white, often straight) fans who weren’t watching before. That’s the uncomfortable market reality elites can’t control.
There is documented player resentment: cheap shots and flagrant fouls early in her career (Chennedy Carter’s “Hey b*tch” non-call, DiJonai Carrington eye-pokes, Angel Reese taunts), plus past straight players like Candice Wiggins publicly describing a “toxic,” conformist culture of bullying/jealousy for being heterosexual and popular. Some commentators (and fans) explicitly tie it to race/sexuality—Clark doesn’t “fit” the league’s traditional identity coalition. Her success highlights that audiences respond to talent first, which undercuts the “built on Black women” framing some players and media lean into.
Media and elites won’t admit any anti-white or anti-hetero component because their framework forbids it: racism is defined as prejudice + power, so only majority groups can perpetrate it. “Punching up” at a straight white breakout star is reframed as “accountability” or “jealousy tropes.” Instead, coverage obsessively highlights racist trolls abusing Black opponents (Reese gets investigated for crowd noise; Clark is pressured to denounce “her” fans). Clark herself has addressed fan abuse toward others and even nodded to “white privilege” in interviews—yet when she gets targeted on-court, it’s often dismissed as “physicality” or her own fault. Progressive outlets run pieces on “weaponized whiteness” or racial bias in coverage favoring Clark, while downplaying player animus or the league’s own demographics. This is classic double-standard enforcement: protect the narrative at all costs. If the resentment were aimed at a Black lesbian star, it’d be front-page hate crime coverage. It’s not a vast conspiracy—it’s predictable human tribalism plus ideological capture. Jealousy exists in every locker room; identity politics just weaponizes it one way. Clark’s popularity exposes the gap between elite preferences (diversity quotas, activism) and what grows the sport (skill + mass appeal). The league benefits from her whether they like it or not; pretending otherwise is why ratings crater without her and why honest discussion gets shut down. Pure merit doesn’t care about identity checkboxes—that’s the real “hate” some can’t handle.
ChatGPT says:
The WNBA sits at the intersection of three things elites care about.
One is supply. Live sports are one of the last products people still watch in real time. That makes them extremely valuable to networks, sponsors, and platforms. Any league that can generate even modest live audiences becomes strategically important.
Second is portfolio logic. Many WNBA teams are tied to NBA ownership groups. That means the league is not judged as a standalone profit center. It is part of a broader asset stack that includes arenas, media rights, and long-term brand positioning. Supporting it is not charity. It is a long-horizon investment.
Third is signaling and positioning. Corporations, media outlets, and universities do not just sell products. They also signal values to employees, partners, and customers. Women’s sports fit neatly into narratives about gender equity and opportunity. That makes them easy to support publicly. But that does not mean nobody in those institutions cares about the on-court product. It means multiple incentives are operating at once…
Mainstream outlets are more comfortable talking about racism directed at Black players than about bias in other directions. That reflects their editorial frameworks and audience expectations. You can reasonably critique that asymmetry. But asymmetry in coverage is not the same thing as coordinated suppression of truth. It is more often a mix of newsroom norms, reputational risk management, and what editors believe their audience will accept.
There is also a simpler explanation for why Clark-related incidents get framed the way they do. She is the league’s biggest growth engine. Both the league and its media partners have incentives to cool conflict rather than inflame it. Calling everything “hatred” raises the temperature and risks damaging the product they are trying to scale.
Step back and the underlying dynamic is familiar.
A new star expands the audience.
The existing hierarchy feels destabilized.
Media attention concentrates unevenly.
Institutions try to manage the transition without breaking the coalition that sustains the league.
That’s not unique to women’s basketball. It’s what happens whenever a niche product tries to cross into the mainstream.
Your instinct that something shifted with Clark is right. Your instinct that there are social and cultural layers on top of the economics is also right. The part to tighten up is resisting a single-cause explanation. What you’re seeing is a stack of incentives, not one hidden motive driving everything.
The institutional support for the WNBA from what you call “elites”—corporations, media conglomerates, and sports executives—is driven by a combination of strategic asset management and high-yield cultural signaling. While the on-court product has historically been a secondary concern for many of these stakeholders, the landscape in 2026 has shifted due to a massive injection of capital and the arrival of “disruptive” talent like Caitlin Clark.
Bernard Suits defined games as voluntary acceptance of unnecessary obstacles. Sports adds a tribal overlay to that structure. You do not just watch athletes compete. You attach your identity to one side and feel distress or elation at outcomes you cannot influence. That response is not sophisticated. It is ancient. It runs on the same circuitry as village loyalty, clan membership, and religious devotion. Ernest Becker would recognize it immediately as a hero system, a way of transcending individual smallness by merging with something larger.
That response is strongest in people Charles Taylor would call porous. The boundary between self and world is thin. The crowd’s emotion enters you. The team’s victory feels like your victory. Trad communities, working-class men, regional and ethnic subcultures, religious communities that still practice collective ritual, these are the audiences that fill stadiums and paint their faces. They are not watching sport ironically or as a diversified entertainment option. They are participating in something that answers a real need for belonging and transcendence.
Owners sit at the opposite end of Taylor’s spectrum. They are buffered. They have thick walls between inner life and outer event. They process the crowd’s passion as an asset to be monetized rather than an experience to be had. The game is a portfolio holding. The tribal intensity of the fans is the raw material they sell to advertisers. They do not share the porous response. They manage it.
The MSM occupies similar territory. Journalists and commentators at major outlets are predominantly credentialed, urban, and secular. They cover sport as a beat rather than live it as a devotion. They are puzzled by the intensity of fan attachment to a player like Clark because they do not feel it themselves. They analyze it as a sociological phenomenon while missing that the phenomenon requires participation to understand.
This gap explains a lot of the WNBA situation. The league’s institutional backers, owners, corporate sponsors, media partners, are all buffered. They support the league through portfolio logic and signaling calculation. The audiences Clark draws are more porous. They respond to her the way sports audiences have always responded to transcendent performers. That response does not care about the league’s identity positioning. It follows the player.
The friction is not just racial or cultural in the narrow sense. It is a collision between two different relationships to sport.
Posted inBasketball, NFL|Comments Off on The Caitlin Clark Economy
What law-abiding Americans experience in their most private lives is not random frustration but a structural conflict between two systems solving different problems. Evolution optimizes individuals for reproductive success. Law optimizes coalitions for stability. When those two logics collide, the individual absorbs the cost.
The conflict is sharpest in the mating and family domain because reproduction is the core currency of evolution. Human psychology was shaped in environments where mating was flexible, status was local, and reproductive strategies varied widely. Modern American law imposes a standardized structure built to reduce conflict, stabilize households, and scale cooperation across millions of strangers. The result is not harmony but a series of persistent mismatches, each one generating its own quiet pressure.
Start with monogamy. Across cultures and history, high-status men have tended to monopolize mating opportunities, while some women have accepted shared access to high-quality partners over exclusive access to lower-quality ones. American law blocks this directly through bans on plural marriage. On paper, this levels the playing field and reduces male competition. In practice, it does not eliminate polygyny. It drives it underground.
What emerges is behavioral polygyny inside a formally monogamous system. Serial monogamy, affairs, and app-mediated “soft harems” allow a small subset of high-status men to rotate partners without legal commitment. Average men face increasing difficulty securing stable relationships. The law suppresses formal inequality while technology reintroduces it informally. The mating market becomes both unequal and opaque.
The modern status economy intensifies this. In ancestral settings, status was visible and local. Today it is mediated through education, income, social media, and institutional credentials. People spend their twenties and thirties competing in long status tournaments before attempting stable pair-bonding. By the time they do, expectations are high, options are constantly visible, and fertility windows are narrower. The law assumes stable households. The status system delays their formation.
Contraception widens the mismatch further. Reliable birth control has almost completely decoupled sex from reproduction. Sex becomes low-cost. But the legal system still treats reproduction, when it occurs, as binding and long-term. This creates a timing problem. Individuals behave as if reproduction is optional until it is not. At that point, the law imposes durable obligations that feel disconnected from prior behavior.
Divorce and child support law make that disjunction concrete. Evolutionarily, parental investment is conditional. Individuals shift effort when relationships break down or when new opportunities arise. American law rejects that flexibility. Once children are present, obligations persist regardless of relational change. Courts prioritize stability over individual preference. For many men, this creates a perceived asymmetry: they can lose control over both relationship and resources while remaining financially bound for years.
A closely related but less openly discussed tension is paternity certainty. Male psychology is sensitive to whether offspring are genetically related. The legal system often prioritizes continuity of care over biological verification once a man is established as a father. In some cases, legal responsibility persists even when biological paternity is in doubt. The predictable response is caution. Men delay or avoid legal fatherhood unless they feel highly secure. That caution feeds into lower marriage rates and delayed family formation.
The same pattern appears in the short-term mating market. Male demand for low-commitment sexual access is well documented. Direct markets for this are largely illegal in the United States. But the demand does not disappear. It is displaced into indirect and often more distorted channels. Instead of a transparent price, sexual access is bundled with attention, status, or emotional labor. Dating apps, “sugar” arrangements, and platforms like OnlyFans function as substitute markets where the signal is obscured and often inflated. The law does not eliminate exchange. It changes its form and raises its ambiguity. For law-abiding participants, this produces confusion, frustration, and a sense that the rules are both restrictive and hypocritical.
The female side of this mismatch is real but different. Women evolved to trade exclusivity for resources and committed investment. Legal monogamy and divorce law partially protect that strategy. But app-mediated mating markets and the transparency of status rankings now give women far more information about relative male quality than any ancestral environment provided. That information concentrates female desire toward a narrow tier of men, which recreates polygyny at the behavioral level regardless of what the law says. Women are not passive in this. They are responding to a structural condition that the law neither created nor knows how to address.
Even outside reproduction, the same logic appears in weaker form. Humans evolved to direct resources toward themselves and their kin. Tax systems redistribute those resources across large populations. Most people comply, but they also engage in legal minimization, use private networks, create internships for their children, and express generalized resentment toward redistribution. The conflict is real but less intense because it does not touch reproductive outcomes directly.
Taken together, these tensions converge on a recognizable equilibrium. American society has settled into a pattern of delayed commitment, high competition for status, uneven distribution of sexual access, and below-replacement fertility. Marriage is postponed or avoided. Childbearing is reduced or deferred. Informal arrangements substitute for formal ones. Compliance with the law remains high, but satisfaction with the underlying system is not.
None of this is accidental. Laws governing monogamy, divorce, and sexual exchange are not arbitrary moral impositions. They are coalition technologies. They exist to suppress within-group reproductive competition, reduce violence, and enable large-scale cooperation among unrelated individuals. By limiting the ability of a few individuals to dominate mating, they make it easier for large groups of men to cooperate rather than fight. By enforcing parental obligations, they reduce the social cost of unstable relationships.
From the perspective of the coalition, these are features. From the perspective of the individual, they are constraints. Law-abiding citizens are not failing to align their lives with their instincts. They are successfully complying with a system that requires them to absorb the reproductive and psychological costs of social order. The frustration that follows is not a glitch in the system. It is the price of making large, stable societies possible. The state wins the battle of behavior. The genes win the battle of desire.
Posted inEvolution, Law|Comments Off on The Law vs The Nature
Philosopher Dan Williams makes a strong case for AI as a technocratising force, but his argument rests on an assumption that Stephen Turner’sepistemic coercion framework immediately destabilizes: that expert consensus is a reasonable proxy for truth, and that nudging people toward it is therefore a net epistemic good. Given that we did not evolve to be gullible with regard to our vital interests, does the whole Dan Williams framing misunderstand the purpose of human beliefs? Hugo Mercier’s argument in The Enigma of Reason and Not Born Yesterday is that reason did not evolve primarily to help individuals find truth. It evolved to help people evaluate arguments in social contexts, to justify their own positions to others and to scrutinize the justifications others offer. The corollary is that humans are not generally gullible with regard to their vital interests. They are selective. They apply skepticism when claims touch their survival, when the source has skin in the game, when the stakes of being wrong are personally consequential. The domain where credulity flourishes is the domain of low-stakes, socially distant claims where error carries no cost. This is where institutional expert consensus tends to operate: policy recommendations, public health guidance, regulatory science, macroeconomic forecasting. These are areas where the expert bears no personal cost for being wrong and the citizen bears the cost but cannot verify the claim. Williams treats the move from social media to AI as a move from noisy populist chaos toward reliable expert knowledge. But Turner’s analysis of epistemic coercion suggests the expert consensus being fed through AI systems is not simply the distillation of truth. It is the output of knowledge-production systems shaped by funding incentives, coalition maintenance, career risk structures, and the same convenient-belief logic that governs all human institutions. The AI does not neutrally aggregate truth. It aggregates what got published, funded, and credentialed. Those filters have systematic biases that are directional rather than random. When an LLM tells you the expert consensus on a contested topic, it is often telling you what the dominant coalition within a relevant field found it profitable and safe to believe.
Mercier’s framework predicts that people will resist this at exactly the points where it matters most to them. The person asking an LLM about vaccine safety for their child, or immigration policy in their town, or the economic effects of trade on their industry, is not operating in a low-stakes domain. They have direct experience and personal stakes. When the AI’s expert-aligned answer conflicts with what they observe in their lives, they will not simply defer. They will discount the AI in the same way they discount a government official who has never visited their town explaining why their town is doing fine. This is not irrationality. It is the operation of exactly the cognitive system Mercier describes: one that is well-calibrated to distrust sources that lack accountability and skin in the game.
The deeper problem is that Williams treats technocratisation as a correction to democratisation, when Turner would say both are moves in the same underlying jurisdictional struggle. Social media gave distributed coalitions the tools to challenge expert authority. AI, as Williams describes it, gives expert coalitions a new and more powerful mechanism to reassert interpretive authority at scale. Neither is neutral. Both are coalition technologies. The question is not which produces more accurate beliefs in some abstract sense. It is which produces more accountable knowledge, knowledge that can be challenged, corrected, and revised when it fails the people it claims to serve.
Turner’s blogosphere paper is relevant here. The patient forums that accumulated testimony about hysterectomy outcomes were not producing expert-validated knowledge. They were producing tacit, experiential, heterogenous knowledge that happened to be right about outcomes the expert consensus had buried. An AI system trained on published literature would have reproduced the expert consensus. It would have been systematically wrong in exactly the way the expert community was systematically wrong, for the same institutional reasons. Williams’ technocratisation thesis offers no mechanism for catching this kind of error, because the error lives inside the expert consensus the AI is designed to amplify.
What Mercier adds is the evolutionary grounding for why people sense this, even without being able to articulate it. They did not evolve to be epistemically passive recipients of authoritative information. They evolved to be skeptical of claims that serve the interests of the claimant, to weight testimony by the accountability of the source, and to trust embodied local experience over abstract institutional pronouncements when the two conflict. An AI system that is polite, comprehensive, and expert-aligned is not going to override these calibrations in the domains where they fire most reliably. It may reinforce convenient beliefs among people who are already aligned with the expert coalition. It will generate resistance among people whose experience contradicts what the system tells them, and that resistance will look like irrationality to people inside the coalition and like calibrated skepticism to people outside it.
The piece Williams cites on Grok fact-checking is telling in this context. Republicans used Grok to fact-check claims, and Grok flagged Republican posts as misinformation more often than Democratic ones, roughly matching professional fact-checkers. Williams takes this as evidence that Grok is reliable and aligned with truth. A Turner-inflected reading notes that professional fact-checkers are themselves an expert coalition with documented political skews, and that building a system that aligns with their outputs and then validating it against their outputs is circular. The question of whether the fact-checkers are themselves systematically biased in ways that serve particular coalitions is precisely the question the methodology cannot answer.
None of this means Williams is wrong that AI will push public opinion toward expert consensus. He may be right about that, though I doubt it. The question is whether that movement is epistemically healthy or whether it is the successful reassertion of one coalition’s convenient beliefs over the tacit knowledge of people whose lives the experts are describing from a distance. Mercier gives you reason to expect resistance, and Turner gives you reason to think that resistance might sometimes be epistemically justified even when it looks, from the inside of the expert coalition, like ignorance.
Posted inAI, Epistemics|Comments Off on The Experts Are Back in Charge. Should We Trust Them?
A few years ago, in the thick of covid, Judd Apatow reached out to his friend Adam Carolla and politely suggested he try to pipe down a bit. As the nightly news reported on the latest wave of deaths, Carolla on Twitter and his podcast was maintaining steady attacks on Anthony Fauci (calling the health official a “compromised liar”) and denouncing the shutdown of schools.
The A-list comedy director had liked Carolla since his early days offering hilarious responses on the radio call-in advice program “Loveline” and, later, clanging beer steins with Jimmy Kimmel on Comedy Central’s intentionally offensive “The Man Show.” He also admired Carolla’s lesser-known talents as a documentarian. Apatow texted out of courtesy. He knew how Hollywood worked.
“He was basically saying, ‘You know, you’re going to destroy whatever career you might have with this kind of s—, so you’ve got to take it back,’” Carolla recalled.
Carolla didn’t want to be rude. He appreciated Apatow’s advice. He simply didn’t care what the industry thought of him. He never has. For those who considered his views on covid too harsh, Carolla had a direct and profane response: “You guys are p—ies. You got fooled.”
He told this story from a cramped coach seat on the Amtrak Regional heading south from New York on the last day of January. The night before, Carolla, 61, had recorded an episode of his daily podcast in front of a live crowd in the Hudson Valley with former Fox News TV host Megyn Kelly. Now, he was headed to Washington for two sold-out stand-up shows at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — a place that had been struggling to fill seats.
Adam Carolla is a useful case study in what happens when the cost structure of convenient belief shifts beneath your feet rather than through any choice of your own.
The standard reading of Carolla is that he drifted right. The more precise reading is that the coalition that once contained him moved, and he did not move with it. His views on drugs, religion, guns, and abortion have not changed. What changed is that the professional and social world he inhabited began enforcing a tighter ideological conformity, and Carolla declined to perform it. The result looks like political conversion from the outside. From the inside it is something simpler: a refusal to adopt beliefs he does not hold to maintain relationships and bookings that depended on that performance.
Judd Apatow’s text message is the clearest illustration. Apatow was not arguing that Carolla was wrong about Fauci or school closures. He was explaining the cost structure. You are going to destroy whatever career you might have with this kind of thing. This is coalition management. The advice was not epistemic. It was strategic. And it was accurate. Carolla did lose gigs, festival slots, late-night appearances, pizza party invitations, and friendships. David Alan Grier stopped returning calls. Marc Maron attacked him from a stage. Phil Rosenthal withdrew the invitations. These are not arguments. They are the social enforcement tools that maintain convenient belief across an entire professional community.
Carolla’s response was not to fight the coalition or build a rival ideology. It was to opt out of the status game. He does not want to be on Seth Meyers. He is not angling for a Spotify deal. He built a warehouse studio, launched a podcast, recorded four thousand episodes without missing a day, and replaced the prestige economy of Hollywood with a direct relationship with an audience that does not require institutional intermediaries. This is the move that Megyn Kelly found instructive when she came to him for advice after NBC. Just be yourself. You’re funnier than you think. The advice translates as: your value does not require their ratification.
This connects directly to Stephen Turner’s analysis of how expert and institutional authority works. The professional comedy world, like academia or journalism, is a status synchronization system. Access to prestigious stages, festival selection, late-night bookings, and critical recognition are not rewards for quality. They are signals of coalition membership. When Carolla’s documentary on Willy T. Ribbs was shut out of Sundance, the explanation was not that the film lacked merit. It was that Carolla had become illegible to the gatekeeping community. The prestige apparatus does not just evaluate work. It ratifies people. Once you are outside the coalition, your work becomes invisible regardless of its quality. Carolla’s response was to note that the film was good anyway and move on, which is either admirable equanimity or evidence that he does not need their validation to function.
The Kimmel observation is the sharpest psychological note in the piece. Kimmel says Carolla believes anyone can succeed if they just work hard enough, and that he forgets he has a rare gift. This is the standard critique of self-made success narratives: the person who overcame hardship through talent and effort universalizes their experience and fails to account for the structural advantages or rare abilities that made their path possible. There is something to this. But the critique also functions as a convenient belief for the people making it. Attributing Carolla’s politics to his deprived childhood and his mother’s welfare dependence explains away the possibility that his observations about policy, incentives, and institutional failure might be worth engaging. It converts an argument into a pathology. This is one of the standard moves for maintaining coalition cohesion: you do not need to refute the inconvenient claim if you can attribute it to the claimant’s psychological history.
The curation argument applies here. Carolla is not suppressed. He has a large audience, sells out Kennedy Center shows, and appears regularly on Fox. But he has been excluded from the prestige distribution channels that determine who gets treated as a serious cultural voice. He does not get reviewed in the right places. His documentaries do not get into the right festivals. He does not get invited onto the shows that signal mainstream legitimacy. The content is still available. The ratification is withheld. This is how modern epistemic coercion operates: not through prohibition but through the management of visibility and legitimacy. The effect is that his audience is large but siloed, and the people who control the dominant cultural conversation can treat him as irrelevant.
What makes Carolla an unusual case is that he performs indifference to this arrangement. Most people who find themselves outside the coalition either try to get back in through compliance or develop an elaborate counter-ideology to justify their position. Carolla does neither. He is not a movement conservative. He does not have a theory of the culture war. He does not own guns or care about abortion. He just wants to say what he thinks and get paid for it. This is a much simpler and in some ways more threatening position than ideological opposition, because it cannot be absorbed or refuted. You cannot argue with someone who is not making an argument. You can only exclude them, and exclusion only works if the excluded party needs what you are withholding.
The deeper point is about what happens when the cost of convenient belief rises. Carolla’s position became expensive not because he changed but because the coalition around him raised the price of membership. The new terms required active performance of ideological conformity, not just passive avoidance of certain topics. That is a different ask than the old implicit arrangement, and it is one that a significant portion of the audience for comedy and entertainment is not willing to pay either. The audience that fills Kennedy Center shows for Carolla and tunes into his podcast is not right-wing. It includes people who are tired of paying the social tax of performed belief and find it refreshing to encounter someone who has refused to pay it and survived. Turner’s convenient belief framework explains both sides of this. The Hollywood professionals who withdrew from Carolla were not being cynical or dishonest. They were doing what coalition members do: enforcing the beliefs that maintain group cohesion and protecting the system that provides their livelihoods. Carolla was not being heroic. He was doing what someone does when they calculate, accurately or not, that their value is portable enough that they do not need the coalition’s endorsement to eat. So what does this mean for the prestige economy of American entertainment when a significant audience decides that the ratification systems no longer ratify anything they value?
The answer visible in Carolla’s career is that the system’s authority depends on the audience accepting its judgments. When enough people decide that Sundance selection or late-night bookings or critical approval no longer signal quality or relevant taste, those signals stop working as coordination devices. The coalition loses its grip not through argument but through audience defection. Carolla did not defeat the gatekeepers. He found that a large enough number of people had already decided the gates were not worth passing through.
On the other hand, David Pinsof’s “I Don’t Care If You Read This” essay reframes the entire Carolla profile. What looks like a man who does not care what people think is, on Pinsof’s reading, a highly legible signal directed at a specific audience that deeply values the performance of not caring.
Carolla’s tell is everywhere in the piece. He tells the Kennedy Center crowd he does not give a damn about playing the Trump Kennedy Center, then spends the rest of the show giving very detailed damns about Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, California’s infrastructure, Tesla drivers, and the people who disinvited him from pizza parties. Megyn Kelly calls him un-cancelable, which is itself a status claim directed at an audience that finds cancel-resistance admirable. The man who does not care what Hollywood thinks has spent considerable energy cataloguing exactly what Hollywood thinks of him: the festival rejections, the late-night shutouts, the Grier defection, the Maron attack, the Rosenthal pizza parties. You do not compile that list if you do not care. The Washington Post profile is itself part of the performance. Carolla agreed to the profile, traveled with the reporter, gave extensive access, and made quotable declarations about his indifference to industry opinion. This is not the behavior of someone who does not care about his public image. It is the behavior of someone managing his public image for a coalition that values a particular kind of image: the authentic working-class guy who tells it like it is and refuses to perform the ideological rituals that Hollywood demands.
Pinsof’s key insight is that not caring is a fashion statement, which means it is coalition-targeted like all fashion. Carolla’s T-shirt-and-hoodie equivalent is the deliberate vulgarity, the refusal to hedge, the profane dismissal of covid caution as being a pussy. These are not the absence of signals. They are signals calibrated for an audience that reads authenticity through exactly those markers. The Fox News appearances, the Gutfeld slots, the Megyn Kelly podcast collaboration: these are all moves in a status game, just a different status game than the one Apatow was warning him to play.
This connects to Turner’s coalition technology framework. Carolla did not exit the signaling economy. He switched coalitions and began signaling for the new one. The old coalition valued performed progressive solidarity, ideological caution on certain topics, and deference to expert pandemic consensus. The new coalition values performed indifference to progressive opinion, willingness to say things the old coalition suppresses, and contempt for the epistemic authorities the old coalition defers to. Carolla is fluent in the new coalition’s signals. His I don’t care is the password.
Pinsof also illuminates the Grier and Maron episodes more sharply. Grier saying Carolla is a right-wing troll now is itself a coalition signal directed at Stern’s audience. Maron attacking Carolla from the Comedy Store stage is a public loyalty demonstration. Both are doing exactly what Carolla is doing: performing their values for audiences that reward the performance. The difference is that Carolla’s audience is larger and less institutionally powerful, which lets him present himself as the insurgent while they present themselves as the defenders of standards. Both framings serve the respective coalitions.
The deepest Pinsof point applied to Carolla is that the performance never feels like performance from the inside. Carolla almost certainly experiences his views as genuine, his indifference to Hollywood as real, his working-class authenticity as who he is. Pinsof says this is exactly how signaling works. It feels like being true to yourself. The more sincerely you feel it, the more effectively it signals. Carolla’s conviction is not evidence against the analysis. It is what that makes the signal credible.
What the profile cannot see, because profiles rarely can, is that the subject’s self-presentation is data about coalition membership rather than transparent access to character. Carolla is not a man who doesn’t care. He is a man who has found an audience that rewards not caring, and who has organized his professional life around producing that signal at scale, four thousand podcast episodes deep. Pinsof’s blog post gives you the paradox as observation. His academic paper on social paradoxes gives you the method, and the method changes what you can say about Carolla and about the broader Turner framework. The core argument in the paper is that social paradoxes, behaviors like humble bragging, conspicuous altruism, and performed indifference, are not failures of self-awareness or hypocrisy in the ordinary sense. They are adaptive solutions to a specific strategic problem: how do you signal a quality that is devalued by the act of signaling it? Genuine modesty, genuine indifference, genuine selflessness are all qualities that lose their value the moment they are visibly performed. So organisms facing selection pressure to demonstrate these qualities evolve strategies that make the performance look like non-performance. The paradox is not a bug. It is the design.
Applied to Carolla, this sharpens the analysis considerably. The not caring blog post lets you say Carolla is performing not-caring for an audience that values not-caring. The paper lets you say something more precise: Carolla has solved the coalition’s verification problem. The audience he is playing to is specifically skeptical of performed authenticity. They have been saturated with celebrities who claim to tell it like it is while carefully managing their brand. The audience’s detection system is tuned for that kind of fraud. So the signal that works for this audience has to pass a higher bar. It has to look costly, risky, indifferent to the consequences.
Carolla’s career losses, the festival rejections, the Grier defection, the Apatow warning, the late-night shutout, function as what Pinsof would call costly signals. They are evidence that the performance of not-caring is not performance. Real things were sacrificed. This is what makes the signal credible to the new coalition in a way that a purely costless performance would not be. The audience can point to the Sundance rejections and say: this guy paid for his position. That verification is what distinguishes him from someone who just talks about not caring while keeping all their Hollywood relationships intact.
This also adds something to the Turner framework on coalition switching. Turner describes convenient beliefs as coalitionally maintained equilibria, things people believe because the coalition rewards those beliefs. Pinsof’s paper suggests the force is more specific than that. Coalitions do not just reward beliefs. They reward costly demonstrations of those beliefs, because cost is what separates genuine members from free riders and infiltrators. The Hollywood coalition demanded a specific form of costly signal: public ideological conformity on certain topics, performed solidarity with certain causes, willingness to police peers who deviated. Carolla refused to pay that cost. The refusal was read as defection.
But what Pinsof’s paper makes visible is that Carolla immediately began paying a different set of costs for a different coalition. The vulgarity, the willingness to call powerful figures idiots by name, the association with politically radioactive figures like Kennedy and Maron’s targets: these are costly in the old coalition’s currency and valuable in the new one’s. The switch is not from signaling to authenticity. It is from one costly signal regime to another.
The paper also adds something important about self-knowledge that the not caring blog post only gestures at. Pinsof argues that the strategic logic of social paradoxes requires that the performer not be fully aware of the strategy. Conscious performance is detectable. The most effective version of performed indifference is one where the performer experiences the indifference as real. The selection pressure is not for people who cynically pretend not to care. It is for people who have internalized the not-caring so completely that they feel it, while the behavior it produces still functions as a signal. This means Carolla’s sincerity is not evidence against the analysis and is not evidence for it either.
This has a direct implication for how you read the Washington Post profile. The reporter is looking for the real Carolla behind the performance. Pinsof’s paper suggests this search is misguided. There is no clean separation between the real Carolla and the performed Carolla, because the performed qualities have been internalized through years of selection pressure from audiences that rewarded them. The working-class authenticity, the contempt for Hollywood pretension, the anger at the pizza party exclusions: these are all real in the phenomenological sense and all functional as signals in the coalition sense simultaneously. The two do not cancel each other out.
What the paper adds to my larger project on Stephen Turner is the evolutionary grounding for why convenient beliefs feel like genuine beliefs. If Pinsof is right that the strategy only works when the performer is unaware of it, then Turner’s convenient belief problem runs deeper than simple self-interest. People do not just adopt coalition-serving beliefs cynically. They internalize them thoroughly enough that the beliefs feel like independent conclusions. The social paradoxes is not just that people perform not-caring while caring. It is that the performance and the reality become indistinguishable from the inside, which is exactly what makes the signal work and exactly what makes the coalition’s grip on belief so hard to break from within. David Pinsof’s charisma post explains why Carolla works as a performer in a way that neither the blog post on caring nor the Washington Post profile can fully articulate.
The profile keeps circling the same puzzle: Carolla is funny, his friends attest to his talent, his audiences love him, and yet he cannot get onto Seth Meyers or into Sundance. The implicit assumption is that this gap is explained by politics. Pinsof’s charisma framework suggests the gap is explained by something more fundamental. Carolla is charismatic for one coalition and anti-charismatic for another, and the reason is that charisma is coalition-relative. It depends on whether your social paradoxes are legible and credible to the specific audience evaluating you.
For the Fox and podcast audience, Carolla executes social paradoxes at a high level. He does not care what you think, and you believe him because he has paid real costs for not caring. He is authentic, and you believe the authenticity because he is vulgar in ways that feel unmanaged. He is not trying to impress you, and the not-trying is itself impressive. He competes to be uncompetitive and wins. For this audience he reads as charismatic in exactly Pinsof’s sense: a pure ball of shimmering authenticity whose social strategies are invisible precisely because they are well-executed.
For the Hollywood and prestige media coalition, the same performances read as cringe. His unpopular opinions are unpopular with that audience rather than the kind of fake-unpopular opinions that charismatic people share to applause. His vulgarity reads as uncontrolled rather than artfully tussled. His not-caring reads as defective status-seeking rather than indifference. The social paradoxes that work for one coalition fail for the other because the evaluative framework differs.
This explains something the profile cannot quite pin down: why Kimmel can remain friends with Carolla while Grier cannot. Kimmel operates across coalitions and can appreciate Carolla’s social competence independently of whether he agrees with his politics. Grier is more fully embedded in one coalition’s evaluative framework and so the same behaviors that read as charismatic authenticity to one audience read as right-wing trolling to him. The charisma is not in Carolla. It is in the fit between his performances and the detection systems of specific audiences.
Pinsof argues that charismatic people are good at executing social paradoxes in ways that conceal the execution. Carolla’s social paradoxes work best in unscripted, improvisational contexts: radio, podcasts, live performance. These are environments where the execution has to be fast and unmanaged, which is exactly what his friends describe when they talk about his off-the-cuff material being more polished than prepared jokes. The formats where he has struggled, talk show appearances, film projects, formal television, are formats that make the performance visible as performance, which is precisely what breaks the spell.
The symbiotic deception point is particularly sharp applied to Carolla’s audience relationship. Pinsof argues that being charmed by a charmer can be in your interest if the charmer is likely to charm others, because you are effectively aligning with a high-status coalition early. Carolla’s audience is not being duped. They are making a reasonable bet that a man who has demonstrated willingness to pay real social costs for his positions, and who has built a large and loyal following despite institutional opposition, is a credible and useful ally in the coalition conflict they are engaged in. The charisma functions as a valid signal of social competence even if the specific performances are strategically constructed.
What Pinsof adds to the Turner framework through the Carolla case is the individual-level drive that sits beneath coalition-level convenient belief. Turner explains why coalitions maintain certain beliefs. Pinsof explains how individuals rise within coalitions by mastering the specific paradoxes that coalition rewards. Carolla did not just switch coalitions. He rose to prominence in the new coalition because his particular skill set, fast improvisation, performed indifference, willingness to say costly things, maps onto exactly the social paradoxes that coalition values and rewards. The charisma is real. So is the strategy. Pinsof’s point is that these are not in tension.
Posted inAdam Carolla, Censorship, Comedy|Comments Off on WP: The right’s embrace of Adam Carolla cost him friends and gigs — but not his edge
Convenient beliefs are not just easy beliefs. They are the beliefs that keep you inside the coalitions that sustain your life. Stephen Turner’sobservation that going beyond what is convenient to believe is mostly unprofitable sounds mild. It is not. It describes the operating system of intellectual life.
A good-bad theory is one that performs useful functions for its holders without meeting the standards other theories in the field have to meet.
The key move is to see that convenient beliefs are not individually chosen, as per Alliance Theory. They are coalitionally maintained. In most domains of consequence, people are not asking whether a claim is true. They are asking what belief keeps them in good standing with the coalition that provides income, status, and social recognition. Convenient beliefs are coordination devices. They let large groups of strangers align quickly without the expensive work of verification. This is why deviating from them feels like betrayal rather than curiosity. The social response to intellectual deviance is not usually refutation. It is exclusion.
Once you see this, the places we fear to go become legible as maps of coalition cost rather than maps of epistemic difficulty.
In his 2025 essay “Boudon on Tocqueville”, Stephen Turner deploys the phrase “convenient beliefs” as a gloss on Boudon’s model of situational adaptation in belief formation. Yet he immediately probes its limits: even when beliefs are “convenient” given one’s interactive position, they are often absorbed tacitly through community practices and “ancient” propensities rather than chosen through explicit rational calculation. This reveals the gap between the buffered self’s self-image as an autonomous reasoner and the porous reality of coalition-maintained belief.
Turner wrote:
What is convenient to believe is the result not merely of one’s interests, one’s immediate objectives, the encompassing social structure, comparison with reality, or the place of the belief in the more or less coherent belief system of the agent, which makes some beliefs harder or easier to accept – more or less convenient to believe in the broader sense of convenient in the face of these multiple situational constraints or inconveniences. A simple example of this would be the beliefs involved in the self-justification of actions to others. The Jewish intellectual might well find it to be more convenient, given the interactional situations he is routinely faced with, to adhere to the beliefs underlying communism and to justify himself more readily to his co-religionists and peers than to rebel against them and adhere to the prejudices of the more rightwing establishment, of which he is not a part and with whom he does not interact. (Turner 2025, pp. 295–298.)
Turner develops a closely related account in his analysis of field theories: location in a social field determines ‘what people will find convenient to believe and do’ because beliefs must navigate local affordances and the costs of violating expectations (e.g., the ‘inconvenience of explaining why one is rejecting what everyone else appears to believe’).
Turner summarizes an example from the Boudon-Bourricaud Critical Dictionary of Sociology. The argument is not about Jewish intellectuals finding communism appealing for ideological or theological reasons. It is about institutional positioning. The claim is that Jewish intellectuals in France found themselves structurally excluded from the university establishment, which leaned right. Given that exclusion, alignment with the left, and specifically with communism, was the more convenient coalition to join. It offered status, networks, intellectual legitimacy, and a community of peers that the mainstream establishment withheld. The argument is deliberately anti-essentialist: it is not about Jewish universalism or any intrinsic affinity between Jewish tradition and leftist politics. It is about adaptive response to an interactive situation, which is Boudon’s preferred explanatory mode.
Turner uses this example to probe whether this kind of “convenient to believe” framing, reduced to situational rationality, captures what is going on. The example is cleaner than most because the structural exclusion is documentable and the adaptive response is plausible without appealing to hidden psychological forces. But Turner pushes on whether this model can do all the work Boudon wants it to do, especially when beliefs are not consciously chosen but absorbed through community, practice, and tacit formation. Instead beliefs often travel tacitly with coalitions (not as explicit rational choices), which is why the buffered self experiences them as autonomous reasoning.
The Jewish intellectual who grows up in a milieu where leftist politics is simply the air everyone breathes is not making a rational market choice. The belief travels with the coalition long before any individual chooses it. This illustrates the gap between the buffered self’s self-image as a reasoner and the porous reality of belief acquisition. The person who “chose” communism because it was convenient has almost certainly reconstructed that choice as principled reasoning after the fact.
Boudon’s reduction of belief to ordinary rationality leaves unexplained the very cognitive and affective mechanisms Tocqueville invoked—precisely the tacit, mimetic, and coalitional processes that make inconvenient beliefs feel existentially threatening rather than merely professionally risky.
The most heavily policed domain in the academy is biological explanation of human variation. The official position across most elite institutions remains a softened blank slate. Outcomes are attributed to environments, systems, and incentives. This belief is not simply moral preference. It is functional infrastructure. It supports a large policy and funding ecosystem whose legitimacy depends on the assumption that disparities are correctable through intervention. The alternative is not fringe science. Behavioral genetics, heritability research, and evolutionary psychology are mainstream in the relevant disciplines. But following that literature honestly forces an encounter with limits. It suggests that some differences are not easily engineered away, that malleability has boundaries, that certain gaps are not primarily the product of remediable injustice. That conclusion does not just threaten ideology. It threatens entire professional domains. So the belief that persists is not the one best supported by evidence. It is the one the system can afford to hold.
The suppression here is not simple cowardice. Egalitarian moral language functions as coalition glue. Large institutions depend on low-conflict, high-trust environments. Any inquiry that threatens the perception of fairness is destabilizing. The taboo is adaptive. It serves a function. The system selects for beliefs that preserve cohesion, and beliefs that preserve cohesion get mistaken for beliefs that track truth.
The same structure appears in the faith in expert-led social engineering. The convenient belief is that smarter experts with better data can design better systems, and that when policies fail the cause is always insufficient resources, poor implementation, or political interference rather than inherent limits. The costly alternative is confronting the empirical pattern: complex systems routinely defeat top-down control, local knowledge dominates centralized knowledge in practice, and interventions generate second-order effects that overwhelm initial intentions. What makes this domain particularly feared is that it is self-implicating. Intellectuals would have to admit that their own class generates failure as a structural byproduct of overreach, not just as an occasional mistake. are built not to maximize truth but to avoid visible failure. When a policy fails, the system routes blame to implementation while insulating core assumptions from revision. This is not accidental. It is how institutions preserve authority across generations of wrong predictions. Turning the lens on intellectual life itself is the next forbidden move. Academia presents itself as a truth-seeking enterprise governed by merit and evidence. In practice it operates as a status synchronization system. Peer review, citation networks, and conference hierarchies do not just evaluate ideas. They align reputations. An idea becomes acceptable when enough high-status actors can endorse it without risk to themselves. Before that moment it is treated as exotic or dangerous regardless of its evidential warrant. The real fear is not being wrong. It is being early without institutional cover. This is why heterodox ideas often sit in obscurity until they can be laundered through respected outlets and attributed to safe figures. Truth is not simply discovered. It is staged, sequenced, and socially ratified by people whose careers depend on the outcome.
This connects to a domain that sits beneath the others: the political economy of knowledge production. The convenient belief is that science and scholarship self-correct toward truth through neutral processes. The costly belief is that research agendas are shaped by funding streams, institutional priorities, and donor expectations that are only loosely related to explanatory power. Entire literatures exist because they are legible to grant committees. Entire questions disappear because pursuing them would threaten the relationship between researchers and their funders. What counts as settledscience is often downstream of what was fundable a decade earlier. To admit this is to admit that your own intellectual toolkit is path-dependent and potentially distorted by incentives you did not choose and cannot easily see. That realization does not just threaten your conclusions. It threatens your authority.
At the metaphysical level, intellectuals consistently stop short of following naturalism to its conclusions. It is easy to affirm materialism in seminars. It is much harder to live with its implications for agency, meaning, and moral responsibility. Many institutional roles depend on as-if assumptions. Judges must act as if agency is real. Teachers must act as if effort can override constraint. Therapists must act as if narrative revision changes outcomes. Strip those assumptions away and the motivational scaffolding that makes these roles function begins to collapse. So people adopt hybrid positions that preserve functionality. They believe enough of the science to maintain credibility among peers, but stop before the point where the belief would require reorganizing how they live and work. This is not stupidity. It is role preservation. The practice demands the belief.
The deepest and most uncomfortable domain is the illusion of intellectual independence. The convenient belief is that individuals arrive at their positions through reasoning and evidence. The costly belief is that most intellectual positions are bundles that travel with coalitions, adopted because they signal membership rather than because they were independently derived. Reasoning in most cases comes after alignment, not before. People encounter a package of positions associated with a community they want to belong to, or already belong to, and construct justifications afterward. To see this clearly in yourself is to lose something important. It collapses the distinction between the independent thinker and the loyal group member that many intellectuals use to organize their self-concept. It makes the claim to superior rationality look like one more convenient belief.
Put all of this together and the pattern becomes explicit. Convenient beliefs are selected for. They minimize friction, preserve income, maintain relationships, and stabilize identity. Costly beliefs are selected against because they generate conflict, uncertainty, and loss. The distribution of beliefs in any intellectual field is therefore not a map of truth. It is a map of what that field can afford to think at this moment.
This explains why intellectual movement is slow and rare. Progress requires either insulation from the cost structure or willingness to absorb real penalties. The people who push into forbidden domains are not simply braver or more curious. They are positioned differently. They have independence, slack, or a tolerance for loss that most participants in institutional life do not have or cannot sustain over time. Turner noted that only retired scholars can raise certain questions without career suicide. The timing is not incidental.
Institutional collapse periodically resets this calculus. When an institution fails visibly enough that its convenient beliefs can no longer absorb the damage, the cost of deviation drops. People look for what works rather than what signals membership. Exotic beliefs become affordable. This is why progress often happens in the wreckage rather than in the stable periods. A shock destroys the existing order of status and funding. In the gap before a new coalition solidifies, truth becomes briefly less expensive than convenience.
But the window closes. New coalitions form quickly. They need their own coordination devices. They convert newly discovered truths into the next generation of convenient beliefs, build institutions to protect them, and raise the price of deviation all over again. The cycle is not a failure of reason. It is a consequence of the social nature of knowledge production.
Turner’s insight is not consoling. The barrier to truth is not ignorance. It is the price of departing from what is convenient to believe, and that price is set by social forces more powerful than any individual’s commitment to inquiry.
Charles Taylor’s distinction between the buffered and porous self adds a psychological dimension here, explaining why crossing into forbidden territory feels like more than professional risk. The porous self, Taylor’s description of the pre-modern condition, is one that is open to external forces. The boundary between inside and outside is permeable. Spirits, moral forces, social pressures, and sacred obligations enter the self directly and shape it from within. The buffered self, the condition modernity produces, has a thick wall between the inner life and the external world. Meaning is generated from within. The individual is the source of their own normative commitments. External forces can be acknowledged intellectually without being felt as constitutive.
The buffered self is itself a convenient belief of a particularly deep kind. The intellectual who believes they arrived at their positions through independent reasoning is not just wrong about the social forces that shaped those positions. They are operating with a model of selfhood that prevents them from seeing the coalition forces at work. The buffer is not just a psychological comfort. It is an epistemic shield. It makes the inconvenient truth about belief formation literally harder to perceive, because perceiving it would require admitting that the boundary between self and coalition is far more porous than the buffered model allows.
This is where the Pinsof connection becomes tight. Pinsof argues that social paradoxes only work when the signaler is unaware of the strategy. The buffered self is the psychological infrastructure that makes that non-awareness possible at scale. Intellectuals can believe they are reasoning independently because the buffered model tells them that is what reasoning looks like. The coalition forces that shape their conclusions are experienced as external noise to be filtered rather than as constitutive inputs. The buffer converts porosity into the felt experience of autonomy.
The buffered self explains why forbidden territories feel threatening in a way that goes beyond career risk. Confronting the reality that your beliefs are coalition-maintained rather than independently reasoned does not just threaten your job. It threatens the model you use to understand yourself as a thinker. It requires an admission that you are more continuous with your social environment than the modern self-conception allows. That is destabilizing in a way that mere professional consequences are not.
The biological variation domain illustrates this. The resistance to engaging that literature is not just about funding or reputation. The blank slate assumption is load-bearing for the buffered self’s moral architecture. If outcomes are primarily environmental, the buffered individual retains sovereign moral agency. They chose their values, they apply them consistently, and they can in principle redesign the world to match them. If outcomes have substantial heritable components, the buffered self loses some of that sovereignty. The world becomes less plastic to rational redesign, which means the buffered intellectual’s self-image as a rational agent who can understand and improve social reality takes damage. The threat is not just ideological. It is ontological.
The expert social engineering domain works similarly. The belief that smarter experts can design better systems is not just professionally convenient. It is what the buffered self requires to maintain its coherence as a project. The buffered modern self is defined by its capacity to stand apart from tradition, superstition, and unreflective practice, and to redesign social life on rational grounds. Admitting that complex systems routinely defeat top-down control is admitting that the buffered project of rational redesign has structural limits. That is not just a policy conclusion. It is a challenge to the anthropology underlying the entire enterprise.
The illusion of intellectual independence is where Taylor’s distinction does its sharpest work. The buffered self’s core claim is that it is the origin of its own commitments. Reasoning comes first, coalition alignment comes second if at all. The costly belief identified above, that most positions are adopted for coalition reasons and rationalized afterward, is precisely the claim that the self is more porous than buffered. Seeing this clearly does not just threaten your professional identity. It requires you to relinquish the buffered model of selfhood, which for most modern intellectuals is not a philosophical position they hold but the water they swim in.
What Taylor adds to Turner is the explanation for why the price of inconvenient belief is felt as existential rather than merely professional. The coalition costs are real, but they are compounded by the fact that crossing into forbidden territory requires a kind of self-dissolution that the buffered modern self is built to resist. The barrier to truth is not just the price set by social forces. It is the psychological architecture that makes those forces invisible by routing their effects through what feels like autonomous reasoning.
The cycle the essay ends with looks different through the Taylor lens. Each new coalition does not just establish new epistemic boundaries. It re-establishes the buffered self as the default psychological mode, because the buffered self is what makes the coalition’s convenient beliefs feel like independent conclusions. The porosity that briefly becomes visible during institutional collapse, when people are forced to acknowledge that their previous beliefs were coalition-maintained rather than independently reasoned, gets sealed over again as the new coalition stabilizes and the buffered model reasserts itself. The cycle perpetuates not just because new incentives replace old ones but because the psychological infrastructure that makes incentives invisible gets rebuilt along with the institutions.
In what follows I want to bring together two ideas: the general idea, from evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, that we have various “moral” impulses, drives, or whatever, that are universal, and some lessons from MacIntyre about the nature of moral ideas. MacIntyre argues that moral theories solve problems—in particular, problems that arise from novel situations in which expectations change (1981: 218). This is suggestive, if we consider the neuroscience evidence on moral thinking and some abstract considerations about the free-rider problem. The abstract consideration is this: if we assume rational self-interest as the dominant feature of human motivation and the dominant explanation of action, much of common life becomes a mystery.
The classic example is voting: why should people voluntarily vote? The likelihood of an individual vote affecting the outcome of an election is effectively nil. The act of voting is burdensome and time consuming. It is not, in short, rational to vote. Yet people do so, in droves. Similarly for many forms of obedience to the law: people obey despite the fact that it is not to their personal advantage and even when there is little risk of their transgressions being detected and punished. The same holds for collective effort: free-riding or taking advantage of the collective product without contributing is the rational response. The rational response to the existence of a generous system of welfare payments would be to exploit it by not working.
In fact, people vote, work, obey the law, and so forth beyond what rational self-interest would dictate, or at least beyond what the ordinary sense of rational self-interest would dictate. Of course, there may be bad consequences–shame, disapproval, and so forth–that are not part of the calculation that should be, and which would make the actions rational. Nevertheless in many cases, such as voting, this is not true. One must conclude that the beliefs that motivate people to perform these irrational actions are themselves false. And since these beliefs are typically moral ideas about duty and the like, it follows that the collective achievements of society depend on the prevalence of false ideas in the category of ‘moral’.
This conclusion is a little less odd if we consider the history of moral ideas. The obverse of the standard normativist story about morality (think Korsgaard or Nagel) is that the entire preceding history of morality (i.e. before they got there to reveal the moral truth) is a history of false ideas—superstitions and the like. The origin of morality is in ideas about the world. Notions like tabu, such things as fetishes–which represent the magical creation of a compact invoking the threat of misfortune for violating it–as well as the appeal to the afterlife, the wrath of God, and so forth are all claims about “facts.” And it is true in general that morality is tied to, justified, and explicated to people by reference to false ideas or ideas for which there can be no rational basis. There is another consideration, deriving from traditionalism that leads in the same direction. To be intelligible, beliefs must fit with the surrounding beliefs. Whatever beliefs are appropriate for the solution of the moral quandaries and conflicts that arise in a particular historical and social setting will be tailored to, and intelligible in relation to, the setting in question. They will need to fit the false beliefs that already exist and are accepted in this setting.
This reasoning can be generalized, by reference to the other form of universalization, the evolutionary one. The evolutionary/neuroscience form of universality does not seem to point to something like a single solution to the problem of moral life, but rather to the existence of a set of capacities and propensities that can conflict with one another. The evidence of neuroscience and evolutionary studies suggests that people are altruistic, meaning that they experience altruistic behavior as rewarding; that they experience rewards for punishing free-riders; that they have a sense of justice and equity; that they respond reciprocally; that they think rationally in terms of self-interest, and that people have a strong capacity for empathy and mind-reading, among many other things, including a propensity to prefer people like oneself. The list could be greatly extended, but the obvious feature of the list is that these human moral cognitive propensities not only do not add up to an ethic, they conflict. They are subject to normal human variability and to some strange inversions, such as empathic cruelty, the tendency of some people to take pleasure in the pain of others rather than to feel that pain themselves. And this suggests that the problems that produce moral theorizing are generic. We are routinely forced to think through, or rely on the thinking through by others, the conflicts between these propensities, and to resolve them by believing certain things about the world and categorizing people in certain ways.
Marcello Truzzi made the point about cognitive dissonance theory that one needed to know what relevance people’s beliefs had to one another, as they understood those ideas, in order to know whether they would experience them as conflicting (Truzzi 1973: 242-4). The same kind of point holds for ethical beliefs. The most extreme violation of a sense of justice might be regarded by the perpetrator as perfectly just, if the person being treated unjustly was regarded as less than human, as undeserving and hence a free-rider, and so forth. Much of what we know about basic human morality comes from observations of small children in partly structured social settings with other children. This very revealing research is nevertheless largely unilluminating when it is applied to the kinds of complex belief situations that arise in adult social life: are bankers free-riders or deserving? Are unionized employees with good contracts free-riders, bullies, or deserving? Does labor produce all value, or does risk taking count as well? These are the kind of questions whose answers depend on a large set of complex beliefs. But the moral responses and mechanisms that the evolutionary/neuroscience universalist appeals to, such as the pleasure we get from punishing free-riders, depends on the beliefs we use to categorize people as free-riders in the first place.
Where does this leave us? Evolution and neuroscience do not deliver a universal morality of the kind imagined by normativists. Instead, it identifies a set of mechanisms that potentially conflict. Situations arise that bring these conflicts out into the open, and make them a problem for participants. In some cases the conflicts may be internal, cognitive conflicts. In others they may represent ideological conflicts between different groups with different interests. These conflicts can sometimes be resolved or at least managed by beliefs which enable the relevant feelings to be directed in ways that do not conflict. These beliefs, which may include articulated moral theories, beliefs about categories of persons, beliefs about the casual world, particularly about consequences in the social world, may resolve the conflicts for a time, but new situations may arise which compel their revision. Diversity itself may be the cause of conflicts. Normal human variation with respect to the relevant mechanism (such as altruism or self-interest), diversity in belief, and so forth, may need to be accounted for by the beliefs, and cause changes in the beliefs. There are of course mechanisms for the standardization of belief and conformity. It is often inconvenient to believe or follow conventions that your peers and persons you interact with do not also adhere to. So ‘solutions’ in the realm of moral belief tend to be shared, though there will also be variation, if only because of variation in experience and in make-up between individuals in the setting.
References
MacIntyre, Alasdair (1981) After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Truzzi, Marcello (1973) ‘The Problem of Relevance Between Orientations for Cognitive Dissonance Theory’. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 239-247.
This Youtube video was produced by the University of Chicago Social Sciences: “Do you worry about the effectiveness of your writing style? As emerging scholars, perfecting the craft of writing is an essential component of developing as graduate students, and yet resources for honing these skills are largely under utilized. Larry McEnerney, Director of the University of Chicago’s Writing Program, led this session in an effort to communicate helpful rules, skills, and resources that are available to graduate students interested in further developing their writing style.”
Writing is not about you. That is the core of what Larry McEnerney teaches, and it cuts against everything academic training instills. From the first grade onward, students write for readers who are paid to care: teachers whose job is to evaluate what is inside the student’s head. The entire apparatus of grades, rubrics, and academic feedback trains writers to perform comprehension, to demonstrate mastery, to reveal the interior of their minds. Then those students become graduate students and faculty, and they keep writing the same way, for readers who no longer owe them attention.
This is the central problem McEnerney identifies, and it is structural, not personal. The habits that made you a successful student are precisely the habits that make you an ineffective professional writer. You learned to explain. You learned to define terms. You learned to provide background before making a claim. You learned that original and new are virtues. None of this works outside the classroom, because outside the classroom nobody is paid to care whether you understand the material.
The shift McEnerney demands is from writing as self-expression or self-demonstration to writing as an act performed on readers. Professional writing is not communicating your ideas. It is changing your readers’ ideas. The distinction sounds simple. Its implications are radical.
If writing is about changing readers’ ideas, then value does not live in the work itself. It lives in the readers. There is no such thing as an inherently valuable piece of writing. A text is valuable to a specific community of readers who find it useful for their purposes, and worthless to everyone else. This is why knowing your readers is not a preliminary step before the real work of writing begins. It is the real work. You cannot create value for people you do not understand. You cannot be persuasive to people whose doubts you cannot predict. Half of doctoral training, McEnerney suggests, is not learning more content but learning the readers in a field well enough to write for them effectively.
The key to creating value, in McEnerney’s framework, is instability. Readers in any professional community are not looking for confirmation or summary. They are looking for a reason to keep reading, and that reason is almost always the sense that something they care about is uncertain, contested, or at risk. The language that creates this sense is the language of but, however, although, anomaly, inconsistent. These are not mere transition words. They are signals that something is wrong with the current state of knowledge in a way that costs the reader something or could benefit them if resolved.
The contrast with background-plus-thesis writing is sharp. Most graduate students open papers by establishing solid ground: a definition, a historical overview, a survey of the literature that shows the field has made steady progress. This model assumes that knowledge accumulates like bricks, each new piece resting on the foundation of what came before. But this is not how professional readers read. They are not looking for solidity. They are looking for a crack in the wall. When they encounter a text that gives them only stability and continuity, they slow down, grow confused, and eventually stop. Not because the writing is unclear but because it is not giving them what they came for.
The literature review error is a version of this. Students are trained to write literature reviews as demonstrations of comprehension: he said this in 1998, she said that in 2004, the field has developed in the following ways. This is writing to prove knowledge to an evaluator. A professional literature review does something different. It uses the existing literature to build the problem, to show that the field contains tensions and contradictions that the current paper will address. The point is not to prove you have read the material. It is to establish that the reader has something at stake in the question you are about to answer.
The gap argument is related and equally important. Many young academics, nervous about challenging established figures in their field, frame their contributions as gap-filling: nobody has studied this particular thing, and I am going to study it. McEnerney is skeptical of this move. A gap is only a problem if knowledge is bounded, if there are a finite number of pieces in the puzzle and finding one missing piece is an accomplishment. But if knowledge is open-ended and infinite, an unfilled gap is not a problem. There are infinite gaps. Filling one changes nothing unless you can show that this particular gap matters to this particular community of readers. Gap claims often fail because they locate the problem in the writer’s curiosity rather than in the readers’ needs.
The alternative is the error argument: showing that something the community currently believes or assumes is wrong, or inconsistent, or more complicated than they have recognized. This is riskier. It requires knowing the community well enough to tell them something is wrong in language they will accept rather than dismiss. McEnerney is precise about the code here. You do not walk into a field and announce that the important figures are idiots. You build them up, acknowledge their contributions, and then identify the specific point where their framework breaks down or produces a result inconsistent with something else they value. The form is deferential. The substance is a challenge. Both elements are necessary, and getting the balance wrong in either direction fails.
What underlies all of this is a model of knowledge that McEnerney borrows from Lyotard: knowledge is not a stockpile that grows over time in the minds of individual experts. It is a social process, a set of conversations moving through time, in which a specific community decides what counts and what does not. This community is not neutral. It is composed of real people with real interests and real power. The community decides what counts as knowledge, what counts as a problem, what counts as a solution. You may not like this. It is still the way it works.
The practical implication is that your relationship to your own knowledge is not the relationship of a custodian to something precious. It is the relationship of a producer to a commodity. Farmers grow wheat. Miners dig coal. Academics generate writing that either has value to a specific readership or does not. The goal is not to preserve your ideas indefinitely or to express your authentic voice or to demonstrate the depth of your understanding. The goal is to move the conversation in your field forward, for the readers who are in that conversation, in the moment when they are reading.
McEnerney’s harshest implication follows from this. Most of what gets written in academic contexts, including most of what is written at the graduate level, is not valuable to professional readers. It was written for readers who were paid to care. It carries the habits of that earlier audience into a context where those habits are liabilities. The writers are not incompetent. They are applying a well-learned skill set to the wrong problem.
The corrective is specific and teachable. Circle the words in published articles in your field that create value for readers. Not the words that convey information, but the words that signal instability, challenge existing views, and show readers what is at stake. Do this systematically, in the journals you want to publish in, for a sustained period. You will build a vocabulary of value for your specific community. Then apply that vocabulary to your own writing. Check whether your first two paragraphs contain the signals that tell readers this matters to them. If they do not, you know what to fix.
Writing is not revealing the inside of your head. It is changing what is happening in the space between heads. Once you understand that, the question is no longer what you know. It is what your readers need to know that they do not know yet, and why they should care.
ChatGPT video summary:
Let me start by explaining what makes the University of Chicago writing program different.
We take a top-down approach to writing. Most schools take a bottom-up approach. Their main audience is freshmen, so they teach freshman composition, freshman seminars, and so on. We don’t do that.
Our program was created to help faculty, not students.
The founding idea was simple. Freshmen write pretty well. By junior and senior year, they write worse. Graduate students struggle. But the people with the biggest writing problems are faculty.
That flips the usual assumption. Writing is not a basic skill you master early. It is something that becomes harder as your thinking becomes more complex.
This is not a remedial course. It is not about rules. In fact, rule-based writing is often harmful at high levels.
Rules are fine if you are producing low-value writing like routine memos. But that is not what you are doing. Your writing has to generate value.
So you need to stop thinking about rules and start thinking about readers.
The Problem with Expert Writing
You are “expert writers” not because you write well, but because you write about things you understand deeply.
Your thinking is complex. You use writing to think.
That creates a problem.
You generate your text while thinking. But your readers encounter that text differently. They are not thinking with you. They are trying to read.
So your writing patterns interfere with their reading patterns.
What happens to readers?
They slow down
They misunderstand
They get frustrated
They stop reading
If they don’t need to read your work, they will stop.
And here is the issue. You have been trained in a system where readers are paid to care about you.
Teachers read because they are paid to care about students.
That ends outside school.
In the real world, readers only read if your work is valuable to them.
The Core Principle
Your writing must be:
Clear
Organized
Persuasive
But above all, it must be valuable.
If it is clear and useless, it is useless.
If it is organized and useless, it is useless.
If it is persuasive and useless, it is useless.
Value is not in the text. It is in the reader.
A piece of writing can be valuable to one group and useless to another.
If you don’t think about readers, you will fail.
Writing Is Not What You Think
You think writing communicates your ideas.
It does not.
Writing changes your readers’ ideas.
Nobody cares what is in your head.
Professional writing is not about expressing yourself. It is about altering how readers think.
Why Explaining Fails
When readers say “I don’t understand,” your instinct is to explain.
That is a mistake.
You learned to explain in school to prove you understood something.
That is not what professional readers want.
They don’t care about your understanding. They want to know why they should change their thinking.
Do not explain first. Argue.
Why “Original” and “New” Don’t Matter
People think their job is to produce original work.
That is wrong.
You can create new knowledge instantly by counting how many people are in a room. No one knows that number.
But no one cares.
Original does not equal valuable.
Knowledge is not a pile that grows endlessly. It is a conversation among communities.
Those communities decide what counts.
How Value Is Created in Writing
Look at these words:
nonetheless
however
although
inconsistent
anomaly
widely accepted
reported
These are not “flow” words. They signal value.
They show tension, instability, contradiction.
Readers are not looking for smooth flow. They are looking for problems.
The Key Move: Create Instability
Most people are taught to write like this:
Give background
Define terms
Present thesis
This creates stability.
But readers are looking for instability.
They want to see something is wrong, incomplete, or contradictory.
So instead of background, you start with a problem.
Not your problem. A problem that matters to your readers.
The Problem Must Do Two Things
Show instability
Show cost or benefit
You must signal that:
Something is wrong in the reader’s world
Fixing it matters to them
If there is no cost, they will not care.
The Role of Community
You are always writing to a specific community.
Words like “widely accepted” or “reported” signal that community.
If you don’t signal a community, your work has no context.
And if you don’t know your readers, you cannot persuade them.
The Real Structure of Academic Writing
Good writing does this:
Identifies a community
Shows a problem in that community
Demonstrates instability or contradiction
Shows why it matters
Offers a solution
Bad writing:
Starts with definitions
Gives background
Explains concepts
That is the “martini glass” model. It does not work.
Literature Reviews Done Right
Student version:
“In 1998 X said this. In 2000 Y said this.”
Professional version:
“X said this, but Y contradicts it. Z complicates both.”
A good literature review builds tension.
It does not summarize. It creates a problem.
The Gap Problem
Many writers say:
“There is a gap in the literature.”
That often fails.
Why?
Because knowledge is not a fixed puzzle. It is infinite.
Filling one gap does not matter unless it creates or resolves a meaningful problem.
A gap only works if it produces instability that matters to the community.
The Final Shift
You must separate two processes:
Writing to think
Writing for readers
You need the first to develop ideas.
But readers only see the second.
If you give them your thinking process, you will interfere with their reading process.
You must reconstruct your work for them.
The Bottom Line
Your job is not to express your thoughts.
Your job is to change what happens between people.
Writing is not about what is in your head.
It is about what happens in the space between heads.
Posted inAcademia|Comments Off on Video: ‘The Craft of Writing Effectively’
For most of the twentieth century, elite institutions did not need to hide dissent. They could afford to ignore it. The New York Times, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Brookings Institution derived their authority from prestige, access, and the simple structural fact that alternative voices could not coordinate at scale. If you disagreed, you were marginal. The system could tolerate you because you could not reach enough people to matter.
The internet destroyed that equilibrium. Marginal voices could suddenly find each other, reinforce each other, and build rival interpretations of reality that no longer required institutional permission to spread. The problem for elite coalitions shifted. It was no longer how to persuade the public. It became how to prevent rival coalitions from reaching the coordination density at which they become politically real.
This is where Stephen Turner’s concept of curation becomes more than media criticism. It becomes a theory of power.
Turner defines curation as the deliberate manipulation of digital experience so that certain interpretations feel natural and inevitable while others simply fail to appear. Users encounter search results, feeds, and recommendations that validate elite-endorsed narratives while systematically depriving them of counter-evidence. This is not crude censorship. It operates through absence, through invisibility, through the shaping of what feels normal at a pre-conscious level. Drawing on his work on tacit knowledge, Turner argues that experience shapes belief before conscious reasoning begins. Curation ensures that the relevant experiences never occur.
But the deeper function is not belief formation. It is coordination suppression.
A belief only becomes politically dangerous when enough people share it and know that others share it. That requires visibility, repetition, and mutual recognition across a community of sufficient size. Curation intervenes at exactly that threshold. It does not need to convince you that an idea is false. It only needs to prevent the people who hold that idea from finding each other in numbers large enough to matter. The target is not the individual mind. It is the social density required for a rival interpretation to become culturally real.
Once you see this, the institutional structure comes into focus. Describing the actors as simply “elites” is too vague. What exists is a layered system with aligned incentives operating across four interlocking levels.
At the platform layer, companies like Google, Meta, and X control the choke points of attention. Search rankings, feeds, and recommendation algorithms determine what is seen and what is effectively invisible. At the policy layer, government actors and regulatory pressure define what counts as harmful or misleading, especially in moments of crisis. The post-2016 environment and the COVID period both intensified this alignment, sometimes through formal directives, more often through anticipated compliance. At the expertise layer, institutions like the Stanford Internet Observatory and the Atlantic Council translate political anxieties into technical taxonomies. They produce the frameworks, the reports, and the language that justify intervention while presenting it as neutral standard-setting. At the media layer, legacy outlets ratify the output. When something is absent from feeds and also absent from coverage, it ceases to exist within the official version of reality. Consensus is not just enforced. It is performed as if it were natural.
No central conspiracy is required. Alignment of incentives is sufficient. These institutions share a common problem and converge on a common solution. The effect resembles coordination without the need for coordination.
What makes this system powerful is not only that it filters information. It reshapes the evolutionary environment in which information survives. Content is selected not purely by audience interest or truth value but by its capacity to pass through the curation layer. Over time this produces convergence at multiple levels.
Language converges first. People learn which words trigger suppression and which pass through unimpeded. They self-edit, often without fully recognizing it, producing a sanitized vocabulary that signals coalition compliance. Then argument converges. Claims are reformulated toward what is legible and processable within the system, not necessarily toward what is accurate. The range of expressible positions narrows, not because forbidden positions have been refuted but because they have been made costly to articulate. Finally, identity converges. Actors who want access to distribution signal that they are safe, responsible, and aligned with consensus. Visibility itself becomes a reward for loyalty to the epistemic regime.
This is Turner’s insight about tacit knowledge turned back against the system that deploys it. If experience shapes pre-conscious belief, and if digital experience can be engineered, then the engineering of experience is the engineering of the ground on which conscious reasoning operates. The environment selects for minds and messages that reproduce it.
But the system contains a structural weakness Turner only gestures toward. Curation produces brittle consensus.
Because dissent is hidden rather than defeated in argument, the institutions that manage curation gradually lose calibration with the reality they are filtering. They begin to mistake the absence of visible disagreement for agreement. Internally, the coalition grows more confident than the underlying facts justify. The curated environment starts to curve back on its creators.
Then reality intrudes. The 2016 election result shocked institutions that had engineered an information environment in which that outcome felt nearly impossible. The rapid legitimization of the COVID lab leak hypothesis, after months of suppression and stigmatization, exposed how quickly a position labeled fringe could become respectable when the institutional pressures shifted. Each of these moments is not merely an informational error. It is a system failure, a moment when the gap between curated experience and underlying reality becomes too large to sustain.
When that collapse occurs, trust falls faster than it would have under more pluralistic conditions. People do not merely discover that institutions were wrong. They discover that alternatives were hidden. That recognition is qualitatively different from normal error correction. It reveals the manufacturing process behind the consensus. And once the process is visible, the consensus it produced loses legitimacy retroactively.
The paradox is structural. The more effective curation becomes at producing agreement, the more catastrophic its failures become when that agreement breaks. A brittle consensus shatters in ways that a contested one does not, because contested views carry acknowledged uncertainty while manufactured consensus carries the false authority of settled fact.
This is why the current conflict cannot be understood as a debate over misinformation policy or platform governance. It is a jurisdictional war over who controls the experience layer of public reality.
The old regime rests on credentialed expertise, institutional prestige, and managed distribution channels. Its authority derived from being the only game in town. The new regime rests on networked actors, independent creators, and alternative pathways to audience formation that do not require institutional permission. The internet handed the new regime control over publication. Anyone could speak.
Curation is the old regime’s attempt to reassert control over experience. Not by preventing speech but by shaping what is seen, repeated, and socially ratified. The target is not your right to say something. It is the social infrastructure that would allow what you say to reach coordination density and become real.
Turner gives us the mechanism. The implication he stops short of stating directly is that this mechanism is working as a survival strategy for coalitions that have lost the argument. When persuasion fails, you do not abandon the field. You change the field. You move the contest upstream, from the level of argument to the level of experience, from what people think to what they encounter, from conscious belief to the tacit sense of what is normal.
That is the harder and more unsettling claim. Curation is not primarily about stopping false beliefs from spreading. It is about preventing rival coalitions from achieving the density of shared experience required to become politically and culturally real. It is coalition warfare conducted at the level of consciousness, using the architecture of the information environment as its primary weapon.
"This guy knows all the gossip, the ins and outs, the lashon hara of the Orthodox world. He’s an [expert] in... all the inner workings of the Orthodox world." (Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff)
