20 Aphorisms For Surviving The Information Age
Refresh your self before refreshing your screen.
To live in the Information Age is to be bombarded with provocation, both organic and manufactured. These short musings are offered as an encouragement to become more observant of your own reactions when confronted with situations, events, or perspectives which elicit pathos.
On Ideas
Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
Ideas have primacy over institutions.
Extremism is consistency, for good or bad.
Curiosity is the only emotion that isn't derived from an investment in some settled narrative about how the world works.
Sincerity is a double bluff to cynics.
On Politics
The party that wins loses the opportunity to reform itself.
Checks and balances are obstructionism to those who would rule unobstructed.
Political favors are contraband in a free market.
Trying to change minds is a poor strategy for winning elections, but fixation on getting out the vote is a poor strategy for maintaining a culture that still respects elections.
One habit anyone can practice to neutralize factionalism and partisan thinking: Defend your enemies when they are unjustly attacked.
On Society
Helping people is a common pretext for controlling people.
People who are unwilling to let incorrect information be forwarded in service of their interests find their influence magnified.
“We as a society have decided…” really means “Some people have taken it upon themselves to tell everyone else…”.
Only half of slavery is subservience; the worse half is dependency.
Affirming human value on the basis of race is just as fallacious as denying it on the basis of race.
On Conversation
The transformative power of conversation is greatly underestimated and undervalued. If I could trade my right to vote for one in-depth, good-faith conversation per year with a person of opposing perspectives it would do more good for the culture and improve me more as a person.
Those who want to test their conclusions through challenging conversation are kindred spirits across creeds; those who want to terminate discussion to protect some committed narrative can only find allies within an ideological cloister.
The best reply when told some questionable idea “isn’t up for debate”: “Reasonable people will have this important conversation whether you’re a part of it or not.”
Conversation is a rope bridge. Each side has to stand on their respective embankment and hold up one end. The greater the ideological chasm it spans, the more effort is required to keep it taut and passable.
Where euphemisms are expected, candor is hyperbole.
The Answer | Black Sheep Fiction
"I’m afraid I’ll end up like you—obsessed with making up nonsensical equations to justify an outcome I can’t prove."
The Third Space: A Non-Conformist's Guide to The Universe
When it seems there's only left or right, this way or that way, the third space adds depth instead of dogma.
 | A guest post by
|
I think this is a great list and very helpful overall, though I do have some qualms with three of them. While aphorisms naturally simplify complex ideas, some of these might unintentionally reinforce conspiratorial thought patterns rather than mitigate them.
A bit of context: I’ve been deeply interested in understanding conspiracy theories since I was 13 (I'm 35 now), partially because I’ve been drawn into some myself. I’ve focused on learning the mechanisms behind these beliefs to better resist them. Additionally, while right-wing conspiracies get quite a lot of coverage, I believe similar patterns exist on the left, but are generally cloaked as intellectualism.
To address specific points:
Aphorism 1: Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
Qualm: This reinforces a key element of conspiratorial belief: that doubting or questioning mainstream narratives is, by nature, suspicious or taboo. This setup encourages believers to think of themselves as part of an exclusive group that sees through these dogmas that everyone else supposedly follows uncritically.
In the context of conspiracy theories, this mentality creates a sort of intellectual armor. Conspiratorial thinkers often view skepticism of their theories as evidence that they’re onto something forbidden or hidden—perhaps because “the doctrine” (the official story) forbids it. This dynamic deepens group loyalty, as those who share in the questioning feel increasingly isolated from “the mainstream” and, thus, reinforced in their own views. It also shifts the question from the merits of the idea to a defense of the right to question, which sidesteps examining weaknesses in the theory and instead focuses on perceived censorship or dogmatism in mainstream perspectives.
So we get a self-protecting loop: questioning is seen as inherently noble, so any dismissal or challenge is treated as oppression rather than critique. This ultimately narrows the scope for healthy, critical engagement with reality, fostering deeper entrenchment in the conspiratorial worldview.
Aphorism 3: Extremism is consistency, for good or bad.
Qualm: This actually strikes me as sort of an empty statement - I just include this because I'm not sure what is intended. Since “consistency” is presented neutrally here, it’s unclear what readers are supposed to take from it, and without further explanation, I find it qualitatively inert. Would love further explanation from the author on this aphorism’s intended message.
Aphorism 5: Sincerity is a double bluff to cynics.
Qualm: I similarly need to know whether the author is identifying with cynics or the concept of a sincere person. If the latter, I interpret this for the better and generally agree - sincerity is indeed often mistrusted by cynical people, which makes it more difficult to reach them with good faith arguments. If the former, it fuels the belief that nothing at all is as it seems and that apparent honesty might just be an elaborate attempt to mislead.
This approach can push a conspiratorial thinker deeper into distrust, making it harder for them to accept genuine explanations, data, or expertise, because they see sincerity as another layer of manipulation. It turns genuine interactions into possible traps, reinforcing the idea that only they (and their community of believers) can see “what’s really going on,” while the rest of the world falls for the double bluff.
Thanks for considering my thoughts! I hope to hear back and find some clarity on those points.
Don’t forget the most important one.
Internet delenda est.
;)