Figuring it Out
Some critiques of the sides idea and what we could potentially do instead
The left and right are not ideal solutions to figuring stuff out or making sense of reality. No idea why we align with them, I mean it makes sense, but it also doesn’t.
This is a map of two common political cognition styles (with extremes on both), and a different approach that can actually figure out good things to make happen.
The Reality-Filtering Mode (The Right)
This is the failure mode where a group’s perception becomes self-selecting.
Perception Becomes Herd-Calibrated
A shared mental model forms inside a tribe.
Over time, that model becomes:
the default interpretation of events
the lens used to decide what matters
a moving target that updates, but only within the tribe’s boundaries
The key feature is not “having a model.”
It is that the model is socially reinforced, so it becomes hard to see it as a model at all.
It feels like “just reality.”
Facts Become Inputs to a Narrative
In healthy reasoning, facts constrain beliefs.
In this mode, facts become raw material for identity-preserving stories.
So the pipeline becomes:
Start with an identity-protecting narrative
Select facts that support it
Discount facts that threaten it
Reinterpret ambiguous facts to fit
Treat contradiction as hostile intent
This is the core insight: Evidence is not asked to rule. Evidence is asked to serve.
This is how “rejection” happens without consciously feeling like rejection.
The group is not necessarily saying:
“Facts do not matter.”
It is behaving as if:
“Only facts that fit the story are admissible.”
The Outsider View Is Not Sought
A healthy epistemic posture tries to do something like:
take the outside perspective
stress-test assumptions
ask “what would change my mind?”
refine the model with disconfirming evidence
In this mode, that posture is treated as unnecessary or even dangerous.
Because the outsider view threatens the tribe’s coherence.
So the thought pattern becomes:
Objectivity is a trick
Neutrality is betrayal
Refinement is capitulation
Doubt is weakness
The result is a kind of self-sealing worldview.
Identity Threat Triggers Fight-or-Flight Cognition
When identity is challenged, the nervous system shifts state.
In that state:
nuance feels like vulnerability
contradiction feels like attack
uncertainty feels like loss of control
So the mind does what minds do under threat: It protects the self and the group.
That produces:
walls up
defensive reasoning
aggressive certainty
higher tolerance for inconsistencies that serve the tribe
This is why facts can be bent.
Not because truth is irrelevant in the abstract, but because identity safety outranks accuracy in the moment.
Language Becomes Instrumental
Once narrative protection becomes primary, language shifts from:
describing reality, to
producing social effects
So language starts doing things like:
re-labeling events to change how they feel
using vague claims that cannot be pinned down
repeating slogans that function as identity markers
reframing contradiction as persecution
When this becomes dominant, debate becomes impossible because the parties are no longer negotiating reality.
They are negotiating loyalty and belonging.
The Problem-Detection Mode (The Left)
This mode has a different strength and a different failure.
It tends to be far better at spotting harm, but weaker at converting insight into workable designs.
High Sensitivity to Real Problems
This style is often strong at identifying:
systemic unfairness
hidden incentives
institutional harm
second-order victims
This is valuable.
It is a form of moral and social perception that many societies need.
But it creates a trap: When attention is trained on problems, the world becomes an endless feed of failure. Becomes blamey too causes other issues too.
And that emotional saturation changes reasoning.
Birds-Eye View Stops at the Issue Boundary
Research happens, but often within a bounded frame.
It may not expand fully into:
cross-domain constraint mapping
long-horizon systems dynamics
general models that unify multiple fields
feasibility limits under real institutions and economics
So the pattern becomes:
semi-accurate diagnosis inside the chosen frame
incomplete integration across the whole system
This creates the classic situation: Pretty good explaining what is wrong for the most part, unclear about what can actually be built.
Quick Solutions Become Identity Markers
When a group lives inside a problem-frame for a long time, certain solutions become “obvious.”
Then they become socially reinforced.
Then questioning them feels like:
slowing progress
minimizing harm
aligning with the enemy
So solutions become:
short-form
slogan-shaped
emotionally charged
treated as proof of being “one of us”
This is the key insight: The solution becomes part of the identity, not a hypothesis.
Once that happens, analysis feels like betrayal.
Implementation Critique Is Misread as Moral Critique
A major failure point is confusing:
“This might not work operationally”, with
“You do not care about the problem”
So a feasibility critique triggers a moral defense response.
That produces:
anger at tradeoffs
intolerance for complexity
low patience for detailed objections
This blocks the exact thing needed to make solutions real: Iterative refinement under constraints.
Language Inflation to Compete in an Attention War
When one side uses reality-bending language and gets rewarded for it, pressure builds on the other side.
Even if a group wants accuracy, it is pulled toward:
urgency amplification
rhetorical escalation
framing everything as existential
Because calm precision loses in a system optimized for outrage.
This produces a drift:
from careful truth-seeking, toward
competitive signaling
Even when the underlying intent is better.
The Missing Layer: Mapping Out Solutions +/-
Neither of the above modes is sufficient on its own.
Progress requires a third mode that is rare online:
Keep Identity Intact Enough for Updating
Updating requires psychological safety.
So the first requirement is:
reduce humiliation
reduce status threat
separate a person from their beliefs
allow revision without social punishment
Without this, every conversation becomes a dominance contest.
Make Reality a Shared Constraint Again
The central move is to re-establish a norm: Facts are constraints, not weapons.
That requires habits like:
understanding opposing views
explicitly listing what would change one’s mind
distinguishing observation from interpretation
naming uncertainty instead of hiding it
The aim is not “objectivity.”
It is continuous refinement.
Treat Solutions as Prototypes, Not Verdicts
Real solutions require an engineering posture:
generate multiple options
map pros and cons
model second-order effects
identify constraints
test small versions
iterate
The key norm is: A solution is a hypothesis under constraints, not a moral badge.
Descend Slowly Toward Better Answers
Instead of landing on:
“this is absolutely it”
The healthy stance is:
incremental improvement
reversible steps where possible
clear metrics for success and failure
willingness to revise
This is slower.
But it is the only method that survives contact with reality.
Document the Process So Others Can Join
A society improves when solution-making becomes legible.
That means:
recording assumptions
recording tradeoffs
recording what failed and why
producing reusable maps and frameworks
So collective intelligence compounds.
Instead of resetting every cycle into the same tribal fight.
The Whole Pattern, Condensed
Reality-filtering mode
Facts are selected and reinterpreted to protect narrative and identity
Outsider refinement is resisted
Language becomes a loyalty tool
Problem-detection mode
Real harms are seen fairly clearly
But systems integration and feasibility work are underdeveloped
Solutions become badges
Implementation critique is misread as moral critique
Language inflates under attention pressure
Solution-making mode
Protect dignity so updating is possible
Make facts shared constraints again
Prototype solutions under real constraints
Iterate slowly toward better outcomes
Document so progress compounds
That third mode is the missing craft.
It is not partisan.
It is figuring this shit out and not getting lost in who’s wrong.