An Accurate Understanding Requires Analysis of Original Sources

Updated Aug 11, 2026

In a previous post, I indicated how following one of my Rules for Social Science Research: How to Find Out What What’s REALLY Going On—Rule #8 Analyze Original Sources—guided me in identifying an error in one of my cited sources.

Another example of the value of analyzing original sources is provided by the psychologist, Peter Gray, in his comments on Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation, a book in which Haidt argues that increasing time online with smartphones and social media causes increases in childhood mental illness. Gray analyses the sources cited by Haidt and concludes that increasing time online with smartphones and social media does not account for hardly any of the increases in childhood mental illness.     

The following are quotes from Grey’s comments, with emphasis added in bold and my additions in brackets [ ]:  

“To present an honest, accurate view of any issue in psychology [for my textbook, Psychology] I had to read critically the articles I referenced, especially the methodology sections. Does this study really show what the title or abstract claims it shows? I didn’t do that with every article I referenced, but I aimed to do it with each one that was most relevant to whatever idea I was discussing.”

“This approach dramatically increased the time and effort required to write my 700-page textbook and revise it with new research every 4 or 5 years. But I could not justify doing it any other way. I found that many claims that had become standard to the introductory psychology course had been passed along from textbook to textbook, as authors were essentially cribbing other texts without going back to the original studies and reading them critically.”

“The [Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison] “experiment” made for a good story, which professors loved to tell and students loved to hear, but when I read the original article, I found it wasn’t an experiment at all and in no way showed what Zimbardo or the many textbooks claimed it showed.”

“I . . . looked quite broadly and deeply at the research pertaining to questions about effects of screens, Internet, smartphones, and social media on teens’ mental health and found that, despite countless studies designed to reveal such harmful effects, there was very little evidence for such effects.”

“the book’s [The Anxious Generation’s] repeated suggestion that digital technologies are rewiring our children’s brains and causing an epidemic of mental illness is not supported by science.”

“Good research in social science is not easy, and the task of interpreting research in social science is not easy. To decide what to convey to readers . . . it is essential to look closely at the experimental methodology, not just at the title the authors give to the report or what they say in their summary.”

“The point I want to make is this. When you read a book that references research studies supporting the author’s thesis, don’t assume the studies truly show what the author says or implies.”

As Madonna tuned, “Don’t go for second best”, or third, or fourth, or. . . . best. Go for original sources! Analyze original sources if you want to find out what’s REALLY going on.

Respondents’ Memory Makes Answers Unreliable

Answers are made unreliable, as I discuss in my book, The Problem with Survey Research, by respondents, asking instruments, asking settings, and by askers. In this post, I present one of the many ways respondents make answers unreliable; namely, because of respondents’ memory.

Memory—the ability or capacity to retain and recall past experiences—biases answers. This is most obvious when question are about past behaviors, or opinions, attitudes, and beliefs. Moreover, when asked about future intended behaviors (Will you donate to the neighborhood food bank next year? Do you intend to implement organizational reforms in the next six months?), respondents also employ their memories; in these examples, memories of the food bank and organizational reforms. 

Even current experiences during an asking session can affect respondents’ memory. For example, respondents may have experiences produced by the particularities of these sessions, such as attributes and actions of askers, topics of questions, and so on. These experiences can stimulate relevant information stored in memory or can cue irrelevant or incorrect information stored in memory. Thus, asking for information means that askers are dependent upon the memory of respondents. To ask is to probe memory—and memory is innately “elusive and discontinuous.”   

So, if you want to find out what’s REALLY going on, don’t ask. That’s the theme of, The Problem with Survey Research, in which a slightly edited version of this post with supporting Endnotes appears on p. 93.

Survey Research, Inequality, Equality, Socialism, and the Need for Definitions, Logical Analysis, and Empirical Significance

Updated August 20, 2026

The following is my comment (with minor editing) on Musa al-Gharbi’s Substack post, “On Inequality and Socialism”:

Survey Research Results

Your essay is informative on numerous matters—e.g., developments in the field of sociology—but weakened by reliance on survey research results; in particular, dropping/omitting “say they” and asserting that people are “content,” that they “resent and mistrust,” that they “don’t hate the rich,” “care,” etc. Survey researchers and users of survey research results don’t know if respondents are in fact/really content, resent, mistrust, hate, care, etc. All that’s known from survey research is what respondents say. And, as observational studies have shown—and as we all know from experience—what people say often doesn’t correspond to their actual subjective states or to their objective behaviors. Accurately written survey research results, in this instance, are: “Most people [say they] are content”, etc. Dropping/omitting “say they” is just one of the many shortcomings of survey research. For a complete statement of the deficiencies of survey research, see my book, The Problem with Survey Research.

Inequality

Although you state that the status of inequality “is less than obvious,” it is obvious to me that inequality is “a . . . reality.” Equality, on the other hand, is unreal, often a component of ideology; perhaps a “vision” (as in the subtitle of a book that’s mentioned: Teresa Bejan’s, First Among Equals: Visions of Equality Before Enlightenment) or equality can be called a myth or an illusion. Consequently, I don’t see any reason to discuss “equality per se . . . equality in the political and legal sense.” There’s no such (objective) thing as political and legal equality.

Socialism

I think your discussions of socialism (positive sum, authoritarian, liberal), capitalism, liberalism, and the like, are unclear and enigmatic. Maybe you would agree: “socialism is many things, much like empire, Christian nationalism, capitalism, and myriad other phenomena.” A thing, a phenomenon, that is many things, many phenomena?

Definitions, Logical Analysis, and Empirical Significance

All of our thinking, research, and writing can benefit from a consideration of this statement in Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan, Power and Society: A Framework for Political Inquiry (Yale, 1950), p. v: “The research review [that became Power and Society] was designed to give prominence to propositions amenable to further investigation. The degree of vagueness and ambiguity of the terms usually employed in the field [of political communication, in Lasswell and Kaplan’s instance—but we can reasonably add sociology and other social sciences] required a considerable exercise in definition. And the orientation toward the ongoing political inquiry demanded sufficient logical analysis to guarantee empirical significance in the propositions formulated.” Actually, there’s much to gain from reading all of Power and Society, now available from Routledge in a 2014 edition with a new Introduction by Ronald D. Brunner. 

Wikipedia: Not Free, Biased, Helpful

I just donated to Wikipedia, which I do almost every year. It’s not because, as founder Jimmy Wales says, Wikipedia is “free access” to massive amounts of information. Nothing is “free.” Access to the Internet, and thus to Wikipedia, requires the purchase of hard- and software, and there’s a monthly Internet provider fee. The average annual cost for individual Internet access, including the Internet provider fee, 3–4-year amortized computer and other hard- and software expenses, and set-up charge is, minimally, $1,000 to $1,500. What’s more, Wikipedia is biased—and admittedly so. I give money to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is helpful in my research and writing, and when I find something in Wikipedia that doesn’t seem right, I check other sources. Using multiple sources is always a good idea.

Language and the Word “Virtual”

Language is powerful. The words we use to describe our world guide our thoughts about, and our reactions to, it. A case in point is the use of the word “virtual,” as in virtual reality, to describe what’s online. Ranjana of Forward Eye, discussing eLearning, puts it this way (with minor editing):

“The Language of Online Learning Matters

In the digital world, the word “virtual” is everywhere. We talk about virtual meetings, virtual classrooms, virtual conferences—even virtual coffee chats. It’s become the default term to describe interactions that happen online. . . .

But is “virtual” the right word?

While often used interchangeably with “online,” the term “virtual” carries a different—and potentially harmful—connotation. And . . . this small linguistic choice can make a big impact.

Virtual vs. Online: The Real Difference

Let’s break it down. Technically, “virtual” means something that exists in essence or effect, but not in fact. Its antonym is actual. So when we describe online experiences as “virtual,” we may unintentionally imply they’re not real. That they’re simulations. Placeholders. Something less than the “actual” thing.

That’s a problem. . . . 

How This Impacts eLearning Professionals

For those building online learning experiences, calling everything “virtual” can create subtle but significant obstacles. It can make online training seem like a watered-down version of in-person [offline] education. Stakeholders, subject matter experts, or even learners may approach it with skepticism—assuming that “virtual” equals “less meaningful” or “not real.”

This perception can affect engagement, funding, faculty support, and user adoption. It can even stall innovation.

As an instructional designer or digital learning producer, your job isn’t just to design effective online experiences—it’s also to advocate for their value. Language plays a critical role in that advocacy.

Changing the Narrative Starts With Us

It’s time for a mindset shift, and it starts with the language we use.

Instead of calling online learning environments “virtual,” let’s call them what they are: online. . . . Let’s affirm that just because people aren’t in the same room doesn’t mean their interaction isn’t actual or real.

• We aren’t “converting” in-person content—we’re creating powerful online experiences.
• We aren’t meeting “virtually”—we’re meeting online.
• We aren’t offering “virtual learning”—we’re providing real education [online]. . . . 

This change in language helps reinforce that these experiences are not second-best—they’re valid, effective, and in many cases, more accessible and inclusive than their in-person counterparts. . . . 

The Bottom Line

Words shape perception, and perception shapes [our view of, and our reactions to] reality. . . . [I]it’s time to be intentional with the language we use.

So let’s draw the line:

• Use “online” when describing real interactions that happen through a digital medium. . . 
• Recognize that the work we do online is not less than [the work we do offline]—it’s just different.

Online isn’t virtual—it’s real. Let’s start speaking like it.”

We have Ranjana to thank for speaking the way it is; the way online is. It’s real!

Neither Trumpian nor Fascism

Updated August 31, 2026

Neither “Trumpian” nor “fascism,” Mark Lilla correctly states in “Storm Warnings,” is a satisfactory “label” for the movement disrupting American government and politics. My suggestion for a more appropriate name—initiated and, in part, formed by Lilla’s comments in this article, especially his references to “tech” and statements about the “cultural currents . . . surging through American society”—also derives from my descriptions (briefly sketched below) of three major developments of our time: the rise of high tech, the emphasis on the saliency and effects of culture, and the increasing use of the state of exception. 

High tech—today’s most advanced technology, emerging in the early 2000s—is the design, manufacture, and updating of the now essentially-ubiquitous hard- and software technologies (smartphones, computer computation, social media, AI, big data, and so on) whereby users of these technologies enhance their abilities to advance their on- and offline interests. High tech is corporate. It includes certain companies; for instance, Meta, Apple, Amazon, Nvidia, Palantir, and the like, as well as the founders and CEOs of these companies; such as Peter Theil, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jensen Huang, Sam Altman, et al; Lilla’s “Silicon tech bro[s].” High tech is also specific, technically skilled, specialists; most notably software engineers, as well as cloud computing architects, cybersecurity engineers, and so on. These people and technologies interact with, and significantly affect, essentially all aspects of life and bring about, in Lilla’s words, a “techno-state” or, more completely, “techno-governmentalism a . . . symbiotic partnership where government power is exercised through, and dependent upon . . . high-tech [companies, top executives, specialists, and] corporate infrastructure and platforms.”^[1] In addition, high tech—by algorithmic amplification of social divisions (filter bubbles) and by accelerating the spread of polarizing content, especially via smartphones and social media—intensifies culture wars.     

Culture—in its modern, highly polarized, conflictual, culture-war manifestation, and with an emphasis on its saliency and effects—was formed, in large part, by high tech, and thus emerged at the same time as did these technologies—in the early 2000s. This culture—the culture of the people (now, I’m using words from the titles of the two books reviewed by Lilla) with “furious minds” “crack[ing] up” America^[2]—has, via the Internet, the information on it, fiber-optic cables, and other constantly-improving technologies—become more noticeable and spread worldwide. In terms of content, this culture is, generally, a reaction against, and a rejection of, elite/mainstream values and the establishment of another, contrary, set of values; it borrows from Plato, Carl Schmitt, and Leo Strauss, not from John Locke, Karl Popper, and John Rawles; and it’s apocalyptic (the nation faces an imminent existential crisis).^[3] Specifically, it’s a culture of restoration: restore America to its past, presumed moral, political, and global high quality and standing or, as some prefer, a turn back toward premodern Christian Europe. And restore the family to its past, presumed proper structure (patriarchal) and role (centerpiece of national life). It’s a meme-infused culture against legacy media and experts; against pluralism, democracy and internationalism; against immigration (thereby stopping the threat to the preferred, past, culture); against bureaucracy/administration and abortion. Culture warriors emphasize obligation, duty, and believe in common sense. They’re also nationalistic, ethnocentric, androcentric (in Lilla’s words: “misogynistic,” “manosphere meatheads”), populistic, religious (Christianity), and they believe in moral objectivity (Judeo-Christian ethics). Political opponents are enemies and considered “evil,” intent on destroying American civilization. In terms of its effects, culture warriors emphasize the power of culture. It’s not just that “politics is downstream from culture;” so are behaviors, as well as beliefs, opinions, and other subjectivities. Thus, culture warriors focus on changing culture; on changing education, media, architecture, public symbols and signs, and the arts. To change the culture is to change politics—and essentially everything else, including government and politics. 

A culture that rejects establishment values and discredits liberal/republican government, delegitimates the institutions, processes, and officials of this form of government. In addition, the culture’s focus on crises and threats enables populist leaders to argue that some established, traditional, legal constraints (e.g., sections of a nation’s constitution) hinder adequate and now-deemed-necessary responses. Consequently, it becomes easier for the public to accept a suspension of these legalities, to accept the state of exception. 

State of Exception is a situation in which the executive, by proclamation or order, suspends one or more parts of the constitution/legal order for select individuals and/or groups or categories of people. The legal order is suspended in order to uphold it. The executive justifies the suspension or reduction of legal protections because of actual, or alleged, very severe internal and/or external threats. Governments throughout the world increasing use the state of exception to govern.

Normalized State of Exception (NSE) is my name for the governmental and political situation in America—and in many other nations—because the state of exception became the norm (the exception became the rule^[4]) throughout the world in the 20^th century, including in so-called democracies (e.g., T. Roosevelt issued 1801 Executive Orders, Wilson over 1,800, Coolidge about 1,200, Hoover just over 1000, FDR holds the record with 3721, Truman issued 907).^[5] With the rise of high-tech and its supporting culture in the early 2000s, the state of exception became more easily normalized, more efficiently and effortlessly established, maintained and made (relatively) permanent, and more easily extended throughout the world. In today’s NSE form/type of government and politics, chief executives, agency and department officials, and culture warriors at all levels of government make optimal use of high tech to strengthen their culture and to further increase the power of the executive and executive branch agencies for more effective regulation/control of populations. 

NSE is not Trumpian. Donald Trump is just one of many chief executives of who have governed, or are now governing, for various periods of time—increasingly for longer durations during their tenures—by orders/declarations/decrees. FDR, who was commonly called a dictator by his detractors, comes to mind easily. Viktor Orban (Hungary) is a contemporary instance of a chief executive of an NSE government, as is George W. Bush, Governor Gretchen Whitmer (Michigan), and so on. 

NSE is not fascism. In NSE governments and politics, there is “a legal civil war;”^[6] nevertheless, courts sometimes hinder and, in other instances, limit chief executives’ orders/declarations/decrees and, on occasions, curtail executive branch agencies’ policies and implementations. Moreover, in NSE governments and politics, protests continue with varying effects, and opposition political parties remain functional. 

No Fundamental Alterations: Odds are, nothing will be done to fundamentally alter NSE situations/conditions. Ordinary legal and political procedures/actions cannot overcome the power of NSE governments and politics.^[7] And because the state of exception has been normalized, succeeding administrations most likely will continue to govern primarily, if not solely, by executive proclamations of one sort or the other and by the policies and programs of executive branch agencies—Congress is out of business!^[8] MIA!^[9]—and so are other legislatures throughout the world. Incremental modifications in politics and governments will occur (perhaps in the US by Lilla’s liberals with “a political vision”^[10]), but technology-driven-and-culture-supportive NSE governments and politics will almost certainly prevail globally.

---

^[1] AI Overview accessed 1/19/2026

^[2] Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right, by Laura Field; and When the Clock Broke: Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s, by John Ganz.

^[3] See, for example, Mark Lilla, The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction (New York Review Books, 2016).

^[4] Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception (University of Chicago, 2005), p. 6.

^[5] Also, US presidents in the 20^th century issued, in addition to Executive Orders, roughly 8-9 thousand proclamations, decrees, and the like dealing with, for example, ceremonial matters, trade tariffs, and said-to-be “routine” administrative matters. “[T]he use of proclamations [were] a frequent, often daily, tool for presidents, particularity in the later decades [of the 20^th century].” AI Overview accessed 5/6/2026

^[6] Agamben, State of Exception, p. 2.

^[7] See, for example, Institute for the Study of States of Exception (ISSE)  accessed 4/5/2026

^[8] Robert C. Byrd, Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency (W.W. Norton, 2004), especially Chapter 7, “Out of Business.”

^[9] Yuval Levin, “The Missing Branch,” The Atlantic (May 6, 2025) https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/05/missing-branch-congress/682701/ accessed 5/10/2026

^[10] Mark Lilla, The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics (Harper, 2017), pp. 97-102.

He/She Said What? Where? When?

Updated June 12, 2026

Everyone relies on secondary sources of information. After all, we don’t have time to make sure we have obtained primary/original sources for everything we read, see, and hear. However, it’s worthwhile to obtain primary/original sources to the best of our ability. As Madonna tuned, “don’t’ go for second best.” Going for second, or third, or . . . best sources is one of the ways errors and misinformation are initiated and promulgated. Here’s an example of one of my efforts to follow Madonna and find a primary/original source of information:

While working on my book, The Internet+ Age: Descriptions and Implications, there was, on a note in one of my files, a quote of a quote (words enclosed by three, rather than two, quotation marks, indicating that someone says someone else said something somewhere, sometime) that I wished to use in the book. But did this someone else really/actually say that there, then? According to the note in my file, this quote of a quote (‘”We already live in a world where almost everything flows through cyberspace'”) is on page 57 of Meghan O’Gieblyn’s book, God Human Animal Machine. She attributes (also on page 57) ‘”We already live. . . .”‘ to Michael Graziano, and she says that he said that in his 2019 book Rethinking Consciousness. Although O’Gieblyn includes Graziano’s book in her Bibliography, she does not say where in Graziano’s book–does not give the page number–where Graziano said ‘”We already live. . . .”‘ It turns out, he did say that, he did say, ‘”We already live in a world where almost everything flows through cyberspace,'” but he didn’t say that there; although, as I’ll point out later, he did say that then, in 2019.

Finding Out Who Said What Where When: I found out that Graziano didn’t say ‘”We already live in a world where almost everything flows through cyberspace'” in Rethinking Consciousness by following one of my “Rules for Social Science Research: How to Find Out What’s REALLY Going On;” namely, Rule #7 Consult Primary/Original Sources–as Madonna tuned, “Don’t go for second best” — or third, or fourth, or . . .best. Words enclosed by three quotation marks are third best, are what someone says someone else says. Second best (words enclosed by two quotation marks) are what someone else says. Even words without quotation marks, when they are words attributed to others (e.g., he/she said that . . . or, according to her/him, . . .) can be, at best, only second best, and could be third, fourth, or . . .best.

Rethinking Consciousness: I began my search for the primary/original source of Graziano’s words,”We already live in a world where almost everything flows through cyberspace,” and where it was said, by looking at the Index of my paperback copy of Rethinking Consciousness for the word, “cyberspace.” Not there. Well, not every significant word in a book is necessarily in its index. Next, I skimmed the book, searching for the sentence, “We already live. . . .” Couldn’t find it. Well, skimming has its limits, Then I read the book. Still couldn’t find the words, “We already live. . . . ” At this point I’m convinced that Graziano did not say that there; convinced that he did not say “We already live . . . .” in Rethinking Consciousness. Now I wonder: Did he actually say that? And if he did, where? when?

“Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal”: AI-empowered Google to the rescue! I Googled: michael graziano we already live in a world where almost everything flows through cyberspace The first and closest entry that appeared was Miles Kimball’s blog, “Confessions of a Supply-Side Liberal,” with a Sept 29, 2019 post, “Will Your Uploaded Mind Still Be You? — Michael Graziano.” Kimball writes: “I . . . see from the teaser for Michael Graziano’s new book Rethinking Consciousness . . . , published as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on September 13, 2016, that Michael Graziano. . . . points out. . . . [in Rethinking Consciousness] ‘We already live in a world where almost everything flows through cyberspace.'”

Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal: At this point, I still don’t have the primary/original source of “We already live. . . .” but, at best, perhaps third best. I only have what Kimball says what Graziano says in Rethinking Consciousness in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2019. But did Graziano say that there? then? Did he say that (“We already live. . . .”) there (Op-Ed, Wall Street Journal) then (September 13, 2016)? Following Rule #7, I searched for Graziano’s op-ed in the September 13, 2019 issue of the Wall Street Journal. Graziano didn’t say that there (in an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, September 13, 2019), although, I found out, he did say it then (September 13, 2019)

The Saturday Essay, Wall Street Journal: Reading/searching the Sep 13, 2019 issue of the Wall Street Journal, I discovered that Graziano said, “We already live. . . .” in The Saturday Essay of the September 13, 2019, issue of the Wall Street Journal. Finally, I have the original/primary source of “We already live. . . .” I now know who said what, where, and when.

Not Much Lost: If Rule #7 had not been followed in the above investigation of what O’Gieblyn says Graziano said, and where and when, all that would have been lost, and this is not much, would have been where he said what he said.

Much Lost: However, the all-too-common failure to follow Rule #7 and to accept what someone says someone else has said and/or done, and where he/she has said and/or done that, rather than finding the primary/original source of what’s said and/or done, and where, is one of the ways much is lost, one of the ways misunderstandings, errors, myths, and misinformation are initiated and perpetuated. Here’s an example of a lot lost by not following Rule #7:

John Locke: Most people consider Locke one of the “good guys;” a promoter of natural rights and limited, representative, government based on popular consent. If you consult primary/original sources of what Locke said (e.g., Second Treatise of Government), you will find him saying: “I hope [my]. . . . discourse concerning government [is]. . . . sufficient to establish the throne of . . . our present King William;” that is, Locke writes to establish/defend monarchy. He also says: “a rational [man may] . . . subject . . . [himself] to . . . a . . . ruler [with no] . . . bounds to his power in all things,” and he says: “a good prince cannot have too much prerogative; . . . . cannot have too much. . . . power to act without the prescription of the law, and sometimes even against it.” Also, Locke’s words, consistent with Enlightenment-misogyny and the development of capitalist theory, indicate that voting be restricted to men with property.

Where You Can Apply Rule #7: You can apply Rule #7 Consult Primary/Original Sources to news stories on your social media feeds that claim someone said something, or when you hear someone say that the president or any other person said something. Actually, any information about who said what where, and when from any source can be checked/verified by the application of Rule # 7. Follow Madonna: Don’t go for second best.

Future Posts: There are, as I will point out in future posts, other instances of much lost by not following Rule #7. Also, I will indicated–again, in future posts–examples of how difficult it is–in some instances, practically impossible–to follow Rule #7, to consult primary/original sources.

Outline – The Internet+ Age: Definitions, Descriptions, and Implications

This is a draft outline.

Updated July 19, 2026

THE INTERNET+ AGE: DEFINITIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS  

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments

Preface

PART I  BEGINNINGS, THE INTERNET, CODE

CHAPTER 1 BEGINNINGS AND THE INTERNET

CHAPTER 2 CODE

PART II  ATTENDANTS

CHAPTER 3 INTERNET+ TECHNOLOGIES

CHAPTER 4 INTERNET+ INFORMATION

CHAPTER 5 INTERNET+ COMPANIES

CHAPTER 6 INTERNET+ SPECIALISTS   

PART III  EFFECTS OF THE INTERNET, CODE, AND ATTENDANTS

CHAPTER 7 TIME ONLINE ESCALATING

CHAPTER 8 ABILITIES STRENGTHENED

CHAPTER 9 AWARENESS ENHANCED

CHAPTER 10 EXPRESSION AMPLIFIED 

CHAPTER 11 POST-TRUTHER MORE NUMEROUS MORE EFFECTIVE

CHAPTER 12 AUTHORITY ERODED 

CHAPTER 13 FRAGMENTATION EXPANDING

CHAPTER 14 POLITICAL POLARIZATION AND STATE OF EXCEPTION NORMALIZED

CHAPTER 15 SINGULARITY A POSSIBILITY

CHAPTER 16 SURVEILLANCE EXTENDING

CHAPTER 17 PRIVACY SHRINKING

CHAPTER 18 CONTROL BY THE INTERNET+ COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM INCREASING

 PART IV IMPLICATIONS

CHAPTER 19 THE PRESENT

CHAPTER 20 THINKING AND BEHAVING

APPENDIX A INTERNET STRUCTURE, PROTOCOLS, GOVERNORS AND GATEWAYS

APPENDIX B INTERNET+ COMPANIES

APPENDIX C APPS AND TIME ONLINE

APPENDIX D TIMELINE: POST-TRUTHERS’ EXPRESSIONS AND ACTIONS DURING COVID- 19 PANDEMIC

ENDNOTES

INDEX

Both Grokipedia and Wikipedia Rigged/Biased

In a previous post, I briefly discussed, among other things, the rigging/biase of Wikipedia. The other day, I came across a Gizmodo article listing introductory parts of a few articles from Wikipedia with comparable sections from Elon Musk’s Grokipedia, demonstrating, at least to me, that — Surprise! Surprise! — both are rigged/biased. The former favors the liberal/left; the latter, the conservative/right.

Here’s the content of the Gizmodo article, and the link to it:

Grokipedia, Elon Musk’s alternative to Wikipedia, sparked to life on Monday afternoon. Then it went dark again. Then it sparked to life again Monday evening. As of this writing, it is up. In terms of style, it looks like Wikipedia with its optional dark mode turned on. 

Based on a very brief review, it contains articles on most topics one would most easily expect in an encyclopedia, professing to have just under 900,000 in total. The website Wikicount says there are about 7 million English Wikipedia articles. 

There are gaps in Grokipedia, however. For instance, at the moment it does not currently appear to have a dedicated article about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

Musk announced that his AI company, xAI, was building an online encyclopedia late last month, saying it would be a “massive improvement over Wikipedia.” The idea for Grokipedia was born during an appearance by Musk on the All-In Podcast. Host and fellow high net worth individual David Sacks asked Musk point blank to create it, noting that Wikipedia was “hyper-partisan” and full of “activists.” 

Here are some comparisons between Wikipedia articles and Grokipedia articles. These are copied verbatim from the intros of articles with the footnotes and links removed for ease of reading: 

Nick Fuentes

Wikipedia:

Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right political commentator, activist and live streamer. He identifies as a Christian nationalist and part of the incel subculture. His views have been described as racist, white supremacist, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic, and Islamophobic. Furthermore, he has been described as a neo-Nazi and a Holocaust denier. His supporters are known as Groypers.

Grokipedia:

Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American political commentator, live streamer, and activist who hosts the nightly internet program America First and organizes the annual America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC). A self-professed traditional Catholic, Fuentes advocates for policies centered on national sovereignty, including a moratorium on immigration, withdrawal from foreign entanglements, and preservation of America’s historic European-descended majority. His rise began as a teenager supporting Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, after which he withdrew from Boston University amid threats following his attendance at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Great Replacement

Wikipedia:

Title: “Great Replacement conspiracy theory”

The Great Replacement (French: grand remplacement), also known as replacement theory or great replacement theory, is a debunked white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory coined by French author Renaud Camus. Camus’ theory states that, with the complicity or cooperation of “replacist” elites, the ethnic French and white European populations at large are being demographically and culturally replaced by non-white peoples—especially from Muslim-majority countries—through mass migration, demographic growth and a drop in the birth rate of white Europeans. Since then, similar claims have been advanced in other national contexts, notably in the United States. Mainstream scholars have dismissed these claims of a conspiracy of “replacist” elites as rooted in a misunderstanding of demographic statistics and premised upon an unscientific, racist worldview.

Grokipedia:

Title: “Great Replacement theory”

The Great Replacement is a theory originated by French writer Renaud Camus in his 2011 essay Le Grand Remplacement, which contends that the historic populations of European nations are undergoing demographic substitution through sustained high levels of immigration from Africa and the Middle East, compounded by sub-replacement fertility rates among native Europeans (typically below 1.5 children per woman in most EU countries) and comparatively higher fertility among immigrant groups (often exceeding 2.0). Camus describes this process as an orchestrated “genocide by substitution,” driven by elite policies favoring multiculturalism over national continuity, resulting in the erosion of indigenous cultural dominance without violent conflict. Empirical underpinnings include United Nations projections indicating that net migration will account for nearly all population stability or growth in Europe amid native decline, with foreign-born residents comprising nearly 10% of the EU population by 2024 and contributing disproportionately to births—one-third or more in nations like Austria and Germany

Greta Thunberg

Wikipedia:

Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg (Swedish: [ˈɡreːta ˈtʉːnbærj]; born 3 January 2003) is a Swedish activist best known for pressuring governments to address climate change and social issues. She gained global attention in 2018, at age 15, after starting a solo school strike outside the Swedish parliament, which inspired the worldwide Fridays for Future movement. She has since broadened her focus to include human rights and global justice, voicing support for Ukraine, Palestine, Armenia, and Western Sahara. In 2025, Thunberg twice joined a humanitarian flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip.

Thunberg has been credited with sparking the “Greta effect”, influencing environmental awareness and youth engagement worldwide. She has received numerous honors, including inclusion in Time’s 100 Most Influential People and being named Person of the Year in 2019.

Grokipedia:

Greta Thunberg (born 3 January 2003) is a Swedish activist recognized for launching a solo school strike for climate action on 20 August 2018 outside the Swedish parliament in Stockholm, an action that catalyzed the international Fridays for Future movement involving millions of students protesting government inaction on climate change.

Thunberg, diagnosed at age 11 or 12 with Asperger syndrome—a form of autism spectrum disorder—along with obsessive-compulsive disorder and selective mutism, has described these conditions as providing her with a focused “superpower” for advocacy. Her high-profile speeches at venues including the United Nations General Assembly and the World Economic Forum in Davos amplified calls for immediate emissions reductions and policy shifts, earning her Time magazine’s Person of the Year designation in 2019 as the youngest recipient. While credited with elevating youth engagement on environmental issues, Thunberg’s promotion of urgent, existential climate threats has drawn scrutiny for diverging from nuanced empirical assessments of climate risks and adaptation capacities, as well as for extending her activism into broader political arenas such as anti-capitalist and geopolitical protests.

Overall, Grokipedia gives off the impression of a site where topics and people that Elon Musk likes or supports are presented without framings that cast any doubt on their validity, and those he dislikes are presented with criticism front-and-center.

As others have pointed out, some articles are strikingly similar to Wikipedia’s, and contain notes at the bottom saying they were adapted from Wikipedia under a ShareAlike 4.0 license, which would seem to indicate that those particular Grokipedia articles are also available to share freely. However, the url for Grokipedia is at the .com top-level domain, not the .org domain like Wikipedia.

Grokipedia also mostly (or perhaps entirely) lacks photos and illustrations. It’s understandable that biographical articles don’t have portraits, but articles like “Tesseract” would benefit from clarifying illustrations and even animations, like on Wikipedia. 

Some Grokipedia articles are quite long and detailed—long past the point of general interest. For instance, the article for Gizmodo, while seemingly accurate after a brief scan, seems like it would benefit from a human editor. 

Overall, the project seems very much like what it purports to be: a version of Wikipedia with articles written by Grok, a large language model that favors Elon Musk’s views. 

Gizmodo reached out to xAI about all of this, asking for comment. That email received an immediate, three-word reply: “Legacy Media Lies.”  .

Useless Actions and Incremental Changes

Updated Jun 9, 2025

The following is my response to Musa al-Gharbi’s Substack post, The Limitations of Partisan Politics, in which he asserts–correctly, I think–the uselessness of partisan politics and–incorrectly, I think–a path forward:

You’re right! in terms of fundamental change, the Democratic Party is “basically useless” and, right again! “[o]ften . . . they’re a big part of the problem” and, right again! “the damn Republicans” are not to blame.  

However, I think you’re off the mark when you suggest the possibility of universities “sav[ing] themselves” and helping to make things right. Universities, as is true for political parties, are, and will continue to be, useless “when the chips are down, and the rubber meets the road”—even if they become “more explicit about addressing[,] . . . serving[,] . . . pushing back[,] . . . asserting[,] . . . defend[ing] [them]selves in public[,]” and act according to the other aspects of your “path forward”—such as, “respecting the truth.” 

These sorts of strategies, and voting (actually, all known strategies; more about this later), cannot bring about significant/meaningful changes. That’s because universities and political parties—as well as government agencies (civilian and military), companies and corporations, banks and other financial enterprises and, with various degrees of significance depending on different situations, family arrangements and religious associations—are increasingly integrated into the Internet’s electronic, distributed, network of 24/7 computation, information sharing, interconnectivity, and interdependency. 

This Internet network—whose nodes of dominate influence are high-tech hard- and software (e.g., smartphones, AI), massive amounts of multi-source information (e.g., big data), certain companies (for instance, Amazon and Meta), particular specialists (for instance, coders, software engineers)—is increasingly more inclusive and more tightly interconnected and interdependent; a symbiosis in which the parts interact for mutual gain. You might think of this Internet network as an intensified Marcusian one-dimensionality; a system that accommodates/absorbs all efforts for significant change. 

Within this Internet network/system there occur revisions/differences that, sometimes, at best, might, at any one period of time, contribute to incremental and inconsequential modifications of the status quo. This is our situation.

Our lives are driven by forces—the force of the Internet network/system described above, and also the forces of globalization, nationalization, society, demography, genes, and so on—over which we have, at any one point in time, no control, no ability to redirect. I take guidance from Henry Adam’s The Education of Henry Adams, and John Gray’s Straw Dogs. Also relevant are Robert Sapolsky’s Behave and Determined. Kerry Livgren’s (Kansas) “Dust in the Wind” is a tuneful rendition of the point I’m making.

To be sure, we might effectuate incremental and inconsequential changes within our Age (often called, the Information Age) that might, over an extended period of time, accumulate with other and similar incremental changes to bring about a breakthrough to a different Age (The Singularity?). But, within each Age (Agricultural, Industrial, Information), there are only incremental modifications of the present situation; only “useless” actions; only strategies that, at any one point in time, never suffice for significant/meaningful change “when the chips are down, and the rubber meets the road.”