Excellent, but "some semblance of sanity" is the best we can ever hope for. Why can't we do something more robust about belief perseverance? Well, have you noticed the existence of Religions? Playing with fire, mate. The trouble is, some people will take that comment as some kind of defence for the meaningless-universe materialist-only view of the Universe, which is the religion of e.g. Richard Dawkins, and just as persistent a belief as that of a Bishop. Genuine openness to complicated truth about, say, consciousness and cognition, seems more likely to come from the likes of Dr Michael Levin and Dr Iain McGilchrist, but getting sophisticated messages across to brainwashed masses, half of whom by definition will have an IQ below 100, is another seriously Sisyphean task. (I have to say I like Sisyphus. To so many people this is a symbol of futility, pushing the rock up for it to roll down eternally. But to me it is a symbol of defiance and hope, a fist held in the air against the gods by someone who is going to try again anyway!) Sorry if I diverted that from social/ culture-warrior beliefs towards religious ones, but beliefs are beliefs, and resistance to evidence is resistance to evidence. Look at how complicated it can get when you consider psychic phenomena and UFOs - how many lies and con-men and mistakes and illusions and how much gullibility is involved in alleged psychics - and yet how this so easily leads us to throw out good-evidence genuine-phenomena babies with uncritical unsophisticated bathwater. People want to "know what to believe" rather than to "explore an unfolding endlessly fascinating universe", enormous chunk of which we remain ignorant about.
I wonder if Judge Kemp is suffering from belief perseverance they way he has skewed the Sandie Peggie judgment despite the existence of the ( very clear and much shorter) Supreme Court judgment.
Excellent piece, Andrew. Just upgraded to paid subscriber!
Spot on analysis. Once a young person builds their identity around a falsehood, there is no amount of facts that will change their mind. To reject the false idea of their "gendered soul" is tantamount to self annihilation, hence the strict adherence to all ideas that support their delusion. We need to do everything we can to prevent more young people entering into this dangerous religious cult.
Survival is the common denominator in just about everything. How did "belief" arise in the first place? When early man was faced with natural catastrophes which rendered him powerless his only recourse was to assuage the gods. Feeling deeply powerless was not a survival tactic. Also being part of a group helped survival, so not falling out with them was essential. This led to identifying with the group. And not with stranger groups! Barring mavericks, identity became the means of survival . (Mavericks were essential for tribes to progress). Fast forward to more modern religions and you can see the same pattern. So what happens when religion is rejected? Something like a "woke" movement. In short, removing an identity so deeply embedded with the new group/religion means a threat to survival.
Thank you. It's not gospel, just a few thoughts jostling about in my brain. I was hoping someone could pick it up and expand... no I can't recommend any particular books really - you could try googling to see if there are any books on classical gods, anthropology and psychology... I suppose the main requisite is the ability to zoom out.
The left-brain hemisphere is oestrogen sensitive (Prof Iain McGilchrist 'The Master & His Emissary', page 33). It really comes on-stream post menarche, where various transmitters in the corpus callosum arrange for an effective apartheid with the right-brain.
"For reasons that remain mysterious, the control of both synaptic inhibition and potentiation, via GABA and glutamate respectively, is achieved through distinct cellular signalling pathways in the hippocampus of male and female..."
The ridiculously high self-regard of the left hemisphere post menarche suits Nature's plan of improving the genome of the species, as it raises the bar for suitors on reproductive access.
And, as a continuation of the McGilchrist motif, what kind of world can we expect when preferential left-brain processing of the world, previously confined to domesticity, makes (often hostile) post WW2 incursion into previously deontic male environments, finds fault with men for being there... and subverts institutions towards its own utilitarian benefit? What do we see when the left-brain finds itself in ascendency in politics, jurisprudence, media, commerce..?
Although McGilchrist's interpretations do not make them deterministic tramlines, nonetheless, the view from the tram is becoming familiar through his maps.
The broad brushstrokes of (oestrogen-sensitive) left brain processing versus (testosterone-sensitive) right brain processing, and the types of 'reality' which are thereby brought into being has had some light shed onto it by Iain McGilchrist.
He has been much too canny to spell out the implications for M/F behaviours.
As regards sex and 'gender', the problem arises because the brain and the gonads develop independently, using similar co-ordinating mechanisms. But, sometimes, the communication breaks down. After certain critical periods during early gestation, the changes are irreversible. Nor all thy piety, nor wit, shall ere undo a single line of it. (Nor surgical intervention, nor hormone 'therapy')
If anyone is interested, I've tried to pull much of this together, with nearly 200 references, and the pdf is public, thanks to the assistance of Mike Buchanan, and his J4MB website.
All too true - I have felt that chronic pain of shedding beliefs I held to throughout my early adulthood. It cannot be done overnight...
Even when you have publicly acknowledged that evidence has destroyed your belief (in my case, that feminism was a good thing, and all about equality) it remains hard to deal with disciples with whom you once dined, and the femdogma, even the most misandrist type, coming from people you once respected, or still in many ways respect...
However, 7 years on, I do now find it very easy to highlight that Julie Bindel - (pictured in your video as a person cancelled for her gender critical views) is a believer in, and promoter of, the worst misandrist sets of lies
- that men are by default guilty perpetrators and women innocent victims. -
And, that her "Centre for Women's Justice", however semantically absurd saner women may accept that notion to be, is actually a part of striving for female/feminist domination of all our key institutions, and the subsequent destruction of truth as a guiding principle -
This objective has already been achieved, to a horrific degree, in our courts systems (Family and Criminal), Academia and other institutions - Bristol now teaches truth denying fem dogma to law undergraduates that is directly contradictory to actual law.
(pace, law lecturer, Dr. Michael Naughton).
LGB people may have begun to shake off the TQ+ flag-heavy BS that is fundamentally a denial of gay freedoms and rights, but the mainstream still stays within the blinkers of the (mainly Trans) activist dogma, much of which stems from Marxist-Feminist religious fervour.
When will intelligent voices be brave enough to wake up to the massive damage that is being done in the name of a fact-denying Feminism that Camille Paglia and Germaine Greer, among very few others, condemn as a crime against human responsibility?
Brilliant speech Andrew - and much food for thought. Speaking personally, I have run the whole gamut of the political spectrum - but as generally happens, more conservative with each passing decade. To the point that when in conversation with some friends with opposing views, I can feel a physical pain in my chest. But I have the experience of age to live with this discomfort. It’s easy to see that people in their twenties need to surround themselves with like-minded students in order to fit in.
Some of our views set in stone as adolescents however, remain steadfast even if we are ridiculed for them.
It is hard for someone to change his or her mind if they have no knowledge, nor can think independently. You cannot have debate with people whose knowledge is based on 3 min TikTok videos. You can easily argue that some of them teach at the universities therefore they are educated but is that really a criteria for knowledge and thinking these days? Does sitting at the university for a number of years make you intelligent? The current university education is at the level that if you tie a donkey in the corridor and you pay the annual fees they will give it a degree in 3 years.
cf.Stanley Milgram. You can make people think or do anything.
Not so much cognitive dissonance, not so much belief perseverance, but a simple social act of enabling; you take a mortal man, put him in control. Watch him become a god...
You see 'enabling' happen every time you go through security at an airport. It's the uniform and the tincture of power, with a dash of inherent delight in watching others squirm and do as you say, because, at home or in mufti, nobody does what you say. This is your moment of tyranny. This is your moment of being god. Heathrow airport and the fifty shilling tailor (In another world, years ago, it was Hugo Boss that provided the uniform and the permission) given you supreme authority. Another example is antisemitism. Suddenly it's ok again and I thought we dispensed with antisemitism along time ago. Certain organs of power have enabled a situation where it is ok to murder Jews, because of Israel. They may as well call me out for being the descendent of Huguenots. I am already worried about being white.
But no. You cannot shine a light. You cannot tell 'em. While the predominant narrative is woke, the enabling will continue. When it ceases, the others - and only then - the others will come out of the woodwork and the narrative will be perhaps a little more closer to reality and life will go on, with people not quite able to understand how it was when men could be women or a hate filled religion could be tolerated. They may simply will blot it out, although certainly they will find it hard to understand.
I am a new subscriber. I came this because of a scathing review of one of your books. In what was a clearly actionable piece, someone called Titania McGrath convinced me to look into your oeuvre (ooh Matron) in order to find out how outrageous your views were. She was right of course.
The ‘constructivist’ way of knowing became the only way of knowing in social research some years ago now. Once a place for curiosity, objectivity and ambivalence, the social sciences are now stuffed to the brim with people who don’t believe in reason and/ or have whacky views about what constitutes it. This has close to destroyed true social science enquiry. The answers to the research questions are already known at the outset. Worse still, stupid research questions are being asked.
Excellent video Andrew, thanks 🙏
Thanks John!
You’re welcome ☺️
Excellent, but "some semblance of sanity" is the best we can ever hope for. Why can't we do something more robust about belief perseverance? Well, have you noticed the existence of Religions? Playing with fire, mate. The trouble is, some people will take that comment as some kind of defence for the meaningless-universe materialist-only view of the Universe, which is the religion of e.g. Richard Dawkins, and just as persistent a belief as that of a Bishop. Genuine openness to complicated truth about, say, consciousness and cognition, seems more likely to come from the likes of Dr Michael Levin and Dr Iain McGilchrist, but getting sophisticated messages across to brainwashed masses, half of whom by definition will have an IQ below 100, is another seriously Sisyphean task. (I have to say I like Sisyphus. To so many people this is a symbol of futility, pushing the rock up for it to roll down eternally. But to me it is a symbol of defiance and hope, a fist held in the air against the gods by someone who is going to try again anyway!) Sorry if I diverted that from social/ culture-warrior beliefs towards religious ones, but beliefs are beliefs, and resistance to evidence is resistance to evidence. Look at how complicated it can get when you consider psychic phenomena and UFOs - how many lies and con-men and mistakes and illusions and how much gullibility is involved in alleged psychics - and yet how this so easily leads us to throw out good-evidence genuine-phenomena babies with uncritical unsophisticated bathwater. People want to "know what to believe" rather than to "explore an unfolding endlessly fascinating universe", enormous chunk of which we remain ignorant about.
Thanks, Andrew
I wonder if Judge Kemp is suffering from belief perseverance they way he has skewed the Sandie Peggie judgment despite the existence of the ( very clear and much shorter) Supreme Court judgment.
Will cross post in due course
Dusty
I rather suspect AI played a big part in that judgement...
Maybe. We really need to find out because it is an extraordinary shambles!
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/gremlins
Dusty
Excellent piece, Andrew. Just upgraded to paid subscriber!
Spot on analysis. Once a young person builds their identity around a falsehood, there is no amount of facts that will change their mind. To reject the false idea of their "gendered soul" is tantamount to self annihilation, hence the strict adherence to all ideas that support their delusion. We need to do everything we can to prevent more young people entering into this dangerous religious cult.
Thank you, Brad. Welcome!
Survival is the common denominator in just about everything. How did "belief" arise in the first place? When early man was faced with natural catastrophes which rendered him powerless his only recourse was to assuage the gods. Feeling deeply powerless was not a survival tactic. Also being part of a group helped survival, so not falling out with them was essential. This led to identifying with the group. And not with stranger groups! Barring mavericks, identity became the means of survival . (Mavericks were essential for tribes to progress). Fast forward to more modern religions and you can see the same pattern. So what happens when religion is rejected? Something like a "woke" movement. In short, removing an identity so deeply embedded with the new group/religion means a threat to survival.
Love your analysis. Can you recommend books to read on this pls
Thank you. It's not gospel, just a few thoughts jostling about in my brain. I was hoping someone could pick it up and expand... no I can't recommend any particular books really - you could try googling to see if there are any books on classical gods, anthropology and psychology... I suppose the main requisite is the ability to zoom out.
There may be a more insidious, yet universal reason
https://thejollysociety.com/mcgilchrist-on-the-left-brains-wilful-denial/
The left-brain hemisphere is oestrogen sensitive (Prof Iain McGilchrist 'The Master & His Emissary', page 33). It really comes on-stream post menarche, where various transmitters in the corpus callosum arrange for an effective apartheid with the right-brain.
"For reasons that remain mysterious, the control of both synaptic inhibition and potentiation, via GABA and glutamate respectively, is achieved through distinct cellular signalling pathways in the hippocampus of male and female..."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.31887/DCNS.2016.18.4/mmccarthy
The ridiculously high self-regard of the left hemisphere post menarche suits Nature's plan of improving the genome of the species, as it raises the bar for suitors on reproductive access.
Very interesting...
And, as a continuation of the McGilchrist motif, what kind of world can we expect when preferential left-brain processing of the world, previously confined to domesticity, makes (often hostile) post WW2 incursion into previously deontic male environments, finds fault with men for being there... and subverts institutions towards its own utilitarian benefit? What do we see when the left-brain finds itself in ascendency in politics, jurisprudence, media, commerce..?
https://thejollysociety.com/mcgilchrist-the-master-betrayed/
Although McGilchrist's interpretations do not make them deterministic tramlines, nonetheless, the view from the tram is becoming familiar through his maps.
The broad brushstrokes of (oestrogen-sensitive) left brain processing versus (testosterone-sensitive) right brain processing, and the types of 'reality' which are thereby brought into being has had some light shed onto it by Iain McGilchrist.
https://thejollysociety.com/mcgilchrist-on-scheller-the-importance-of-value-in-constituting-reality/
He has been much too canny to spell out the implications for M/F behaviours.
As regards sex and 'gender', the problem arises because the brain and the gonads develop independently, using similar co-ordinating mechanisms. But, sometimes, the communication breaks down. After certain critical periods during early gestation, the changes are irreversible. Nor all thy piety, nor wit, shall ere undo a single line of it. (Nor surgical intervention, nor hormone 'therapy')
https://neuronline-uat.sfn.org/-/media/Project/Neuronline/PDFs/2019/How-to-Study-the-Origins-of-Sex-Differences-in-Brain-and-Behavior.pdf
If anyone is interested, I've tried to pull much of this together, with nearly 200 references, and the pdf is public, thanks to the assistance of Mike Buchanan, and his J4MB website.
https://j4mb.org.uk/2024/09/04/warren-perkin-ms-patterning-shes-making-mgtow/
My own background was chemistry. It hasn't got all the answers, but it's got some pointers.
All too true - I have felt that chronic pain of shedding beliefs I held to throughout my early adulthood. It cannot be done overnight...
Even when you have publicly acknowledged that evidence has destroyed your belief (in my case, that feminism was a good thing, and all about equality) it remains hard to deal with disciples with whom you once dined, and the femdogma, even the most misandrist type, coming from people you once respected, or still in many ways respect...
However, 7 years on, I do now find it very easy to highlight that Julie Bindel - (pictured in your video as a person cancelled for her gender critical views) is a believer in, and promoter of, the worst misandrist sets of lies
- that men are by default guilty perpetrators and women innocent victims. -
And, that her "Centre for Women's Justice", however semantically absurd saner women may accept that notion to be, is actually a part of striving for female/feminist domination of all our key institutions, and the subsequent destruction of truth as a guiding principle -
This objective has already been achieved, to a horrific degree, in our courts systems (Family and Criminal), Academia and other institutions - Bristol now teaches truth denying fem dogma to law undergraduates that is directly contradictory to actual law.
(pace, law lecturer, Dr. Michael Naughton).
LGB people may have begun to shake off the TQ+ flag-heavy BS that is fundamentally a denial of gay freedoms and rights, but the mainstream still stays within the blinkers of the (mainly Trans) activist dogma, much of which stems from Marxist-Feminist religious fervour.
When will intelligent voices be brave enough to wake up to the massive damage that is being done in the name of a fact-denying Feminism that Camille Paglia and Germaine Greer, among very few others, condemn as a crime against human responsibility?
Brilliant speech Andrew - and much food for thought. Speaking personally, I have run the whole gamut of the political spectrum - but as generally happens, more conservative with each passing decade. To the point that when in conversation with some friends with opposing views, I can feel a physical pain in my chest. But I have the experience of age to live with this discomfort. It’s easy to see that people in their twenties need to surround themselves with like-minded students in order to fit in.
Some of our views set in stone as adolescents however, remain steadfast even if we are ridiculed for them.
It is hard for someone to change his or her mind if they have no knowledge, nor can think independently. You cannot have debate with people whose knowledge is based on 3 min TikTok videos. You can easily argue that some of them teach at the universities therefore they are educated but is that really a criteria for knowledge and thinking these days? Does sitting at the university for a number of years make you intelligent? The current university education is at the level that if you tie a donkey in the corridor and you pay the annual fees they will give it a degree in 3 years.
cf.Stanley Milgram. You can make people think or do anything.
Not so much cognitive dissonance, not so much belief perseverance, but a simple social act of enabling; you take a mortal man, put him in control. Watch him become a god...
You see 'enabling' happen every time you go through security at an airport. It's the uniform and the tincture of power, with a dash of inherent delight in watching others squirm and do as you say, because, at home or in mufti, nobody does what you say. This is your moment of tyranny. This is your moment of being god. Heathrow airport and the fifty shilling tailor (In another world, years ago, it was Hugo Boss that provided the uniform and the permission) given you supreme authority. Another example is antisemitism. Suddenly it's ok again and I thought we dispensed with antisemitism along time ago. Certain organs of power have enabled a situation where it is ok to murder Jews, because of Israel. They may as well call me out for being the descendent of Huguenots. I am already worried about being white.
But no. You cannot shine a light. You cannot tell 'em. While the predominant narrative is woke, the enabling will continue. When it ceases, the others - and only then - the others will come out of the woodwork and the narrative will be perhaps a little more closer to reality and life will go on, with people not quite able to understand how it was when men could be women or a hate filled religion could be tolerated. They may simply will blot it out, although certainly they will find it hard to understand.
I am a new subscriber. I came this because of a scathing review of one of your books. In what was a clearly actionable piece, someone called Titania McGrath convinced me to look into your oeuvre (ooh Matron) in order to find out how outrageous your views were. She was right of course.
The ‘constructivist’ way of knowing became the only way of knowing in social research some years ago now. Once a place for curiosity, objectivity and ambivalence, the social sciences are now stuffed to the brim with people who don’t believe in reason and/ or have whacky views about what constitutes it. This has close to destroyed true social science enquiry. The answers to the research questions are already known at the outset. Worse still, stupid research questions are being asked.
I have done a lot of work on this subject. Well done. It is good to see that I am not alone.
This is a great defense of free speech. Thank you Andrew Doyle!
I would be interested to hear your position on the connection of the blood and other libels against Jews and the attack taking place everywhere.
This is a great defense of free speech. Thank you Andrew Doyle!
I would be interested to hear your position on the connection of the blood and other libels against Jews and the attack taking place everywhere.