Excellent. The idea that Rowling has been “radicalised” is absurd but revealing. It shows how deeply the narrative has shifted, especially among the old liberal guard. Fry isn’t stupid, nor is he cruel. But like many who fought one just cause (gay rights), he now instinctively projects that same moral frame onto another, very different one, without stopping to notice the differences.
What’s most telling is the way disagreement is pathologised. You’re not wrong — you’re unwell. It’s not debate; it’s diagnosis. That should worry anyone who still believes in rational discourse.
I explored some of these themes myself in a piece called 'The radicalisation of Stephen Fry', if it’s of interest.
I feel like when people like him use words like radicalised and phobia it’s a kin to religious zealots call people witches, which a very recently would be very dangerous for people to have that label - but thanks to the likes of Andrew and JK the power is weaning. But unfortunately the effect I think Fry and those like have done is it has given cover for some horrendous ideologies to emerge
Agreed — there are so many parallels with cult dynamics and religious orthodoxy. The irony, of course, is that Fry sees himself as a man of reason. But when disagreement becomes heresy and doubt is treated as sin, we’re no longer reasoning but obeying.
I don’t like throwing around the word misogyny but I’m afraid that this is what Fry is displaying. It’s not just that he doesn’t understand the issues, he has no interest in doing so because of a lack of empathy for women and how the issue affects us. It would only take the most cursory look at the evidence to understand that the problems of allowing men into women’s spaces and sports are problems which can only be addressed by being clear and truthful with language. Fry has jumped on a fashionable bandwagon, thinking that he’s being kind, when in fact, he’s displaying behaviour which is entirely predictable amongst sheep like ideologues. JK Rowling has only shamed those idiots who have been unkind to the rest of society with their narcissistic demands. For that she deserves praise.
He is certainly being very silly. but then that is probably because he is a very silly chap. I mean you have to be silly or malevolent to support the gender identity garbage and I am quite sure the guy is not malevolent.
I suspect that Kevin Simler’s ideas on Crony beliefs may be useful here to explain Fry’s thinking. For those unfamiliar with Crony beliefs:
Crony beliefs is a term coined by the writer Kevin Simler to describe beliefs that serve a social or political function rather than a truth-seeking one. The idea is explored in his essay Crony Beliefs.
Definition:
Crony beliefs are ideas we hold not because they are accurate, but because they are useful for gaining social approval, fitting into a group, or signalling loyalty, virtue, or intelligence.
Simler contrasts two types of beliefs:
1. Merit beliefs:
o Held because they are true or useful in helping you navigate the world.
o Like employees hired for their competence.
o Example: "Touching a hot stove will burn you."
2. Crony beliefs:
o Held because they benefit your social standing, even if they’re not true.
o Like employees hired due to connections or favouritism.
o Example: "Our political party is always on the side of truth and justice."
Characteristics of crony beliefs:
• They’re protected from criticism or questioning.
• Changing them can result in social punishment.
• They’re often emotionally charged.
• You may not even realize you're holding them for non-truth-related reasons.
It’s my opinion that Fry is expressing a Crony belief here and “so-what” if it involves trashing someone else’s reputation. Fry outs himself as a egocentric and this is confirmed by JKR’s later hints that she didn’t consider their relationship as one of “good friends”.
This is not dissimilar to Rob Anderson's theory of 'luxury beliefs', although the emphasis with luxury belief theory is the positive harm it means for disadvantaged others, not simply the social capital it affords the privileged holder. A good example is defund the police in the US, a position held by privileged liberals which virtue-signals their 'anti-racist' progressivism but which in real life disproportionately harms poor black residents. Fry's 'beliefs' - if that's what they are - I suspect they are shallowly held - certainly falls into this category: he clearly hasn't given any consideration to the consequences for women and girls of the absurd and harmful ideology he is defending.
Interesting — I haven’t heard of this. I highly recommend @WillStorr's The Status Game, which covers similar ground brilliantly and explains so much of what we're seeing here.
Thanks for flagging WS's Status game - it's new to me. It seems that there's common ground between WS and KS's ideas - most strikingly (to me) is that there's a complete lack of awareness that someone spouting a Status/Crony idea that the idea is not rooted in reality. Here's what ChatGPT says when asked to compare the 2 ideas.
Great comparison — Will Storr’s Status Game and Kevin Simler’s “crony beliefs” both explore how our minds are shaped by social pressures, not just truth-seeking. But they focus on different angles:
🔍 Overview of Each Idea
🎭 Will Storr – The Status Game
Human motivation is largely about winning and maintaining social status.
We play different kinds of “status games”: dominance, virtue, and prestige.
These games shape our behaviors, beliefs, and identities—often subconsciously.
🧠 Kevin Simler – Crony Beliefs
From his 2017 essay “Crony Beliefs”, Simler argues:
Not all beliefs are “truth-seeking” (like science).
Some are “crony” beliefs — we adopt and protect them to gain social or political advantage.
Examples: professing belief in a religion or ideology because it signals virtue or group loyalty, not because of evidence.
🧩 How They Align
Theme Storr – Status Game Simler – Crony Beliefs
Beliefs serve social roles ✔️ Beliefs are tools in status games (esp. virtue games). ✔️ Beliefs often exist to manage reputations and alliances.
Humans are not rational truth-seekers ✔️ We’re tribal and emotional first. ✔️ We hold socially useful, not epistemically accurate, beliefs.
Virtue as status Central — morality is a competitive social game. Central — we adopt moralistic beliefs to appear virtuous.
Hidden motivations Yes — status-seeking is often subconscious. Yes — crony beliefs hide behind apparent sincerity.
Reputation management Key motive for all status games. Core function of crony beliefs.
Bottom line: Both argue that many beliefs are strategic tools for fitting in, gaining favor, or rising in rank — not just reflections of reality.
🔄 Where They Differ
Aspect Storr Simler
Focus Broad: all human behavior & social organization Narrow: belief formation & reasoning
Application Social conflict, culture, mental health, history Personal introspection, rationality, communication
Tone Narrative, interdisciplinary Analytical, rationalist-community-aligned
🎯 Example: Political Beliefs
Storr: A person defends their ideology loudly because they’re playing a virtue status game in their group.
Simler: That same person holds their belief not because it’s true, but because it signals loyalty to the tribe and boosts their standing — a crony belief.
These are the same phenomenon, seen through different lenses.
🧠 Summary
Feature Storr: Status Game Simler: Crony Beliefs
Motivation for beliefs Gain/maintain status in social games Gain/maintain social rewards or protection
Type of influence Broad social dynamics Cognitive bias & self-deception
Key metaphor Games Corporate politics (cronies vs. merit hires)
Conclusion Status-seeking shapes everything Many beliefs are for show, not truth
🧩 Final Thought:
Think of Simler’s “crony beliefs” as micro-level cognitive expressions of the macro-level “status games” Storr describes. They're compatible and complementary—together, they explain why people believe weird things and why they need to.
That’s fascinating; thank you for taking the time to share that. Storr’s book blew me away, so I’ll certainly look up Simler, as this area interests me immensely.
It always disappoints me when intelligent public figures one likes - albeit without ever having met them - suddenly come out with this stuff and seem to have become small- brained dinosaurs.
I just want to shout, and often do: Read Helen Joyce, Read Kathleen Stock, Read Hannah Barnes!
There are many well written and thoroughly researched books that clearly portray the facts from different intellectual perspectives. Read them before you name call. These writers are trailblazers.
People who think of themselves as liberal and compassionate are actually letting themselves down by spouting this twaddle. I wouldn't mind if it didn't promote actual harm to children and women. And this is where it is so completely different from the gay rights movement.
As for JKR. She's clever, witty, down to earth and honest, and puts her money where her mouth is.
Excellent article - i remember watching Stephen Fry argue so passionately and impressively against religion and political correctness - to watch him now is a shocking dissapointment. I thought he was trying sit this one out to avoid bad press but I never expected this blatant attack of JKR or the betrayal of his own critical thinking skills. Although judging by comments he made in the past claiming women didnt enjoy sex because they didn’t go picking up men in parks every night I think he has zero interest or understanding of the lives of women.
I totally agree. I have been an admirer of Stephen Fry since the early 1980s, but this is a massive disappointment. I know Stephen loves to read, so I hope he will read Andrew's new book, or maybe even better his last book The New Puritans. I would happily send him a copy.
I AM such a narcissist that I do think that Fry has been brainwashed for disagreeing with me that it is a scientific fact that you are either XX or XY - and yes, contrarians, I do know there are a vanishingly small number of people who have an extra chromosome or an abnormality, but they're not the 99.9% of blokes with sexual fetishes who like to wear dresses and wigs.
When I first read the entire Harry Potter series to my daughter more than ten years ago, I had thought we were so lucky that this was the literature tens of millions of children in the world were reading.
I had lived my high school years under a military regime and was astonished at how accurately J.K. Rowling was able to depict certain aspects of this regime. It was uncanny!
I believed that after reading these novels so avidly, an entire generation would be vaccinated against authoritarianism. They would think for themselves. They would not believe everything in the press and would read between the lines. They would hate bullies. They would get organised and stand for what was right. They would respect the humble, the self-doubting, the humourous, the twinkly-eyed Dumbledore and not the dogmatic, the self-righteous, the despotic, the humourless Voldemort.
How wrong I was! These are the kids that carry the "Kill J.K. Rowling" signs and think that they are on the right side of history. One despairs! Maybe the result is the same whatever the kids read. Sigh.
Not my daughters though. Worthy Griffindors, both of them!
There seems to be an unfortunate correlation between being highly intelligent, a public figure or a politician, well educated and being a complete idiot.
It never ceases to amaze me how these people seem to have no common sense at all.....
Excellent pieces Andrew, it is a real shame that Fry has clearly, because of his intelligence, managed to convince himself of this absurd notion. I once lived next door to a university professor, who was totally mad, but a brilliant scientist, but like Fry had many hair brained ideas.
I think it’s fair to say that anyone with an ounce of intelligence and good taste couldn’t give a mouse sized sh*t about anything Stephen Fry says. He is, what Oscar Wilde called, “a sentimental moralist”, one whose censures exist only to show himself and others that he is good and well meaning person.
Excellent. The idea that Rowling has been “radicalised” is absurd but revealing. It shows how deeply the narrative has shifted, especially among the old liberal guard. Fry isn’t stupid, nor is he cruel. But like many who fought one just cause (gay rights), he now instinctively projects that same moral frame onto another, very different one, without stopping to notice the differences.
What’s most telling is the way disagreement is pathologised. You’re not wrong — you’re unwell. It’s not debate; it’s diagnosis. That should worry anyone who still believes in rational discourse.
I explored some of these themes myself in a piece called 'The radicalisation of Stephen Fry', if it’s of interest.
https://www.veridaze.com/p/the-radicalisation-of-stephen-fry
I feel like when people like him use words like radicalised and phobia it’s a kin to religious zealots call people witches, which a very recently would be very dangerous for people to have that label - but thanks to the likes of Andrew and JK the power is weaning. But unfortunately the effect I think Fry and those like have done is it has given cover for some horrendous ideologies to emerge
Agreed — there are so many parallels with cult dynamics and religious orthodoxy. The irony, of course, is that Fry sees himself as a man of reason. But when disagreement becomes heresy and doubt is treated as sin, we’re no longer reasoning but obeying.
I don’t like throwing around the word misogyny but I’m afraid that this is what Fry is displaying. It’s not just that he doesn’t understand the issues, he has no interest in doing so because of a lack of empathy for women and how the issue affects us. It would only take the most cursory look at the evidence to understand that the problems of allowing men into women’s spaces and sports are problems which can only be addressed by being clear and truthful with language. Fry has jumped on a fashionable bandwagon, thinking that he’s being kind, when in fact, he’s displaying behaviour which is entirely predictable amongst sheep like ideologues. JK Rowling has only shamed those idiots who have been unkind to the rest of society with their narcissistic demands. For that she deserves praise.
Perfectly expressed TT.
Fry wants to wind his neck in. He has nothing sensible to contribute to this conversation.
He is certainly being very silly. but then that is probably because he is a very silly chap. I mean you have to be silly or malevolent to support the gender identity garbage and I am quite sure the guy is not malevolent.
I think he's a misogynist.
I suspect that Kevin Simler’s ideas on Crony beliefs may be useful here to explain Fry’s thinking. For those unfamiliar with Crony beliefs:
Crony beliefs is a term coined by the writer Kevin Simler to describe beliefs that serve a social or political function rather than a truth-seeking one. The idea is explored in his essay Crony Beliefs.
Definition:
Crony beliefs are ideas we hold not because they are accurate, but because they are useful for gaining social approval, fitting into a group, or signalling loyalty, virtue, or intelligence.
Simler contrasts two types of beliefs:
1. Merit beliefs:
o Held because they are true or useful in helping you navigate the world.
o Like employees hired for their competence.
o Example: "Touching a hot stove will burn you."
2. Crony beliefs:
o Held because they benefit your social standing, even if they’re not true.
o Like employees hired due to connections or favouritism.
o Example: "Our political party is always on the side of truth and justice."
Characteristics of crony beliefs:
• They’re protected from criticism or questioning.
• Changing them can result in social punishment.
• They’re often emotionally charged.
• You may not even realize you're holding them for non-truth-related reasons.
It’s my opinion that Fry is expressing a Crony belief here and “so-what” if it involves trashing someone else’s reputation. Fry outs himself as a egocentric and this is confirmed by JKR’s later hints that she didn’t consider their relationship as one of “good friends”.
This is not dissimilar to Rob Anderson's theory of 'luxury beliefs', although the emphasis with luxury belief theory is the positive harm it means for disadvantaged others, not simply the social capital it affords the privileged holder. A good example is defund the police in the US, a position held by privileged liberals which virtue-signals their 'anti-racist' progressivism but which in real life disproportionately harms poor black residents. Fry's 'beliefs' - if that's what they are - I suspect they are shallowly held - certainly falls into this category: he clearly hasn't given any consideration to the consequences for women and girls of the absurd and harmful ideology he is defending.
Interesting — I haven’t heard of this. I highly recommend @WillStorr's The Status Game, which covers similar ground brilliantly and explains so much of what we're seeing here.
Thanks for flagging WS's Status game - it's new to me. It seems that there's common ground between WS and KS's ideas - most strikingly (to me) is that there's a complete lack of awareness that someone spouting a Status/Crony idea that the idea is not rooted in reality. Here's what ChatGPT says when asked to compare the 2 ideas.
Great comparison — Will Storr’s Status Game and Kevin Simler’s “crony beliefs” both explore how our minds are shaped by social pressures, not just truth-seeking. But they focus on different angles:
🔍 Overview of Each Idea
🎭 Will Storr – The Status Game
Human motivation is largely about winning and maintaining social status.
We play different kinds of “status games”: dominance, virtue, and prestige.
These games shape our behaviors, beliefs, and identities—often subconsciously.
🧠 Kevin Simler – Crony Beliefs
From his 2017 essay “Crony Beliefs”, Simler argues:
Not all beliefs are “truth-seeking” (like science).
Some are “crony” beliefs — we adopt and protect them to gain social or political advantage.
Examples: professing belief in a religion or ideology because it signals virtue or group loyalty, not because of evidence.
🧩 How They Align
Theme Storr – Status Game Simler – Crony Beliefs
Beliefs serve social roles ✔️ Beliefs are tools in status games (esp. virtue games). ✔️ Beliefs often exist to manage reputations and alliances.
Humans are not rational truth-seekers ✔️ We’re tribal and emotional first. ✔️ We hold socially useful, not epistemically accurate, beliefs.
Virtue as status Central — morality is a competitive social game. Central — we adopt moralistic beliefs to appear virtuous.
Hidden motivations Yes — status-seeking is often subconscious. Yes — crony beliefs hide behind apparent sincerity.
Reputation management Key motive for all status games. Core function of crony beliefs.
Bottom line: Both argue that many beliefs are strategic tools for fitting in, gaining favor, or rising in rank — not just reflections of reality.
🔄 Where They Differ
Aspect Storr Simler
Focus Broad: all human behavior & social organization Narrow: belief formation & reasoning
Theoretical basis Evolutionary psychology, sociology, narrative anthropology Evolutionary psychology + Bayesian reasoning
Application Social conflict, culture, mental health, history Personal introspection, rationality, communication
Tone Narrative, interdisciplinary Analytical, rationalist-community-aligned
🎯 Example: Political Beliefs
Storr: A person defends their ideology loudly because they’re playing a virtue status game in their group.
Simler: That same person holds their belief not because it’s true, but because it signals loyalty to the tribe and boosts their standing — a crony belief.
These are the same phenomenon, seen through different lenses.
🧠 Summary
Feature Storr: Status Game Simler: Crony Beliefs
Motivation for beliefs Gain/maintain status in social games Gain/maintain social rewards or protection
Type of influence Broad social dynamics Cognitive bias & self-deception
Key metaphor Games Corporate politics (cronies vs. merit hires)
Conclusion Status-seeking shapes everything Many beliefs are for show, not truth
🧩 Final Thought:
Think of Simler’s “crony beliefs” as micro-level cognitive expressions of the macro-level “status games” Storr describes. They're compatible and complementary—together, they explain why people believe weird things and why they need to.
That’s fascinating; thank you for taking the time to share that. Storr’s book blew me away, so I’ll certainly look up Simler, as this area interests me immensely.
I used to like and admire Stephen Fry. No longer.
Thanks Andrew.
It always disappoints me when intelligent public figures one likes - albeit without ever having met them - suddenly come out with this stuff and seem to have become small- brained dinosaurs.
I just want to shout, and often do: Read Helen Joyce, Read Kathleen Stock, Read Hannah Barnes!
There are many well written and thoroughly researched books that clearly portray the facts from different intellectual perspectives. Read them before you name call. These writers are trailblazers.
People who think of themselves as liberal and compassionate are actually letting themselves down by spouting this twaddle. I wouldn't mind if it didn't promote actual harm to children and women. And this is where it is so completely different from the gay rights movement.
As for JKR. She's clever, witty, down to earth and honest, and puts her money where her mouth is.
Good piece, again. Only one lost cause here and it’s not JKR
Excellent article - i remember watching Stephen Fry argue so passionately and impressively against religion and political correctness - to watch him now is a shocking dissapointment. I thought he was trying sit this one out to avoid bad press but I never expected this blatant attack of JKR or the betrayal of his own critical thinking skills. Although judging by comments he made in the past claiming women didnt enjoy sex because they didn’t go picking up men in parks every night I think he has zero interest or understanding of the lives of women.
I totally agree. I have been an admirer of Stephen Fry since the early 1980s, but this is a massive disappointment. I know Stephen loves to read, so I hope he will read Andrew's new book, or maybe even better his last book The New Puritans. I would happily send him a copy.
He’s certainly spoilt Jeeves and Wooster for me!
With the ever expanding list of phobias I currently suffer from phobophobia.
He's been displaying misogynistic attitudes for a long time.
I AM such a narcissist that I do think that Fry has been brainwashed for disagreeing with me that it is a scientific fact that you are either XX or XY - and yes, contrarians, I do know there are a vanishingly small number of people who have an extra chromosome or an abnormality, but they're not the 99.9% of blokes with sexual fetishes who like to wear dresses and wigs.
When I first read the entire Harry Potter series to my daughter more than ten years ago, I had thought we were so lucky that this was the literature tens of millions of children in the world were reading.
I had lived my high school years under a military regime and was astonished at how accurately J.K. Rowling was able to depict certain aspects of this regime. It was uncanny!
I believed that after reading these novels so avidly, an entire generation would be vaccinated against authoritarianism. They would think for themselves. They would not believe everything in the press and would read between the lines. They would hate bullies. They would get organised and stand for what was right. They would respect the humble, the self-doubting, the humourous, the twinkly-eyed Dumbledore and not the dogmatic, the self-righteous, the despotic, the humourless Voldemort.
How wrong I was! These are the kids that carry the "Kill J.K. Rowling" signs and think that they are on the right side of history. One despairs! Maybe the result is the same whatever the kids read. Sigh.
Not my daughters though. Worthy Griffindors, both of them!
Great comment
There seems to be an unfortunate correlation between being highly intelligent, a public figure or a politician, well educated and being a complete idiot.
It never ceases to amaze me how these people seem to have no common sense at all.....
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them."-George Orwell
Excellent pieces Andrew, it is a real shame that Fry has clearly, because of his intelligence, managed to convince himself of this absurd notion. I once lived next door to a university professor, who was totally mad, but a brilliant scientist, but like Fry had many hair brained ideas.
I think it’s fair to say that anyone with an ounce of intelligence and good taste couldn’t give a mouse sized sh*t about anything Stephen Fry says. He is, what Oscar Wilde called, “a sentimental moralist”, one whose censures exist only to show himself and others that he is good and well meaning person.
Excellent piece, Andrew.
Plus Fry actually lives in a great big glasshouse and, if you live in a glasshouse.....
Have cross posted
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/id-rather-be-rude-than
Dusty