E D I F Y

[krisdorian]

it would be interesting to write a novel that takes the idea of all social media influencers being controlled op to the extreme. What would it mean? If you take "controlled opposition" to its logical extreme, you move past the idea of mere corporate sponsorships and into the realm of manufactured reality.

[deathandmysticism]

Alfonso Parigi II, Lucifer and Demons Fleeing St. Michael, 17th century

[krisdorian]

[krisdorian]

I know people bullshit themselves because I know I bullshit myself. I know I am much more self-aware than most people. So, not only am I aware that most people bullshit themselves. I’m aware that most people likely aren’t even aware that they bullshit themselves.

[krisdorian]

A machine can mimic wisdom, but it cannot replace the human responsibility to stay awake and test what we hear.

[krisdorian]

[depsidase]

[krisdorian]

[krisdorian]

”Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing . . . .”

In Matthew 7:15, Jesus delivers a visceral warning against false prophets—religious leaders who present a curated image of piety while harboring a nature of predatory greed. Through the original Greek, we see that these "wolves" are characterized as harpages, a term implying they are not just mistaken, but are extortioners and swindlers who use the guise of divine authority to exploit others for money, power, or status. They lead people away from alētheia (divine truth/reality) by replacing God’s reliability with self-serving messages that cater to the audience’s desires rather than their spiritual health.

Historically, this warning targeted the "religious professionals" of the day, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees, whose outward legalism masked an inward craving for control. By calling for his followers to prosechete ("hold the mind toward" or be vigilant), Jesus emphasizes that the danger is an insider threat. These imposters are unmasked not by their titles or their uniforms, but by their fruit—the ultimate disconnect between their public persona and the destructive, self-exalting reality of their private character. Just as one does not gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, a manufactured identity cannot produce the spontaneous, life-giving fruit of a transformed heart. The "wolf" is betrayed by the very thing he produces; eventually, the thorns of his true nature will prick through the wool.

In the modern era, this insider threat frequently manifests on social media, where the "sheep’s clothing" has evolved into a curated digital aesthetic of piety. Modern false speakers often use religious hashtags, performative vulnerability, and spiritual buzzwords to build a cult of personality designed to harvest followers rather than serve a faith. These digital wolves exploit the trust of their audience for monetization, ego, or influence, mirroring the predatory harpages by snatching the attention and resources of the unsuspecting. Ultimately, their digital persona acts as a mask, hiding a reality where the drive for algorithmic success and self-exaltation takes precedence over the authentic, sacrificial truth of the message they claim to represent. 

Today, this "sheep’s clothing" manifests as AI-generated scripts, where creators act as puppets for chatbots rather than speaking from conviction. By failing to disclose their reliance on AI, these influencers present algorithmic output as their own wisdom. This is not just a matter of being disingenuous; it is a failure of responsibility. When creators stop verifying the information they parrot, they risk spreading misinformation under the guise of authority. This creates a dangerous cycle where the duty of care is abandoned by both the speaker and the listener. While the creator has a moral obligation to provide truth, the audience has an equal responsibility to test it. The digital wolf wins whenever we value the convenience of a quick answer more than the responsibility of verifying the truth. “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Mat. 7:20). 

This was written with the help of AI.

[krisdorian]

To me, the most radical act one can perform in a corrupted system is to thrive in spite of it.

[paintingispoetry]

Albert Aublet, "Selene", 1880

[krisdorian]

It is incredibly difficult to have a productive conversation when someone’s identity is on the line. If you lead with "Here is why you’re wrong," their brain effectively shuts down the logical centers and prepares for a fight.

To bypass this, you have to move from being an adversary to being a partner in an investigation. Here are the most effective psychological strategies for doing that.

1. Use "Street Epistemology" (Focus on the How)

Instead of attacking the what (the belief), focus on the how (the reasoning). Most people have never actually mapped out how they reached their conclusions.

• The Technique: Ask, "On a scale of 1 to 100, how confident are you that this is true?" and then follow up with, "What brought you to that number?"

• Why it works: It shifts them from "defending a fort" to "explaining a process." They often realize on their own that their evidence is thinner than they thought.

2. "Tactical Empathy" (Label the Emotion)

Coined by FBI negotiator Chris Voss, this involves naming the feelings you're seeing without necessarily agreeing with the facts.

• The Technique: Use phrases like, "It seems like you feel this information is a threat to your values," or "It sounds like you're worried about what happens if the 'other side' wins."

• Why it works: When you label an emotion, you move it from the amygdala (fear) to the prefrontal cortex (reasoning). It calms the "fight or flight" response so they can actually hear you.

3. The "Third Story" Approach

In any conflict, there are two stories: yours and theirs. To get through, you have to invent a Third Story—a neutral narrative that describes the problem as something you are both looking at from the outside.

• Example: Instead of "You're ignoring the data," try "It seems like we both care about the truth, but we’re looking at two different sets of information. Can we look at why they don't match up?"

4. Affirm Their Identity First

Research shows that if you affirm someone’s sense of self-worth before challenging their beliefs, they are much less likely to "backfire."

• The Technique: Acknowledge a trait they value (e.g., "I know you’re someone who prides yourself on being fair/logical/compassionate") before presenting the contradictory info.

• Why it works: If they feel "secure" in their identity, the new information feels like a minor correction rather than an existential threat.

5. Don't "Over-Report" Evidence

When we have a mountain of evidence, we want to dump it all at once. This actually triggers the Backfire Effect.

• The Strategy: Provide one strong piece of evidence and then stop. Ask them for their thoughts on it. If you pile on ten facts, their brain perceives it as an overwhelming attack and rejects the whole pile.

Pro-Tip: If the conversation starts to get heated, the best move is to pause. Once the amygdala is hijacked, no amount of "truth" will get through. You can say, "I value our relationship more than being right, let's circle back to this when we're both feeling calmer."

[krisdorian]

on philosophy

Close reading is like an apprenticeship for the mind. It begins with absorbing a thinker’s thoughts through the specific discourse they use. As you move deeper, you begin to internalize the core architecture of their logic. I think this ability to 'embody' a thinker’s framework is, I believe, a distinct INTJ strength. We don't just learn what they thought; we learn how they thought, which then gives us the raw materials to develop our own unique conclusions.

[yesterdaysprint]

Marian Marsh in Svengali (1931)

[us-politics]

[peekay9]

Piranesi fan art

[krisdorian]

what is alchemy?

alchemy is transmutation, self transformation, vision, refinement of the process.