The Psychological Architecture of Post-Truth Propagation: A Concentric Model

[Jodistrict]

Isn’t the focus of the model on the unconscious processes which facilitate compliance with untruth, rather than explicit lying?

[Emerald]

12 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Also, you should consider turning your Concentric Model into a Substack article - one that's more easily shared than a forum post - since this is valuable information.

100%

This is such an important and potentially game-changing post that everyone should see it.

[Elliott]

5 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

Isn’t the focus of the model on the unconscious processes which facilitate compliance with untruth, rather than explicit lying?

What's an example of an "untruth" rather than an explicit lie, in this context?

[Emerald]

18 hours ago, Inliytened1 said:

You don't know that everyone who is a moderate is due to psychological discomfort. 

That's true. Someone can have genuine values that happen to fall near the center of the spectrum in the contemporary situation. And you can tell when someone really holds those values because they stick to them, even when society shifts and those values get looked at as radical by the shifting tides of society.

And regardless of which side of the aisle someone is on (as long as they are not explicitly authoritarian and anti-democracy)... it is the groundedness in those values that will determine how susceptible or unsusceptible they are to being sucked into being weaponized by authoritarians in power (in this case, authoritarian Fascists.)

That means that a moderate conservative who still believes in democracy and has really strong iron-clad values is less likely to be sucked into Fascism than is a centrist who builds their political identity on the shifting stands of "Let me choose the center-most and most normalized and uncontroversial political beliefs to avoid conflict and to seem like the normal one."

But what @Joshe is talking about is specifically the psychological defensive claim of being "moderate"... or identifying with being a "Centrist" or "middle of the road" in order to seem wise or to deflect conflict.

And this is very common with those who identify as moderates... as they don't want to take a stand on anything that could invite conflict, judgment, or controversy upon them. And this tends to make them the greatest enablers in times where authoritarianism is on the rise (in our case far right authoritarianism).

Authoritarians in power need "both sidesers", "whataboutists", "enlightened centrists", and other "problem glosser-over-ers" to normalize their rise to power. And conflict-avoidant moderates are very useful for powerful authoritarians, as without the 'both-sidesing' conflict-avoidant moderates to gloss over and normalize authoritarianism, authoritarians wouldn't be able to consolidate power.

It's always that explainer-awayers that set the stage for those looking for a power grab to shift the Overton Window to be more normalized to the conditions necessary for that power grab.

[DocWatts]

6 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

Isn’t the focus of the model on the unconscious processes which facilitate compliance with untruth, rather than explicit lying?

It is, but I think you need an understanding of both. The ringleaders of post-truth movements aren't making honest epistemic mistakes. They're intentionally flooding the zone to overwhelm people's capacity for truth-seeking, and cynically feeding upon the emotional vulnerabilities that the Concentric Model so elegantly describes.

In my own work, I make a distinction between Low Quality Perspectives (where our thinking departs from observable reality due to cognitive and emotional biases) and Malicious Perspectives (viewpoints that are engineered to cause harm, or allow bad actors to avoid accountability for their actions). Low Quality Perspectives distort our sensemaking in problematic ways, but they can be held honestly. Whereas Malicious Perspectives are intended to mislead.

Edited 23 hours ago by DocWatts

[Jodistrict]

4 hours ago, DocWatts said:

It is, but I think you need an understanding of both. The ringleaders of post-truth movements aren't making honest epistemic mistakes. They're intentionally flooding the zone to overwhelm people's capacity for truth-seeking, and cynically feeding upon the emotional vulnerabilities that the Concentric Model so elegantly describes.

In my own work, I make a distinction between Low Quality Perspectives (where our thinking departs from observable reality due to cognitive and emotional biases) and Malicious Perspectives (viewpoints that are engineered to cause harm, or allow bad actors to avoid accountability for their actions). Low Quality Perspectives distort our sensemaking in problematic ways, but they can be held honestly. Whereas Malicious Perspectives are intended to mislead.

I agree that the right-wing knows how to exploit the unconscious processes.   That part is intentional.  The model can explain, as just one example, why people from  Appalachia vote for Trump even though his policies will directly harm them.  

[Joshe]

On 9/19/2025 at 9:05 PM, Emerald said:

But if we can remedy the roots (shame and disconnection) this will be like strengthening humanity's immune system against the authoritarian problems we're facing with currently.

Yeah, solving the disconnection problem makes a lot of sense. 

@DocWatts Thanks for sharing. I'd be interested in reading your book when it's finished.

On 9/20/2025 at 6:36 AM, DocWatts said:

Also, you should consider turning your Concentric Model into a Substack article - one that's more easily shared than a forum post - since this is valuable information.

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I thought about turning it into an interactive web page that goes deep into it - maybe even provide real-world examples in the form of a walk-thru to build the case. I think that could be useful. Feel free to take any or all aspects of it and modify it in any way you'd like, if you'd like to share it on your own Substack. 

[DocWatts]

18 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Yeah, solving the disconnection problem makes a lot of sense. 

@DocWatts Thanks for sharing. I'd be interested in reading your book when it's finished.

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I thought about turning it into an interactive web page that goes deep into it - maybe even provide real-world examples in the form of a walk-thru to build the case. I think that could be useful. Feel free to take any or all aspects of it and modify it in any way you'd like, if you'd like to share it on your own Substack. 

If you'd be okay with it, I'd love to throw your forum post into a Google Doc and share it with my local Indivisible Group (just let me know how you would like me to credit you).

Again, fine work on doing Conscious Politics in an accessible way.

Edited 6 hours ago by DocWatts

[Joshe]

On 9/20/2025 at 0:16 AM, Inliytened1 said:

This is religion at its core with figures like Jesus or Mohammed being the authoritative figure. This isnt post-Truth or a mental health issue it's delusion.   It's a lack of consciousness.  Thats what delusion is ultimately.  It's separation from Truth. 

There is some overlap but religion formed over centuries, whereas post-truth forms in real time. Maybe religion was the post-truth of its time. 

I'm attempting to map out how the mass delusions of our time form and spread. Simply calling it "delusion" doesn't explain anything. You can say "it's just lack of consciousness", but what use is that? 

I think you should take a closer look at the model - specifically, the conflict-avoidant moderate part. 😝

 

[Joshe]

47 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

If you'd be okay with it, I'd love to throw your forum post into a Google Doc and share it with my local Indivisible Group (just let me know how you would like me to credit you).

Again, fine work on doing Conscious Politics in an accessible way.

That'd be awesome - no attribution needed. I'm just glad if it helps others make sense of things. Thank you! 

[Joshe]

@DocWatts I think a better name for "Peripheral Supporters" is "System Supports". Here's an updated graphic. 

[Joshe]

On 9/20/2025 at 0:31 AM, Inliytened1 said:

You don't know that everyone who is a moderate is due to psychological discomfort.  @Emerald there is such a thing as tier 2 politics. But you see yours seems biased against authoritarianism as you made it the core of your stance.  This is a mistake because you look at politics through the lens of anti-authoritarianism this already puts you at a disadvantage from really entering into tier2 because you already have established what is good and what is evil.  Putting it under the guise of psychological or mental illness does not exempt you from your demonization tactics.  And you've associated any and all views on the right authoritarian and thus would not be open minded to.them.  Even if there were some good points there.  There are problems and also some good points on both sides. So how can you look at things from a holistic perspective if you have already ruled one perspective out as wrong.  This will never allow you to see any good points on the right.   The tier two levels of the spiral dynamic model incorporate all the previous stages  because- well- ultimately because of Oneness.  So all stages ultimately must include all of the others before it.  Before you can truly understand stage blue, red or orange you have to incorporate them.

Major problem with stage green. You have a lot of yellow thinking but politically you are still mostly green because of this. 

Haha, bro, you're demonstrating the model's point about conflict avoidance. You're resisting taking a stance against authoritarianism. Think about that. 

You think you're arriving at your both-sides, no-stance position via good reason and wisdom, but you're not. You're arriving at your position, not from reason, but from unconscious psychological forces. 

If you could be truthful with yourself about this, you'd see the absurdity in the idea of seeing the merits of authoritarianism. A true tier-2 thinker could analyze the merits of authoritarianism, but they would be conscious enough to take a strong stance against it. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Joshe