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 September 20 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 September 21 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 September 21 by Joshe

[Inliytened1]

On 9/21/2025 at 1:34 PM, Joshe said:

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. 

Indeed it does come full circle I have thought about that.  But I think there are also positive aspects to conservatives that get overlooked becaused they are automatically put in the authoritarianism category.   I don't agree with authoritarianism and would take a stance against it.  But today's stance against MAGA by the left (just read this forum) is that they are gonna send people into concentration camps.  So how could there be anything good in the conservative perspective when we hold that kind of viewpoint.  

Edited September 22 by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

On 9/20/2025 at 6:20 PM, Emerald said:

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).

 

or maybe it actually allows them to view each issue independently for itself.  Maybe they would take a stance against authoritarianism, against a Hitler if one were to rise  To truly rise.   Trump may be a moron but he isn't Hitler.  And we can debate that till the cows come home...as i am sure there is some imminent danger you feel I'm blind to here...But perhaps to treat each issue as it doesn't have a particular side backing it or that you need to have some type of loyalty to a particular team which could persuade or thus influence your viewpoint because you won't be part of the team if you don't is a positive.   You really don't know.  There are good and bad apples in every batch.

Edited September 22 by Inliytened1

[Joshe]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Indeed it does come full circle I have thought about that.  But I think there are also positive aspects to conservatives that get overlooked becaused they are automatically put in the authoritarianism category.   I don't agree with authoritarianism and would take a stance against it.  But today's stance against MAGA by the left (just read this forum) is that they are gonna send people into concentration camps.  So how could there be anything good in the conservative perspective when we hold that kind of viewpoint.  

MAGA is not representative of conservatism. Normal conservatism is nowhere near as repulsive as MAGA. MAGA is authoritarian, which is clear. 

Concentration camps are a strawman of what we're saying about MAGA. We're saying they want power and control and they're willing to be authoritarian to get it. This is 100% true. Can you admit this to yourself? 

If you can, now you can ask the question, to what ends would they be willing to go to achieve their goals? That all depends on how things play out. Will they setup concentration camps for their political opponents? No, because the optics would be too bad. But would they do other things like send them to prison for no good reason? Abso-fuckin-lutlely. And it's already in the works. 

Everything I've said here, as far as I know, is a fact. If these are facts, do you side with it or against it, and how strongly would you side with or against it? 

If you side with it, this gets you the "fascist" label. 

If you side against it but take no strong stance, this gets you the "conflict-avoidant moderate" or "passive enabler" label. 

If you strongly oppose it, this gets you the "common sense, reasonable, decent person" label.

[Inliytened1]

6 minutes ago, Joshe said:

MAGA is not representative of conservatism. Normal conservatism is nowhere near as repulsive as MAGA. MAGA is authoritarian, which is clear. 

Concentration camps are a strawman of what we're saying about MAGA. We're saying they want power and control and they're willing to be authoritarian to get it. This is 100% true. Can you admit this to yourself? 

If you can, now you can ask the question, to what ends would they be willing to go to achieve their goals?

label.

Well. You see see you're assuming that this is their goals.  Can you admit that to yourself? 

And I am glad you agreed that that this viewpoint is a strawman. 

There is a difference between power and Nazism. 

Having power is a also a part of capitalism.   The wealthy will have more power over the poor because they went out and took it.  Would you call that Fascism?

Edited September 22 by Inliytened1

[Joshe]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

Well. You see see you're assuming that this is their goals.  Can you admit that to yourself?  

lol, I'm not assuming! I'm using real-world data. There is a small amount of reading between the lines, but not much. 

[Inliytened1]

21 minutes ago, Joshe said:

lol, I'm not assuming! I'm using real-world data. There is a small amount of reading between the lines, but not much. 

I think that guys like Trump and Musk treat the country like they would a corporation.  It's all about power yes but it's about Capitalistic ideals not fascist ideals like Germany had. I guess that's the difference.   I don't think their minds think in terms of racial superiority.  They might have individualistic superiority in their minds - as in I am better then you.  I think this is a problem on many levels but also there are good points to this too.  If they felt inferior there would be also be bad points.  But I don't feel like they would see to destroy democracy or wipe out other countries.  Yet that is the message here by many leftists.  

When it comes time to vote again I will be seriously looking at other alternatives.   

Edited September 22 by Inliytened1

[Joshe]

10 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

I think that guys like Trump and Musk treat the country like they would a corporation.  It's all about power yes but it's about Capitalistic ideals not fascist ideals like Germany had. I guess that's the difference.   I don't think their minds think in terms of racial superiority.  They might have individualistic superiority in their minds - as in I am better then you.  I think this is a problem on many levels but also there are good points to this too.  If they felt inferior there would be also be bad points.  But I don't feel like they would see to destroy democracy or wipe out other countries.  Yet that is the message here by many leftists.  

When it comes time to vote again I will be seriously looking at other alternatives.   

I'm not so sure Trump and Elon are comparable here. 

Trump is not an ideologue who cares about conservatism or capitalism. He cares about his power. And he cares so much about it that he would undermine and uproot democracy to keep it, just as he did in 2020 when he sent fake slates of electors to try to rig the election. Clearly. 

[Joshe]

Preempting your "but he genuinely thought it was stolen"

ChatGPT:

Claude: