An African American Scholar with a Message for Us

Thomas Sowell is a 94-year-old, renowned  African-American economist, social theorist, and author. Born in 1930 in Gastonia, North Carolina, he has lived through some of the worst and best early and current race-relevant experiences,  So, he has reasons for both criticizing and praising America.

After her husband died, his mother - who already had four children - was unable to support another child. She resolved the problem by entrusting Thomas to her sister who eventually adopted him.  When Tom was  8, the blended family moved to Harlem, New York.  After dropping out of high school, Thomas Sowell was drafted into the Marine Corps in 1951 during the Korean War, and honorably discharged in 1953. Sowell then pursued higher education, earning degrees from Harvard (B.A.), Columbia (M.A.), and the University of Chicago (Ph.D. in economics). Throughout his career, he held academic positions at institutions, such as Cornell and UCLA,  and has been a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution since 1980. To date, Sowell has authored over 30 books on topics that include economics, race, education, and social policy. I am not recounting Sowell's bio to imply that it - or any part of it - is sufficient for you to accept his ideas, but only to say that he has the longitudinal, real-life "street," and academic credibility that deserves a fair hearing. For my part, I use bold print to emphasize where I unequivocally, enthusiastically accept his statements. 

My focus is on parts of Dr. Sowell's recent video entitled "Sowell Warns About the Year 2030 - America's Total Collapse." Although I am not as pessimistic as he, Sowell expresses concern over potential societal decline by 2030. He attributes this to factors like economic mismanagement, cultural shifts, and policy decisions that, in his view, undermine traditional American values and institutions. Sowell emphasizes the importance of empirical evidence and cautions against ideological thinking that disregards historical lessons. He warns that without a return to foundational principles and critical evaluation of current trends, the U.S. could face existential challenges in the coming years. 

Sowell warns that certain economic policies, particularly those involving increased government intervention, pose significant risks to the nation's financial stability. For instance, he critiques proposals to tax unrealized capital gains, arguing that such measures could deter investment and innovation, ultimately leading to job losses and economic stagnation. Sowell contends that penalizing investors for potential, rather than actual, gains dampens the incentives that drive economic growth and job creation. But let's dig into his pronouncements about culture, policy, identity, and education. 

Sowell expresses concern over cultural transformations that, in his view, erode the foundational principles of American society. He criticizes the educational system for prioritizing self-expression and subjective experiences over rigorous academic standards, particularly in subjects like mathematics and science. This shift, he argues, leads to a generation ill-equipped to engage with complex societal issues. 

Moreover, Sowell discusses the impact of identity politics, cautioning that an overemphasis on group identity can distract from individual responsibility and merit. He warns that this focus may foster division and resentment, eroding the social cohesion necessary for a stable society. 

Sowell critiques various policy decisions that he believes have detrimental effects on traditional American values and institutions. He asserts that welfare programs, while well-intentioned, have inadvertently fostered dependency and weakened family structures, particularly within the African American community. By providing financial incentives that discourage work and marriage, these policies, according to Sowell, have contributed to social disintegration.

In the realm of education, Sowell points to the influence of teachers' unions and bureaucratic inefficiencies as obstacles to meaningful reform. He contends that these entities often prioritize their interests over student outcomes, resisting changes that could enhance educational quality and accountability. 

Sowell's analysis presents a sobering perspective on the trajectory of American society, emphasizing the need for a return to principles of personal responsibility, limited government, and cultural cohesion to avert potential decline by 2030.

Dr. Thomas Sowell’s essay strikes me as particularly important at this point in the trajectory of America. Virtually. all of our country’s leaders—and I mean virtually all—regardless of their political affiliation, view the rise of China as an existential threat. Using that frame of reference, think about the  dangers facing us from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. 

Being a baby boomer. I was born into the United States at a time when it had arisen to the pinnacle of international power and prestige.. Our economic. scientific, and military capabilities were nonpareil. Those days are long gone.  America needs all of us to be united and determined to preserve our way of life, and Western ideals.

Our adversaries enjoy watching us battle among ourselves.  We waste time, attention, and resources arguing about politicians, especially Biden and Trump.  We allow partisan divisions to paralyze us from solving problems, as is true regarding the national budget and program funding. We allowed millions of undocumented, unvetted people to pour into our country.  All the while, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea relentlessly proceed with totalitarian, militaristic objectives. Their dictators intimidate the populous into silence; they rigidly and brutally restrict ingress and egress into the countries; and they implement war-oriented economies.

Deduction, Induction, Abduction, and You

The etymological source of the word root "duc" comes from the Latin verb "dūcere," meaning "to lead,” as in "duke." And for purposes of this blogpost, "duc" is the root of three major processes that lead us in our quests to make sense of ourselves and our world.

Deduction is like a logic machine. It starts with a general rule or principle, then applies it to a specific case to draw a certain conclusion. It’s the kind of reasoning that feels airtight—if your premises are true, your conclusion must be true. Imagine you know the rule: “All apples are fruits.” Then you’re told: “Granny Smith is an apple.” You conclude: “Granny Smith is a fruit.”
That’s deduction—simple, neat, and reliable. Let’s say you’re job hunting, and the company clearly says: “We only hire people with a college degree.” You have a degree. Based on that rule, you confidently apply, knowing you meet that requirement. Deductive reasoning helped you aim for the right target. But if you assume the rule is true without checking, you can get burned. Like thinking: “This restaurant always has great food.” Then you show up, order something new, and it’s awful. If your general rule was based on limited experience, your deduction fails—not because deduction itself is flawed, but because your starting rule wasn’t solid.

Induction is the opposite of deduction,  starting with specific observations and trying to fabricate a general rule. It’s how we learn from experience: we notice patterns and form expectations.  An induction is probable, not guaranteed.  You notice that every time you drink coffee after 4 PM, you sleep badly. So, you form a general rule: “Coffee late in the day keeps me up.” That’s induction. It might be true. But maybe you just had stressful days when you happened to drink coffee.  You try a few different techniques for studying—flashcards, highlighting, re-reading—and notice that flashcards consistently help you remember more. So, you start using them regularly. That’s inductive reasoning paying off—spotting what works and turning it into a habit. You meet three people from a certain city who are rude and conclude, “People from that city are jerks.” That’s a classic bad induction—jumping to a general rule from too little evidence. Stereotypes and prejudices often come from lazy or biased inductive reasoning.

Although everyone reading this blog post undoubtedly is familiar with deduction and induction, abduction is  not so widely known. It’s reasoning to the best explanation based on incomplete information—what we do when we don’t have all the facts, but still need to figure something out. We are engaging in detective work based on what we know or think we know.  You walk into your kitchen and see the cookie jar open and crumbs on the floor. You didn’t see anyone do it, but your kid’s face is suspiciously chocolatey. You guess: “She probably took the cookies.” That’s abduction.  If you’re on a date, and the other person keeps checking their watch, not making eye contact, and giving one-word answers, you figure “They’re probably not that into this.” You’re guess is reasonable.  On the other hand, you see your coworker whispering to your boss, later are called in for a meeting and assume, “They were talking behind my back.” Perhaps, but maybe they were discussing an entirely different topic. Abduction can lead to misunderstandings when our guess—however reasonable—is just flat-out wrong.

To summarize,

• Deduction helps when the rules are clear—legal contracts, technical systems, or policies. But if your assumptions are off, even perfect logic leads you astray.
• Induction is powerful for learning from experience—habits, relationships, business trends. But it’s vulnerable to bias and too-small samples.
• Abduction is how we make quick calls—especially under uncertainty. It’s intuitive, creative, and often useful—but it’s the easiest to get wrong.

The trick in everyday life is knowing which kind of reasoning you’re using—and whether it is the right tool for the job.

Deduction, induction and abduction often “lead” us astray, when we are engaged in human relationships. In fact, I suggest that conflict, disappointment, and misunderstanding in human relationships frequently isn’t because people are illogical, but because they’re using the wrong kind of logic, or using it too quickly without checking themselves.

So, let’s see how deduction, induction, and abduction errors can undermine relationships, and—more important—how we can avoid them.

Deduction Mistakes: “I know the rule, so I must be right.”

You think: “If someone cares about me, they’ll always remember my birthday. My partner forgot, so they must not care.” To minimize deduction errors: Question your rules. Ask: Is this rule always true? Or is it just what I expect? Talk, don’t assume. Just because something logically follows in your head doesn’t mean the other person sees it that way. Allow for exceptions. Even true rules have outliers—forgetting a birthday might mean stress, not rejection.

Induction Mistakes: “This keeps happening, so that must mean something big.”

You notice that your friend has canceled plans twice in the past month. You start thinking: “They’re unreliable. I can’t count on them anymore.” That’s an inductive leap—from a couple of events to a general judgment. To minimize induction errors: Check your sample size. Are two canceled plans enough to label someone? Consider context. Are they going through something? Is this new behavior or a long-term pattern? Stay curious. Instead of forming a conclusion too fast, ask: “Is there something going on that’s making it hard for them to follow through?”

Abduction Mistakes: “I don’t have the whole story, but I’m pretty sure I know what’s going on.”

Your partner is quiet at dinner. You think: “They’re mad at me. I must’ve done something wrong.” That’s an abductive guess—a best explanation based on limited data. To minimize induction errors: Recognize your uncertainty. Just because something seems like the best explanation doesn’t mean it is. Pause the narrative. When you find yourself building a story in your head, label it as just that—a story. Ask instead of assume. Try: “Hey, you seem quiet—are you okay?” rather than deciding for them.

To conclude, “dūcere” might be at the “root” of many of your problems.  Try to be cognizant of where you are leading yourself in the decisions that you make and in the human relationships in which you engage.  And, of course,  consider whether the people with whom you interact might be better or worse in deducing, inducing, and abducing than you are.

Do You Care Enough? Too Much?

Someone sees another suffering and seems to feel their pain.  An onlooker might, therefore, conclude the apparent empathizer has reacted from pure moral and humanitarian concern.  Why else? 

Well, some psychologists do not automatically default to that moral and/or  humanitarian explanation.  In fact, given the widespread public recognition of “virtue signaling” many non-psychologists, also, might be empathy-skeptical. Regardless of the interpretation of the purposes of empathic behavior, we all, at least, can accept that empathy results in uniformly positive outcomes. Really? Well…  We will address that soon.

Let’s begin with some contextual information. First, a couple definitions.   The  Miriam-Webster. dictionary definition of empathy is “the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another.”  So, the essential elements are: understanding, awareness, sensitivity, and experiencing. Social scientists also speak of “altruistic empathy,” regarded as a selfless concern for the well-being of others, often at the expense of the individual’s own interests.

I choose in this blog to add and focus on “suicidal empathy,” a condition in which one feels others’ pain so deeply that it actually harms the empathizer. Think of someone who can’t watch the news without crying, who gives away too much of themselves—time, money, emotional energy—until they’re completely drained. At least on the surface, they’re not doing it for praise or reward. They just can’t not care, even when it costs them their own well-being. Why might someone behave at that suicidal level?

Under conditions of suicidal empathy, I don’t just mean feeling sad when a friend is struggling—I mean feeling so much of someone else's pain that it becomes overwhelming. The empathizer is so emotionally tied to another person’s suffering that they start to lose themselves, even to the point of risking their own mental health, safety, or will to live. Again, I ask “why would someone do this, let someone else's pain drag them down that far?” Well, a few psychological hypotheses, of varying levels of reasonableness, have been proposed to explain it.

First, the empathizer is just wired to feel everything—deeply. Some people are said to be naturally extremely empathetic. They don’t just understand how someone feels—they feel it too. It’s like their emotional antenna is always turned all the way up. If someone they know about is suffering, they might feel it just as much, or even more. It's not a choice—supposedly it’s how they're built. And without strong emotional boundaries, it can become suffocating.

Second, they don’t know where others end and they begin. People who grew up with blurred emotional lines—maybe in families where they had to take care of everyone else’s feelings—can carry that into adulthood. They feel responsible for other people’s pain, like it’s their job to fix it or absorb it. Letting someone else suffer feels wrong, almost like a personal failure. So, they dive into that suffering without thinking of the cost to themselves.

Third, they’ve been through trauma, and this feels familiar.  For some, intense empathy is a kind of echo from their past. If someone’s been through trauma—especially as a child—they might be drawn to people who are also hurting. Helping others becomes a way to process their own pain, even if it’s not conscious. But sometimes it crosses a line and becomes a reenactment—they end up drowning in someone else’s trauma because it mirrors their own.

Fourth, they don’t feel like they matter unless they’re helping. People with low self-worth might believe their only value comes from being useful or self-sacrificing. They might not even realize they think this way, but deep down there’s a voice saying, You’re only lovable when you’re giving everything you have—even if it destroys you. They tie their identity to being the one who always cares, always helps, always puts others first—even if it’s killing them inside.

Fifth, they believe suffering is the right thing to do. Some people have this moral or idealistic belief that if someone else is in pain, they should be in pain too. Anything less feels selfish. So instead of supporting someone from a place of strength, they collapse under the weight of that person’s suffering. They might think, If I don’t feel this pain too, what kind of person am I?

Sixth, they’re just burned out. This happens a lot with caregivers—nurses, therapists, social workers, even people who are always the emotional rock in their families. They’re exposed to so much suffering, day after day, that eventually they just can’t take it anymore. The empathy that used to fuel them starts to drain them. And when that pain keeps piling up with no break, some people fall into despair or even suicidal thoughts. It’s not because they don’t care—it’s because they’ve cared too much, for too long, without taking care of themselves.

Last, they're afraid to be left alone. Sometimes, people hold on to someone else’s pain because it keeps them connected. Maybe they’re scared that if they stop being the one who "feels everything," they’ll be abandoned or forgotten. So, they keep sacrificing their own well-being just to stay close, even if that closeness is built on shared suffering.

Just as individuals can suffer from suicidal empathy, so can countries. In that case, social  policies are guided by intense emotional responses without adequate boundaries that lead to unintended negative outcomes. Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe offers a compelling critique that aligns closely with the concept of suicidal empathy at the national level. He argues that Western Europe's response to mass immigration is driven more by guilt and emotional reflex than by rational self-interest or cultural preservation.

Murray contends that European societies have lost confidence in their own values and traditions, leading to policies that prioritize compassion over cohesion. He observes that this overcorrection stems from a desire to atone for historical wrongs, resulting in a form of empathy that neglects the practical implications of large-scale immigration. In his book, Murray notes: “To speak for the people of Europe was to be on the side of the devil. And all the time there existed that strange assumption that Europe was simply letting one more person into the room. Whether that person was genuinely about to be killed in the corridor became immaterial. If he was cold, poor, or just worse off there than the people inside the room, he too had the right to come in.” This quote illustrates Murray's concern that European nations, driven by an unbounded empathy, have adopted immigration policies without fully considering the long-term societal impacts.

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, empathy evolved to strengthen in-group bonds and promote cooperative behavior within communities. However, when empathy extends beyond sustainable limits—favoring out-groups at the expense of the in-group—it can undermine social cohesion and threaten the survival of the group.

Murray's analysis suggests that Western Europe's current trajectory, influenced by a form of suicidal empathy, may lead to cultural dilution and societal fragmentation. He warns that without a recalibration of empathy—balancing compassion with pragmatism—European societies risk eroding the very foundations that have historically sustained them.  To my knowledge, no one of any standing has addressed suicidal American empathy to the level that Murray has.  Perhaps it’s time to do so.

Reference:

Murray, Douglas (2018). The Strange Death of Europe. Murray, Douglas: Books. Bloomsbury USA.

Museum Machinations

When you walk into a science museum in Canada, you might expect to see the usual exhibits: dinosaurs, space exploration, maybe a section on the human body. But in many of these museums—especially in the last decade or so—you’ll also come across exhibits that highlight indigenous knowledge systems. They supposedly are included to “integrate indigenous science” alongside Western science.

Take the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa or the Science North Centre in Sudbury as examples. These places now go beyond just displaying indigenous artifacts in a glass case with a label. Instead, they  tell fuller stories that indigenous peoples have told  for hundreds of years. And, importantly, the museums are calling it, “science”. Let’s say there’s an exhibit on animal migration or weather patterns. Western science might show satellite images or data from GPS collars on caribou. Right next to that, you might see a quote or video from an Inuit elder explaining how the animals' migration can be predicted by the thickness of sea ice or the behavior of birds. The display might even note that these traditional observations—passed orally over generations—have proven reliable and are now being used to complement Western research in areas like climate change.

Similarly, in botany exhibits, you'll see how indigenous knowledge of plant medicine is featured—not as folklore or superstition, but as a parallel system of empirical, research-based science. For example, the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) people’s use of white cedar for respiratory issues is sometimes included in exhibits not just as a cultural note, but claimed to be reliable bioactive compounds.

The museums are moving away from terms like "myth" or "primitive beliefs." Instead, they use phrases like "indigenous knowledge systems," "traditional ecological knowledge," or "indigenous science." These shifts claim that while the methods and metaphors may differ from Western science, the goals—observation, prediction, and explanation of the natural world—are fundamentally scientific.

The rationalizing museum official assertion likely will be to describe their policy as an attempt to “decolonize science communication”. In other words, they are motivated to change the long-standing tendency to treat Western science as the “gold standard” for knowing the world. By incorporating “indigenous science “respectfully and on equal footing, they  seek to “broaden the public’s understanding of what science can be”.

Occasionally there are debates about whether some beliefs—such as spiritual interpretations of nature—fit into the category of science. But museums are increasingly comfortable with refusing to accept those arguments. Accordingly, museum visitors might see one exhibit showing  a geological explanation of how a mountain formed, and right next to it, an indigenous story that explains the mountain’s origin in cultural and spiritual terms. Whether intended or not, the juxtaposition implies that the “science” museum is not fully committed to the scientific method—that indigenous beliefs have equal standing.

In short, Canadian science museums are treating  indigenous knowledge not as something “other” or “less,” but as a legitimate, tested, and deeply rooted form of science.  In my opinion, this Canadian “science” approach is grossly flawed.  It is perfectly appropriate, even laudable, to respect and inquire about indigenous myths and traditions.  But equating them with science is both absurd and intellectually dishonest. Science is much more than an artifact and/or longstanding belief.  Above all, science is a continually recursive process in which ideas are proposed, tested, challenged, retested, and refined. 

I am not religious and firmly “believe” the basic theory of evolution. The belief is firmly rooted in knowing  that the theory has been tested in thousands of rigorously conducted scientific studies.  However, if compelling evidence is discovered that debunks evolution, I am ready, willing, and able to revise my evolution beliefs.  

Speaking of evolution and returning to the Canadian museum approach, I have a question:  Do their museums have Creationist explanations and displays in the evolution section?  To repeat, I am not religious and I do not believe in Creationism.  However, there is a kind of Creationism belief system known as "theistic evolution".  That perspective generally acknowledges the scientific validity of evolution while simultaneously suggesting that God initiated and guided the evolutionary process, possibly including the introduction of souls into humans.  Most notably, Francis Collins, a highly respected figure in both scientific and religious circles is a prominent proponent of theistic evolution.  He was a leading professional in the field of genetics and director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Collins  has written extensively on the compatibility of science and faith, advocating for a view that God created the universe and used the process of evolution to bring about life.

If you ask Canadian museum leaders why Creationism is not worthy of inclusion in their collections, the reply quite likely will be some thinly veiled version of “Creationism is pseudoscience advocated by ignorant, science-denying, right-wing zealots”.  As to the museum “indigenous science “ that they do include, I would ask three questions:  1. What is your definition of science?  2. Specifically  explain the criteria you use to evaluate the scientific bona fides  of each indigenous science exhibit.  3. Who is/are the scientist(s) responsible for the science that you do “advertise” and endorse?

This blog, then, suggests that we never should blindly accept someone else's definition of science. When we do, we allow them to make intimidating incriminations of "You're not following the science" whenever we disagree.  We always need to know what is the science presented, who has produced it, and what is its purpose.

Human Relationships Versus Objective Data

Let’s say you’ve done your homework. You’ve read the reports, double-checked the sources, even made a snazzy little chart with color-coded bars and everything. You're armed with solid, objective data—cold, hard, undeniable truth. Then you share it with your sister, best friend, or partner…And they respond with a concerned expression and say, “Yeah, but I read something different, and honestly, I just don’t think that’s true.” Suddenly, your well-researched truth feels like it just bounced off a brick wall of emotional loyalty. 

What just happened? Welcome to the tug-of-war between objective data and contradictory information delivered by someone close to you—a psychological and social battlefield where logic often finds itself outmaneuvered by trust, intimacy, and shared identity.

Objective data is persuasive because it’s supposed to be impartial. Numbers don’t lie. If 97% of climate scientists agree on global warming, or if randomized controlled trials show a medication works, we expect people to believe it. Data gives the illusion of authority, precision, and universality. It says, “This isn’t my opinion—it’s the truth.” And when people are open to it, that can be powerful. Good data can change minds, shift policy, and spark innovation. But here's the catch: Data doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It lands in the messy terrain of human emotion, values, culture, and—most potently—relationships.

Now imagine someone you trust deeply—someone you share holidays, heartbreaks, and inside jokes with—tells you something that goes against what the data says. Even if what they say is vague, anecdotal, or factually wrong… you might feel more inclined to believe them. Why?

Because their voice doesn’t come alone. It’s wrapped in emotional history. It speaks in a language of shared understanding and loyalty. That person isn't just giving you a different perspective—they’re sending a social signal: “If you believe this, you're with me.” And humans are wired for being with. Evolutionarily, tribal belonging often mattered more than objective truth. The tribe protected you. The truth didn’t.

Think about it: If your best friend says, “I don’t trust that vaccine—it just came out too fast,” they’re not publishing a medical paper. They’re expressing fear, maybe shaped by a tangle of social media, stress, and personal stories. Telling them, “Actually, here’s the CDC’s Phase III trial data…” might be correct. But it might also feel—to them—like you’re rejecting them, not just their point. And in return, their rejection of your facts might feel like they’re ignoring your intelligence. This is how good people talk past each other.

So, Who Wins? In pure logic? Objective data. Every time. But in real life? The winner is often the person you care about more than the facts. That’s not because people are dumb. It’s because we are social. We don’t just evaluate truth in our heads—we weigh it with our hearts.

What do we do? We start by recognizing that persuasion isn't just about truth—it's about trust. If you want someone to believe good data, you might need to become the familiar voice. Share facts gently, wrapped in empathy, not superiority. Make it safe for someone to listen without feeling betrayed. And if someone you love believes something untrue, resist the urge to steamroll them with charts. Instead, start with connection. Find shared values. Be curious. Show that you care more about them than about winning the argument. Because sometimes, the only thing more persuasive than truth… is love that listens.

Have you ever changed your mind because of someone close to you—even if the facts weren’t on their side? Or vice versa? Regardless of whether you are the one who’s trying to change someone’s mind, or they’re trying to change yours, I remind you now of the song I keep on singing about contextualism. To briefly recap: Contextualism is the idea that thoughts, feelings, behaviors, actions, and experiences don’t have a single, universal meaning. Instead, their meaning depends on the external situation and your internal situation. Therefore, before you get into a shouting match with someone with whom you disagree, decide whether the context is suitable for rational reconciliation. If it isn’t. tactfully withdraw from the situation. and decide whether you want to reengage at a more opportune time or never.

MURDEROUS VIOLENCE

At age 18 years, 2 months, during a pitch-black night in early September 1965, two days after arriving in Chu Lai, Vietnam, I was ordered into one of my squadron’s UH-1E  helicopters.  Along with three other Marines, we flew to Da Nang approximately 56 miles north.  On the flight line was a large empty C-130 transport aircraft with open ramp.  Not long afterwards, I saw the headlights of the first medevac helicopter heading toward us and many others arrived later.  We ran to arriving helicopters to offload body bags of dead Marines and litters of grievously wounded Marines onto the C-130. Needless to say, I had never before experienced anything even remotely similar.  During that harrowing night, I thought how fortunate I was to be loading rather than being loaded. So, that was my introduction to Viet Nam and to murderous violence, but that was a war in a foreign land. 

Now, 60 years after my initial Chu Lai experience , I read everyday about murderous actions, especially in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, and Russia. As sad as that is, I realize that those, too, are the inevitable consequences of war, and I console myself, knowing that there are no foreign troops shooting and bombing in America.  It is particularly troubling, then, that many of our citizens rationalize violence against each other.

Consider a 2025 Network of Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) - Rutgers University’s Social Perception Lab report entitled, Emerging Threats: Normalized Political Violence and the Rise of Assassination Culture that I present for your consideration. The report indicates that 55% of self-identified left-of-center respondents believe that assassinating President Donald Trump could be at least somewhat justified. Similarly, 48% expressed the same sentiment regarding Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and head of Trump's Department of Government Efficiency. 

Overall, 38% of all respondents stated that murdering Trump would be at least somewhat justified, while 31% said the same about Musk. The study suggests the emergence of an "assassination culture" within segments of the extreme left, with political violence becoming increasingly normalized in digital discourse. 

The NCRI report warns that these attitudes pose a threat to political stability and public safety, emphasizing that such perspectives are not fringe but reflect an emergent culture grounded in far-left authoritarianism. The study also highlights the role of social media platforms in amplifying radical ideation, contributing to the normalization of political violence. 

Some people, therefore, mistakenly believe that political violence is justified.  But what about violence against non-politicians? Of course, everyone is acutely aware of the ongoing Luigi Mangione case currently being tried in New York.  To briefly refresh your mind, on December 4, 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was fatally shot outside the New York Hilton Midtown in Manhattan. Prosecutors claim that Mangione, the alleged assailant, approached Thompson around 6:44 a.m. and shot him multiple times in the back before fleeing the scene on an electric bicycle. 

Mangione was apprehended five days later at a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania. At the time of his arrest, he was found in possession of a 3D-printed pistol consistent with the weapon used in the attack, multiple fake identification documents, and a handwritten letter expressing hostility toward the U.S. healthcare system. 

Authorities charged Mangione with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder in furtherance of terrorism, interstate stalking resulting in death, and using a firearm to commit murder. He has pleaded not guilty to these charges. Federal prosecutors, under the directive of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, have announced their intention to seek the death penalty in this case. 

The Brian Thompson murder has been co-opted for rants against the U.S. healthcare system and income inequality. Some social media users have expressed sympathy for Mangione, viewing his actions as a manifestation of frustration with corporate practices in the healthcare industry. This sentiment has been reflected in graffiti and merchandise glorifying the attack, reviving the "Eat the Rich" mentality.  But the most egregious responses came from those who prioritize their identity bias over morality.  For instance, in my Weaponized Communication book I wrote: “… the fact that the [Thompson] shooter earned undergraduate and graduate degrees at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania was cited by Penn’s Julia Alekseyeva, an assistant professor of English, Cinema, & Media Studies, who posted a video that included the Les Misérables song, ‘Do You Hear the People Sing?’ and captioned, ‘Have never been prouder to be a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.’   The cowardly Alekseyeva, of course, later deleted the post after having reaped the publicity benefits that came from promoting the popular animus felt toward large medical insurance companies.” 

So, public opinion on the matter is divided. While many condemn the act of violence, others rationalize the assassination, claiming that issues of healthcare accessibility and corporate accountability caused the tragedy. Legal experts anticipate a complex trial, given the high-profile nature of the case and the potential for the death penalty. 

The fact of rampant violence is bad enough.  But, it troubles me, too, that those who speak violence do so  with neither social shame nor fear of social consequences.  In fact, many -- such as Penn’s Julia Alekseyeva  --  expect to be lauded for their hate speech. Are they our children's role models?  What do you think?

What is Worth Accepting and/or Repeating?

In Weaponized Communication– my newly released book—I emphasize interactions among certain factors within you and outside you. Three interrelated concepts are particularly relevant.

The first is the psychology concept of Contextualism.  This is the idea that thoughts, feelings, behaviors, actions, and experiences don’t have a single, universal meaning. Instead, their meaning depends on the external situation and your internal situation. Imagine someone frowning. Are they angry? Sad? Deep in thought? The meaning of that frown depends entirely on the situation and person.  In my book, I emphasize context as being comprised of each individual’s history, temperament, thoughts, feelings, environments, and action tendencies.

Second, Idea Disassociation refers to a condition in which an individual’s thoughts, memories, or concepts become fragmented or disconnected within that person’s cognitive framework.  When that occurs, one entertains cognitive inconsistencies—sometimes to their benefit and sometimes to their detriment.  For instance, a person who considers their self as generous fails to donate to what they regard as a very well-deserving charity.  They dissociate their generosity from their failure to donate so as to avoid feeling guilty.  The dissociation is a benefit or a detriment, depending on your point of view.

Siloing is the third of the interrelated concepts.  Loosely speaking, this primarily is the organizational counterpart of  an individual’s Idea Disassociation.  Siloing is located in a group context wherein there is compartmentalization of information, operations, or decision-making within separate units or departments, often limiting communication between their personnel.  Those of you old enough to remember the Challenger explosion and the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001  might also recall that many people pointed to siloing as at least partially responsible for the disasters.

In the aggregate, all three concepts are relevant whether you weaponize or are weaponized.  I think about this by considering what goes on within us and outside us.  Contextualism is in play within us when our values and needs apply.  If an issue is low regarding  our values and needs, we probably will neither weaponize it nor be a victim of its weaponization.  If the issue is important to us as individuals, we might dissociate the idea from other aspects of our cognition, such that we attack with it or allow ourselves to be attacked by it, and still delude ourself sufficiently to maintain an illusion of self-consistency.  If the issue is important to us as a group participant, we might ignore the significance of siloing, and still maintain our basic identity as a fully group-consistent member.  

Regarding the contextualism, dissociation, and siloing factors, my main point, again, pertains to what is internal and external to you.  It would be tempting to conclude that only siloing is relevant to the external. But, in truth, all three factors are both internal and external to some degree. When I say internal and external, I am referring to features of a weaponizer or weaponizer target that consists of their history, temperament, thoughts, feelings, environments, and action tendencies.  These can singularly or compositely determine what is weaponized and one’s reaction to weaponization. 

Controlling weaponization depends on if, how, or when one is conscious of the role of their history, temperament, thoughts, feelings, environments, and action tendencies relevant to what is being weaponized.  At this very moment, you are hyperaware of the importance of those factors. However, only by being ONLINE AWARE can you use your understanding of the factors to avoid being a weaponizer, yourself, or falling prey to others who are weaponizing.  Therefore, when you make a pronouncement about an issue important to you or hear someone else do so, think whether the pronouncement is or is not consistent with other related issues important to you.  If the pronouncement is about something that you value or that is important to you, do not mindlessly accept or reject it. Instead, ask the following question: Am I likely to be automatically and/or irrationally swayed about this issue due to my history, temperament, thoughts, feelings, environments, and action tendencies?  Then, force yourself to find a reason - at least temporarily - to reject your instinctive, automatic acceptance or rejection of the pronouncement.  Having done that, you can rationally decide what, if anything, about it is worthwhile and/or actionable and/or worth promulgating.

 

My Newly Released Book

 

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=peter+j+mccusker&crid=22ORY5JO14N23&sprefix=peter+j+mcc%2Caps%2C99&ref=nb_sb_ss_fb_1_11_p13n-conservative-preferred-department-reranking

 My newly released book:

In contemporary society, words can be as destructive as bombs. Weaponized Communication: Improvised Explosive Devices explores how information, propaganda, and psychological tactics function as volatile tools of conflict—detonating social and political chaos, just as IEDs wreak havoc on battlefields.

This book delves into the parallels between physical and informational warfare, examining how narratives, misinformation, and strategic messaging are deployed to manipulate perception, destabilize adversaries, and exert control. From insurgent propaganda to state-sponsored disinformation campaigns, Weaponized Communication analyzes how groups exploit media, technology, and public discourse to create psychological and ideological explosions.

Central to this book is that weaponized communications are often multimodal, involving listening-speaking, reading-writing, and visual reception-visual presentation. As such, integrated destructive information can be spread far and wide..

Social science studies and concepts are employed to unpack the mechanics of weaponized influence and deception in modern cultural conflicts. Whether in asymmetric warfare, cyber operations, or mass media manipulation, the weaponization of communication is shown as polluting the social fabric of western culture. 

Weaponized Communication: Improvised Explosive Devices offers a gripping and critical exploration of how words, like bombs, are engineered to disrupt, divide, and destroy. Forewarned is forearmed.

It's in Your DNA ?

It’s in Your DNA.  How often have you heard that comment?  How often has it added anything relevant or substantial to the discussion?  For instance, some people use a simplistic DNA premise to explain why someone is gay, lazy, artistic, wealthy, or criminal. Obviously, DNA is necessary for every bodily and mental feature of every human being, but it rarely is both necessary and sufficient.

To make my point, I suggest considering the commonly stated scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees share about 98-99% of their DNA.  Why then are we so profoundly different from chimps?  I know of no chimp astronauts, surgeons, carpenters, or beauticians. Where is the 2 to 1% human-chimpanzee difference and what is its significance?

One most important explanation follows from the genotype-phenotype distinction.  In brief, the genotype is the genetic DNA code you inherit from your parents—a recipe that tells your body how to make proteins, which then determine things like your eye color, height, or even your risk for certain diseases. But just because a recipe exists doesn’t mean the final dish will turn out exactly as written. Your phenotype is what actually shows up—the final observable dish. 

Phenotypic traits result from the way your body expresses your genetic instructions, and depend on both your genes and your environment. For instance, your genotype might include genes for being tall, but  poor childhood nutrition can cause you to be shorter than your genetic potential. To produce their optimal effects, genes need to be turned on or off at specific times, for specific durations, and in specific settings.

Time for more monkey business.  Everyone is familiar with obvious human-chimpanzee phenotypic differences, such as differences in brain size, body shape, hairiness, tooth size, and facial muscles that give humans flatter faces and smaller jaws. The genetic differences are less familiar to most of us.  Some of the more important ones are: 

Single Nucleotide Changes

A large portion of the genetic differences are single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are small changes in individual DNA bases. These changes are scattered across the genome.

Gene Regulatory Differences

While most of the genes in humans and chimps are nearly identical, their expression patterns differ significantly. This means the same genes may be turned on or off at different times, in different tissues, or at different levels. Regulatory regions (like promoters and enhancers) show significant divergence, particularly in brain-related genes.

Insertions, Deletions, and Duplications

Humans and chimps have differences in copy number variations—genes or sections of DNA that are duplicated or deleted. Humans have a higher frequency of duplications in genes associated with brain development and immunity.

Chromosomal Rearrangements

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while chimps have 24. This difference is due to a fusion event in humans where two ancestral ape chromosomes combined to form human chromosome 2. Structural changes like inversions and translocations also contribute to differences.

Accelerated Regions in Humans

Certain regions of the genome, called Human Accelerated Regions (HARs), have undergone rapid evolution in humans. Many of these regions are associated with brain development, cognitive function, and limb formation.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO DO WITH YOU AND WITH WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU?  

In the interest of your time, let’s take one very brief look at an extremely well researched, scientifically respected area of wide-spread genetic concern for many of us—Alzheimer’s Disease.  

A common gene associated with Alzheimer's disease is APOE (Apolipoprotein E), specifically the APOE ε4 variant.  There are three main versions of the APOE gene: ε2, ε3, and ε4. APOE ε4 is the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer's (the most common form). However, having the gene does not guarantee that someone will develop the disease—it only increases the risk.  One copy of APOE ε4 (from one parent): Increases the risk by about 2-3 times compared to people without it. About 20-30% of people with one ε4 allele develop Alzheimer's. Two copies of APOE ε4 (one from each parent): Increases the risk by 8-12 times. Around 50-70% of people with two copies will develop Alzheimer's by age 85. However, people without APOE ε4 still have some risk, but it's significantly lower (about 10% lifetime risk).

Takeaways

So, Alzheimer’s disease susceptibility almost certainly is partially in our DNA. But just as sharing 98 or 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees allows for radical differences between the two species, having one or two copies of APOE ε4 does not doom us to Alzheimer’s disease.  We do not automatically go from an Alzheimer’s genotype to an Alzheimer's phenotype. As mentioned previously, genes need to be turned on or off at specific times, for specific durations, and in specific settings.

My primary point in this blog is merely to underscore that it is almost always incorrect, and potentially damaging, for you to presume that your concerns are exclusively due to uncontrollable genetics. Instead, look to what you can do to improve your behavior and environments, since they are much more amenable to your deliberate influence.  

What Do You Meme?

Most people have only a superficial understanding of what "meme" means. [The alliteration is purposeful and has meaning to me. You, too, should understand soon.]  Those who use the word “meme’ are likely also to know “mimetic,” but may or may not connect the two terms. If you are reading this mindfully, you will see clearly that the second letter in the two targeted words are different -- e vs. i . That's because they  are not etymologically related.  Since both terms are frequently spoken and written, I thought it might be useful to consider them as a way to sensitize us all to what we are saying and hearing.

The words meme and mimetic do share a common conceptual root but, as noted, they have distinct etymologies and distinct meanings, as well.  When most people speak about a meme, they mean an idea, icon, object, or action that is current and popular. But that does not conform to the original definition. 

Dr. Richard Dawkins in the Selfish Gene introduced "meme" in 1976 as a “gene" analogue that referred to a unit of cultural transmissions similar to the bodily transmissions from a gene. To him, memes, like genes, needed to possess fidelity, (be a faithful copy) fecundity (spread widely) and longevity (have long-standing influence). Of course, those three criteria can be interpreted subjectively or objectively. Regardless of whether the subjective or objective standard is applied, however, most often when I hear or read someone referring to a meme, it does not satisfy the required three criteria. So, I feel that using the word meme often is unnecessary and/or meaningless. Perhaps the user is trying to impress rather than inform. Instead of incorrectly using the word meme, for instance, why not just say "popular"--a less ambiguous word that conveys the intended idea? 

Unlike meme, "mimetic" has a long history in classical philosophy wherein it indicated the process of imitation, especially imitation in behavior or art. The original use of this word was qualitatively different than today's colloquial meaning--something mimetic had to include imitation of reality, representation of reality in a manner that evokes clear recognition or understanding, and verisimilitude (truth likeness) that strives for a degree of believability or truthfulness. It may not be an exact replica of reality but should resemble it enough to be recognized as an authentic representation, an interpretive aspect of the world, and also be a creative transformation of the original.

My point in contrasting the original and colloquial uses of the terms meme and memetic certainly is not to suggest what is absolutely right and what is absolutely wrong conversationally.    Instead, I’m intent in underscoring that people are sometimes more interested in signaling their identity or tribal affiliation than they are in communicating clearly.  I’m sure you are well aware of Matt Walsh’s documentary, What is a Woman? (2022) and of the sex and gender-oriented Congressional hearings that illustrated the language absurdity and confusion attendant to a simple discussion of male-female differences.

There is nothing wrong in judiciously, infrequently  using  memes given certain conditions.  First, your use of the meme must be similar to the use of the meme of your interlocutor. Second and most important, you are using the meme mindfully, not merely in rote imitation. Don’t present a prefabricated, popular meme that may not really reflect nuances of your personal idea.  Speak with as much precision as possible.  Then even if you use a meme, it will not be purely imitative, but closer to mimetic. For instance, rather than saying “at the end of the day," perhaps your idea would be better expressed with a phrase like “in the final analysis” or something even more creative and personal. Communicate primarily to transmit clear meaning rather than status or group affiliation.