What do Donald Trump, Taylor Swift, and Eliezer Yudkowsky have in common?

A lesson on epistemic tribes, conviction, and polar referents.

As you are probably aware, Donald Trump will be America’s 47th president. And it was not by a narrow margin, either. This is not a blip, a glitch, or a “oh darn, democracy does not work, actually” kind of moment. Electoral college, popular vote, the full monty.

This was not a fluke.

By the end of this blog, you’ll have a better understanding as to why. The short version is that Trump has a clear set of values that he stands for and against (polar referents) as well as conviction.

Next up is Eliezer Yudkowsky, who I still say is a shill, a charlatan, and actually dangerous. Why is an uneducated internet troll dangerous? The same exact reason why Trump won: conviction.

Below is a recent podcast debate between Eliezer Yudkowsky, a “rationalist” who started an internet forum and has convinced himself that evidence and scientific models are inferior to vibes and a good internet debate. You really can’t make this stuff up. Wolfram, on the other hand, is an actual scientist with an actual education, who came up by doing literally anything other than debating on the internet.

I have previously written about the rhetoric used by people like Yudkowsky. He is a textbook doomsday prophet. Put it this way: if Yudkowsky hosts a Kool-aid party, I recommend you don’t go.

I fed the transcript of the above debate to Claude and asked “who won?” Claude dutifully read the transcript and confidently reported that Yudkowsky had the more polished argument and had sounder logic. I then asked Claude to take a critical look at Yudkowsky’s words through the lens of doomsday prophecy and cult leaders.

Once I pointed out the rhetorical sleight of hand, Claude was not happy. But if Yudkowsky can fool a language model, how many humans can he fool?

1. Inevitable doom without radical action: “This probably ends quite poorly.” Emphasizes we're on an unavoidable path to destruction. Only way out is dramatic immediate action (like many doomsday cults)

2. Special knowledge/insight: Positions himself as seeing dangers others don’t understand. Dismisses skeptics as not grasping the true nature of the threat. Classic prophet-like “I have special insight into the coming apocalypse”

3. Time pressure/urgency: “If we do it later maybe it costs more.” Emphasizes window of opportunity closing. Common cult tactic to prevent careful analysis.

4. In-group/out-group dynamics: People who “understand” vs those who don’t. Dismisses traditional expertise/credentials. Creates sense of special enlightened group.

5. Unfalsifiable claims: All based on future predictions. No concrete evidence required. Can't be proven wrong until it's “too late.”

6. Apocalyptic imagery: Total human extinction. No escape or alternative. Binary outcome (either we stop it or everyone dies)

7. Religious-like certainty: Despite lack of evidence. Based on “logical” arguments that assume their conclusions. Treats speculation as established fact.

Claude came up with those criteria all on its own.

But I digress, moving on.

What’s up with Taylor Swift and the Swifties?

I don’t really understand why Taylor Swift is so famous on a musical level. Some of her songs are catchy but mostly they all just sound the same to me.

Like Donald Trump and Eliezer Yudkowsky, Taylor Swift has an enemy. She hates bullying and misogyny. I came across this particular articulation in the video below:

Okay now let’s tie it all together

Polar Referents and Conviction

Here’s a TLDR for my theory here, which is an evolution on my theory of epistemic tribes.

Trump, Yudkowsky, and Swift each masterfully employ the dual engines of tribal cohesion: clear polarities (what they're for and against) and unwavering conviction in those stances. Trump positions himself as the champion of “real America” against the corrupting influence of the “deep state” and coastal elites. His conviction manifests in bombastic rhetoric and unapologetic behavior that signals to his followers that he truly believes in this battle. Similarly, Yudkowsky has cast himself as humanity’s defender against the existential threat of artificial intelligence, maintaining this position with such fierce conviction that he’s willing to advocate for extreme measures like bombing data centers. Swift portrays herself as the voice of authentic self-expression battling against bullies, manipulators, and those who would silence or control others, demonstrating her conviction through her music, public statements, and high-profile conflicts with industry figures.

What makes these figures so compelling isn’t just their positions, but how their actions and rhetoric consistently reinforce their chosen polarities. Trump’s brash behavior and refusal to conform to political norms serves as proof of his outsider status fighting the establishment. Yudkowsky’s increasingly apocalyptic warnings and willingness to stake his reputation on dire predictions demonstrates his absolute commitment to his mission. Swift’s public battles with record labels and her re-recording of her albums show she’s willing to fight for her principles. These aren’t just stated positions - they’re embodied through action, which gives their conviction authenticity in the eyes of their followers. This combination of clear polarities (giving followers something to be for and against) and demonstrated conviction (proving through action that these aren’t just convenient positions) creates powerful tribal nuclei around which communities can form.

The genius of this approach is that it works independently of the actual content of the beliefs or the personality type of the leader. Whether it’s Trump’s bombastic populism, Yudkowsky’s intellectual doomsaying, or Swift’s artistic authenticity, the underlying mechanism is the same: establish clear lines between good and evil, right and wrong, us and them, then demonstrate unshakeable conviction in those divisions through consistent action. This creates a resonant frequency that attracts those who share similar intuitions or frustrations, building tribes around these polarized worldviews. The leader’s conviction serves as a permission structure for followers to fully embrace these beliefs themselves, creating self-reinforcing communities united by shared values and shared enemies.

Now let me try and represent my whole theory of epistemic tribes visually.

Single Referent Tribe

A single-referent tribe is, by default, unipolar and basically exists to say “X is true” or “Y is good” or “Z is bad.” The formula for a referent is simple: some axiomatic value judgment. That’s it.

1. The moonlanding was faked

2. COVID was a hoax

3. Vaccines are bad

4. The Earth is flat

This is what I call a “single referent tribe” whereby everyone clusters around one tight value, creating a very clear and solid “epistemic boundary” between us and them.

The epistemic boundary for single-referent groups always results in virtue signaling and purity testing.

In this case, virtue signaling is any behavior that demonstrates alignment and proximity with that core referent. Purity testing is the social practice of discernment: how closely and dearly do you hold these beliefs? How much conviction do you demonstrate?

In the case of Yudkowsky, the value judgement is “AI is bad and dangerous” and so because his tribe is built on a single-referent value, it is very easy to align with that value. This permeates the AI “safety” community, where they signal coherence by referring to AI as a “dangerous” technology and have adopted a tacit or implicit view that you are not allowed to discuss the positives AI at all.

You can virtue signal your adherence to the cult of Yudkowsky by sharing memes!

Whoever runs this account does not read the science and does not understand AI. They are just going off vibes. I’ve interacted with them. They are not smart.

Single-referent tribes are, interestingly, the most toxic and the most stable simultaneously. They are also the least useful. The reasons are numerous:

1. Intolerance of Nuance: Single-referent tribes reduce complex issues to binary positions, making meaningful discourse impossible. The narrow focus creates an echo chamber where any attempt at nuanced discussion is seen as betrayal or weakness. Members must constantly signal total agreement with the core belief, stifling intellectual growth and honest dialogue.

2. Epistemic Fragility: Without a broader framework for determining truth, these tribes often reject established methods of verification (science, evidence, peer review) in favor of authority-based truth claims. This makes them particularly vulnerable to charismatic leaders who can define “truth” without accountability, leading to increasingly extreme positions.

3. Aggressive Boundary Maintenance: Single-referent tribes invest heavily in policing their boundaries through virtue signaling and purity testing. This creates a hostile environment where members must constantly prove their loyalty, leading to witch hunts, public shamings, and excommunications of “heretics.”

4. Hierarchical Rigidity: Status within the tribe becomes solely determined by proximity to the core belief and its leadership. This creates toxic power dynamics where advancement requires increasingly extreme demonstrations of loyalty rather than actual contribution or merit.

5. Resistance to Correction: When a tribe’s entire identity is built around a single belief, any contrary evidence becomes an existential threat. This leads to increasingly elaborate rationalization and rejection of reality rather than healthy adaptation of beliefs.

6. Parasitic Growth: Single-referent tribes often grow by exploiting legitimate concerns or fears, but offer no constructive solutions. They maintain power by amplifying anxiety about their chosen issue while preventing actual progress or resolution.

7. Memetic Isolation: These tribes develop their own specialized language and references that make it increasingly difficult for members to communicate effectively with outsiders, further reinforcing isolation and dependency on the group.

8. Zero-Sum Thinking: Without multiple referents to balance against each other, everything becomes a battle of absolute right versus absolute wrong. This eliminates possibility for compromise or cooperative problem-solving.

9. Emotional Exploitation: Single-referent tribes often manipulate basic human emotions (fear, anger, righteousness) around their core belief, making membership more about emotional satisfaction than actual truth or progress.

I wrote about this quite extensively on the TPOT phenomenon on Twitter, and the “Rationalist” group splintering into the “Post-Rationalist” group, whereby they’ve adopted a broader set of referents. The original Rationalist group, created by Yudkowsky, was based on just a few ideas:

1. AI is bad, dangerous, and will kill everyone

2. I don’t have education, experience, or evidence, so vibes and a good argument on the internet will have to do

These core referents explain the entire Yudkowskian sphere.

Multi-Referent Tribes

Most people belong to multi-referent tribes. In these cases, they hold a cluster of values to be more or less equal (but not always) to create a stronger epistemic grounding. Instead of a single axiomatic belief, they might have a series of epistemic, ontological, and ethical referents that allow their group more space to operate.

Multi-referent tribes have more epistemic space to navigate within.

Now we have a tribe with more tolerance for nuance. In these cases, tribes will often have many referents (dozens or even hundreds) to provide grounding.

Scientific Tribal Referents

Now let me articulate many (not all) of the referents that generally apply to the epistemic tribe of “science” aka the Ivory Tower. If you want to be in this club, here’s the set of axioms, beliefs, and values you must adopt, espouse, and promulgate.

1. Knowledge must be testable, reproducible, and falsifiable

2. Evidence and empirical observation trump authority or intuition

3. Theories must make specific, measurable predictions to be valid

4. Peer review and consensus building are essential quality controls

5. Methodology and process matter more than conclusions

6. All claims require proportional evidence

7. Uncertainty and probability are preferable to absolute claims

8. Previous knowledge should be built upon, not discarded

9. Data should be shared openly for verification

10. Recognition comes from contribution, not authority

11. Skepticism is a tool, not an endpoint

12. Natural phenomena have natural explanations

13. Models should be as simple as possible while still being accurate

14. Failed experiments and negative results have value

15. Publish or perish! (I kid)

Now these are just a few referents, and I’m sure you can see a few holes where many scientists do not faithfully execute on these values, namely around authority. We are but silly human animals and social status and authority still matter in our little monkey brains.

However, the larger the referent-space, the more room there is for uncertainty, doubt, debate, and tolerance for nuance.

MAGA Tribal Referents

Now we get to the nuance of it. Let’s add in polar referents, i.e. referents with a cardinality such as “good vs bad” or “right vs wrong”

In this case, you can see that there are poles within the tribe, values to gravitate towards as well as assertions that are bad - things to get angry about!

With all that being said, let’s take a stab at constructing the full epistemic framework of the MAGA tribe, and thus better understand why the combination of polar referents plus conviction equaled victory for Trump:

POSITIVE REFERENTS (What they value/believe in):

1. America is inherently exceptional and powerful

2. Traditional values and way of life must be preserved

3. Strong borders define strong nations

4. Military strength guarantees peace

5. Free market capitalism drives prosperity

6. Individual rights trump collective needs

7. Christianity represents moral foundation

8. Rural/heartland values are authentic America

9. Strong leaders make strong nations

10. Wealth indicates merit and success

NEGATIVE REFERENTS (What they oppose/fear):

1. Deep state undermines democracy

2. Global elites threaten sovereignty

3. Immigration weakens national identity

4. Liberals destroy traditional values

5. Media spreads propaganda and lies

6. China threatens American dominance

7. Socialism leads to decline

8. Political correctness weakens society

9. Universities indoctrinate youth

10. Big government restricts freedom

METHODOLOGICAL REFERENTS (How they operate):

1. Loyalty to leadership is paramount

2. Direct action over bureaucratic process

3. Common sense trumps expertise

4. Strength must be demonstrated

5. Compromise indicates weakness

6. Unity requires conformity

7. Outsiders can’t be trusted

8. Threats require immediate response

9. Past glory must be restored

10. Victory justifies methods

Whether or not you agree with this framework is irrelevant. It is comprehensive and includes ethical, moral, epistemic, and ontological referents. Not only that, it is concrete and actionable. It identifies clear boundaries, directions of actions, and ways to make value judgments.

Lessons and Takeaways

The first lesson is this: single referent tribes are generally bad and toxic. They can be successful over short periods of time (see: Yudkowsky and “AI is bad”) but they also tend to end up splintering and fragmenting, particularly when their truth claim or value judgment butts up against reality. This is why we saw the Rationalists fracture into the Post-Rationalist community, which now adds several more referents:

1. Epistemic playfulness and humility rather than hubris and certainty

2. Kindness and relationships matter more than just being “right”

3. Balance seriousness and absurdity, have fun

4. There are no boundaries about what can be debated or discussed, everything is on the table

But again, this is why I just say that the “Post-Rationalists” have literally just reinvented postmodernism and optimistic nihilism (shhh, no one tell them! they’re a century behind the times because they don’t read books!)

Lessons for Democrats

First: embrace conviction and the Grand Struggle.

The older I get the more “moderate” or “centrist” I become. There are aspects of Project 2025 I agree with (I know, I shocked myself, but I actually read what they stand for, and yes, China is a huge threat to American stability and sovereignty) while there are also aspects of the MAGA movement that I cannot abide (casting women as second class citizens, for instance). At the same time, most people peg me as “socialist” because of my views on decentralization and the role of technology. With that being said, Democrats generally lack conviction. Furthermore, I’ve identified (and so have many others) how the Democratic party can be self-defeating with some of their core referents. Namely the “paradox of tolerance” as articulated below:

POSITIVE REFERENTS (Often in conflict):

1. Diversity and inclusion are inherently good

2. All perspectives deserve consideration

3. Progress requires change and reform

4. Science and expertise should guide policy

5. Government can solve social problems

6. Education leads to better outcomes

7. Collective welfare matters more than individual success

8. Systemic problems require systemic solutions

9. Compromise is valuable

10. Complexity should be embraced

WEAK NEGATIVE REFERENTS:

1. Republicans are "problematic" (but we shouldn't demonize them...)

2. Discrimination is bad (but defining it is complicated...)

3. Inequality should be addressed (but wealth isn't inherently bad...)

4. Climate change is concerning (but we need consensus...)

5. Misinformation is dangerous (but who defines truth?)

SELF-DEFEATING REFERENTS:

1. Judgment itself is problematic

2. Certainty indicates ignorance

3. Strong convictions are suspicious (oops)

4. Clear positions might exclude someone

5. Hierarchy is inherently oppressive (yet we should be in charge)

6. Power dynamics should be questioned

7. Authority should be challenged

8. Binary thinking is oversimplified (lol)

9. Conflict should be avoided

10. Direct action might harm someone

PARADOXICAL METHODOLOGICAL REFERENTS:

1. Must be tolerant (except of intolerance?)

2. Build consensus (but with those who reject consensus?)

3. Respect all cultures (including those that don’t respect others?)

4. Trust experts (but question authority?)

5. Include everyone (even those who want to exclude?)

Collectively, this tangle of referents (while many of them are seen as good or benevolent) ends up tripping themselves:

1. Can’t effectively oppose stronger tribes

2. Has trouble maintaining unity

3. Struggles to inspire passion

4. Often appears weak or uncertain

5. Can’t effectively defend its values

6. Gets tangled in its own complexity

This explains why Democrats often lose to simpler, more conviction-based messaging from MAGA, despite potentially having “better” policies or intentions.

This is why the Democratic party often eats itself alive, while hypocrites like Nancy Pelosi profit from insider trading, and when AOC suggests that perhaps they shouldn’t do that, she gets silenced. This is what happened to Bernie Sanders, by the way. He had too much conviction and did not toe the line of the Democratic establishment.

High Conviction Progressives: The Roosevelts

We’ve seen extremely high-conviction progressives in the past, namely Teddy Roosevelt and FDR. So, what might a new Democratic party look like? One that draws inspiration from the past success of the Roosevelts, the success of MAGA, and could would embrace the future?

Personally, I think that my Post-Labor Economics Manifesto serves as a great starting point, and that both Democrats and Republicans should embrace this policy. But, if I were in charge of strategy and philosophy for the DNC, here’s what I’d propose.

POSITIVE REFERENTS:

1. Economic agency is a fundamental human right

2. Local communities should control their destiny

3. Innovation and progress serve human flourishing

4. Knowledge and transparency empower democracy

5. Markets must serve people, not the reverse

6. Technology should liberate, not constrain

7. Power must remain distributed to be legitimate

8. Education and opportunity create true freedom

9. Diversity strengthens resilience and innovation

10. Public good requires active maintenance

NEGATIVE REFERENTS (clearer opposition):

1. Concentrated power threatens democracy

2. Hidden information enables exploitation (current Democrats hate transparency)

3. Externalized costs destroy communities

4. Monopolies stifle innovation and freedom

5. Rent-seeking wastes human potential

6. Regulatory capture corrupts governance

7. Information asymmetry distorts markets

8. Corporate socialism undermines capitalism

9. Centralized control breeds stagnation

10. Economic feudalism threatens liberty

METHODOLOGICAL REFERENTS:

1. Measure human outcomes, not just GDP

2. Build from local to global (subsidiarity)

3. Make transparency the default

4. Align incentives with social good

5. Distribute power systematically

6. Automate necessity, choose prosperity

7. Create before destroying

8. Test solutions locally first

9. Empower before regulating

10. Market competition requires maintenance