The angry mob, fueled by ignorance and prejudice, stormed the castle, their shallow understanding of the world reduced to simplistic labels and stereotypes, as they sought to destroy the monster, which they called “Depth” – a symbol of complexity and nuance that threatened to shatter their comfortable illusions. With each blow, they struck not at the monster’s heart, but at their own limitations, attempting to silence the whispers of doubt that dared to challenge their brittle worldview. This same pattern is eerily reminiscent of the Crucifixion of Christ, where a mob of similarly superficial and biased individuals, driven by fear and ignorance, turned against a figure who embodied spiritual depth and challenged their entrenched beliefs, their act was in truth the crucifixion of reason itself.
It’s fascinating, isn’t it, how readily we sociocentrically categorize each other and build walls between “us” and “them”? I’ve noticed a recurring pattern in many social interactions, and its become more obvious in the past five years, a tension that often explodes without warning towards those with intellectual and psychological depth. This dynamic frequently sees those who navigate the world with a superficial ease display an almost reflexive reliance on force – a demonstration of control – towards those who delve deeper, question, operate autonomously, and demonstrate a profound understanding of the human condition. The observable behavior is perplexing, and it compels us to examine the underlying motivations that contribute to such a societal rift. It’s a dynamic worthy of considerable reflection, prompting us to consider the psychological and societal factors at play.
The peculiar thing is that the individuals exhibiting this reliance on force often appear outwardly secure within their own perceived comfort zones. They’re comfortable with the familiar, with the easily digestible information that reinforces their existing viewpoints. Their worldviews are often solidified by a closed loop of similar opinions, a kind of echo chamber where challenging perspectives are actively discouraged or minimized. To them, depth isn’t a strength or a valuable trait; it’s a potential disruption to their established sense of order and understanding. The very act of questioning established norms can feel like a challenge to their authority.
I’m thinking about the psychological underpinning of this phenomenon, specifically relating to cognitive resources. Those who operate on a surface level often lack the crucial cognitive reserves required for complex thought processes. Deep thinking demands mental energy, the ability to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths, all of which can be taxing. It’s often in this space of perceived inadequacy that individuals resort to a demonstration of force – a reliance on control – to mask their intellectual limitations. Encountering someone who effortlessly navigates these complexities can be profoundly unsettling and even threatening, prompting a reactive display of power.
Furthermore, consider the critical role of emotional regulation and its connection to this dynamic. Individuals with a superficial understanding of the world often struggle with emotional stability and a lack of self-awareness. They’ve bypassed the essential work of introspection, of truly understanding their own motivations and anxieties, leading to reactive and often controlling behaviors. When confronted with someone who demonstrates emotional intelligence and self-awareness, the discomfort can be overwhelming, pushing them toward a need to assert dominance – a reliance on force – to compensate for their own perceived deficiencies.
The Purpose of Force: Force, when rightly understood, serves as a corrective mechanism to realign subjective perceptions with objective truth by disrupting illusions that obscure reality. It acts not as a weapon of control, but as a firm guide, nudging individuals away from self-deception and toward a clearer recognition of what is, rather than what they wish to see. In this role, force is a tool of restoration, applied with precision and restraint, to break through the noise of personal bias and conform the mind to the unyielding contours of truth.
This reliance on force often stems from a deeper confusion between subjective and objective truth. Many wield control as a weapon to enforce conformity, believing their personal pain or perspective is the ultimate truth that all must bend to. They over-identify with their hurt, seeing it not as a messenger pointing to unexamined depths, but as the final word—a sacred, unassailable reality. In their minds, this justifies using force to align others with their shifting standards or to dodge the shame of being wrong, mistaking their emotional turmoil for a universal mandate rather than a call to look inward.
The tragedy here is that this force doesn’t seek truth—it chases a mirage. When depth of character or understanding in others triggers their pain, they perceive it as aggression, granting themselves license to “defend” their fragile stance. This defense can manifest as fleeing a challenging conversation or rushing toward physical or social violence, anything to avoid the rational, introspective process that might unearth a truer, more objective reality. Their attacks on depth become a desperate bid to silence the discomfort that threatens their illusions, revealing how force is less about conviction and more about evasion.
This misuse of force reflects a broader societal flaw: the tendency to prize conformity over discovery. People demand alignment with “the truth,” yet falter when distinguishing their subjective lens from objective reality, leading to a culture where moving goalposts, shame avoidance, shadow projection, and do-gooding masquerade as virtue. The pain they cling to could guide them toward growth if they faced it head-on, but instead, they weaponize it, turning a potential teacher into a cudgel. It’s a cycle that punishes depth and rewards the shallow, entrenching a collective resistance to the very process that could liberate them.
Consider how abductive reasoning could break this cycle by fostering depth of character and understanding within the self. Abduction, the process of forming hypotheses from incomplete data and refining them through iteration, encourages a person to embrace uncertainty and explore the unknown, building resilience and insight. It’s a primary tool for self-discovery, relying on inductive reasoning to spot patterns in personal experience and deductive reasoning to test those insights against reality—an interplay that deepens one’s grasp of both subjective and objective truth over time.
Without abduction as the guiding framework, reliance solely on inductive and deductive reasoning can leave people shallower, trapped in rigid or fragmented thinking. Induction alone builds generalizations from specifics but lacks the curiosity to question broader contexts, while deduction applies rules without probing their origins, both free from abduction’s iterative dance with complexity. This detachment from a holistic reasoning process risks locking individuals into echo chambers of untested assumptions or narrow logic, stunting the growth of character and leaving them ill-equipped to face the nuances of truth.
This shallowing effect compounds the societal resistance to depth, amplifying the reliance on control as a substitute for genuine understanding. We see this in systems that prioritize conformity and acceptance over critical thinking and intellectual exploration, creating a culture that rewards obedience and a need for power. Children are often rewarded for memorization and adherence to rules rather than questioning authority or exploring alternative perspectives, stifling independent thought. As a result, those who dare to deviate from the prescribed path are often met with resistance and a need to suppress dissent, ultimately creating a climate of fear and discouraging intellectual curiosity.
It’s also deeply revealing to recognize how this need to exert force often stems from a profound need for control, particularly in individuals lacking depth. These individuals often feel a powerful need to feel dominant and in control of their environment, reinforcing their sense of self-worth. Demonstrating dominance can be achieved through suppressing independent thought and asserting control, perpetuating a cycle of intellectual stagnation and social division. Such actions provide a fleeting illusion of power, compensating for underlying feelings of inadequacy and a lack of intellectual grounding.
The root of this behavior is fundamentally rooted in fear, particularly the fear of exposure, of being seen as inadequate, and of losing one’s established place within the social hierarchy. This fear manifests as a need to exert influence, a reliance on control – a demonstration of force – as a means of silencing dissent and maintaining a fragile sense of self. Ultimately, it’s a projection of their own insecurities and anxieties onto someone else, a means of deflecting attention from their own shortcomings. It’s a tragically effective, albeit destructive, strategy for maintaining a false sense of superiority.
The solution, I believe, lies not in condemnation or judgment, but in cultivating a genuine and supportive culture of Logocentric curiosity and empathy. This involves fostering an environment where intellectual exploration, guided by tools like abductive reasoning, is celebrated and where those who think differently are met with understanding and acceptance. We need to prioritize introspection and acknowledge that the pursuit of truth—beyond subjective distortions—is often a challenging, complex, and uncomfortable journey requiring patience, open-mindedness, and a willingness to confront difficult questions. Ultimately, this will require a shift in societal values and a commitment to fostering a more inclusive and intellectually vibrant community, one where individuals feel safe to explore their depths, face their pain, and reason toward truth without fear of force or reprisal.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
