The Asturias Project

The Leftist worldview is a way of managing low self-worth and anxiety. When someone lacks an inner sense of self-esteem, their locus of value shifts to external things. Since they have no robust inner compass for their own worth (inner metrics of integrity, work ethic, effort towards a beautiful purpose), they have no choice but to default to outward comparisons in the more material realms: wealth, status. So envy becomes a second-order defining characteristic of leftism. Most of the progressive left live in extravagance relative to kings of previous eras. But the measurement criteria is a comparative one, so they remain hungry ghosts, never satisfied. It is unbearable to see others with more. It is unbearable to their self-image to imagine others achieving. They would rather burn it all down to ameliorate these feelings of inadequacy than enjoy an unprecedented quality of life in human history. A hallmark of low self-esteem is an inability to admire real greatness in others, without feeling deeply threatened in your own self-worth. Those with low self-esteem feel the need to rip the Builders down, since they inherently do not believe they themselves would be able to achieve those results. In their unhealthy mental calculus, acknowledging greatness in someone like Elon would mean condemning their own worth (Heroes on their side are tolerated as long as they reinforce their victim worldview). So they construct elaborate frameworks of blame. And if you threaten these frameworks with evidence, know that you are threatening their source of fragile self-worth that sits at the bottom of the whole construct. Whatever is wrong in their life/society is “because fascism/patriarchy/wypeepo”. If an outside force is deemed responsible, they never have to ask what is on them. They are absolved of responsibility. They trade their agency/power for reduced anxiety in the face of what life requires of them. Then comes belonging, and this part feeds on itself. Join the cause and you get friends, approval, status and safety. There are two ways in. You can be the Ally who sacrifices for the group, which proves you’re good. Or you can claim a marginalized identity, which gets you protected status that nobody is allowed to question. Both give you worth without the burden of hard work. The more anxious and isolated people fall into this trap, the more community there is to offer, and the more attractive it becomes to the next person. It works like a UV light that gets brighter as more moths get pulled in. The culture keeps everyone in line. Movies and media offer a constant narrative IV-drip that these views are cool, soulful, compassionate, and artistic. People with low self-esteem need this external approval to prop themselves up. Without matching themselves to what they are told is cool, artsy, compassionate, soulful…well, how would they know if they are good? Questioning it takes a lot of mental energy, and it can cost them that validating community. Leftists with low self-esteem do not allow that inner door to open, it is too much of a threat to their equilibrium. Again, this is the resistance you face when you deal with a leftist acolyte. The conversation is never about the issue, they feel like their basic sense of goodness is on trial, so they rage. I think this is also why defectors get treated so viciously (see my previous thread). Someone who leaves is potentially a messenger from the same side, and that’s the person who can make the rest start to doubt (see my other other thread). So the group goes after their reputation, their friendships and their job. The goal is to make an example of them so nobody else follows. Happy Friday.

Why do groups hate a defector more than an enemy? Haley Stevens (@HaleyforMI), detransitioners, and ex-Scientologists all got the same treatment from the groups they left. This was inspired by a discussion in my previous thread about the 'friendly messenger' being the most influential in changing leftist people's minds. I dug in with Claude to look at research from group psychology and case studies of defectors. My thinking at the beginning was basically: How harshly a group treats people who leave depends mostly on two things. The first is how overbounded the group is (a term from organizational psychology). In an overbounded group, membership sits at the core of people’s identity, outside influences are kept at a distance, and the group presents itself as able to meet just about every need its members have. The second is how threatened the group feels by the outside world. When both are high, hostility toward defectors goes up. I also think these conditions make a group far less tolerant of what I’d call line-toers. These are members on paper who aren’t fully invested, the people standing near the edge. You might expect a group to ignore them. In practice I am guessing that they get treated as a real danger, because they’re the ones best placed to change other members’ minds. Someone from your own side is about the most persuasive messenger there is, and a line-toer fits that description and is an added flight risk. The bigger the enemy looks, and the more anxious the group gets, the less patience it has for anyone who isn’t all in. That's a Claude summary of my rambling thoughts. Here's what it found when I poked around to see if this thinking held up: Mostly, it does. Groups judge their own more harshly. Psychologists call it the “black sheep effect.” A member who breaks the rules gets judged more harshly than an outsider who does the same thing, especially by people who identify strongly with the group. Threat makes groups stricter. A 33-country study found that societies facing more threats have tighter norms and less tolerance for rule-breakers. Small groups under pressure in the lab do the same thing to dissenters. Insiders are the most convincing critics. People accept criticism of their group more readily when it comes from a fellow member. That makes the person who leaves the group’s most credible opponent, and the group seems to know it. The real-world cases line up too. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Scientologists cut off former members. Twenty-two countries have laws against leaving the faith. Detransitioners often describe losing their community after they detransition. And when Haley Stevens endorsed the Republican in Michigan’s Senate race two days before Election Day, her own party disowned her and she was called a traitor (and worse). One part needs adjusting: the line-toers. In normal times, the research shows the opposite of what I expected. Groups are hardest on full members who stray and go easier on newcomers and casual members. The Amish, for example, don’t shun young people who leave before baptism. So the better version is that the punishment follows credibility. The more someone looks like a true insider, the more damaging their doubt is. An external perceived threat changes the math. When a group feels under siege, even the half-committed start to look like insiders who might walk out, and “you’re with us or against us” takes over.

Why did weak leaders go all-in on woke ideology? Theory: Many leaders embraced DEI and woke ideology because they didn't have the skills to actually lead. Activist ideology offered a reprieve from uncertainty (incompetence) and feelings of inadequacy (lack of confidence). It gave them something to do to feel purposeful and productive. Spreading the ideology into new leader trainings helped assure that they would be less likely to run into actual competent leaders in the future who might expose them.

What actually gets a committed liberal to reconsider a view? I tested 14 honest persuasion approaches, no tricks or spin, on 1,000 AI-simulated liberals across about 3,000 conversations. One approach clearly beat the rest. Two backfired almost every time.