J.K. Rowling:
Those trying to quell inner doubts about their position fear debate because they fear changing their minds. That's why they'd rather broadcast declarations of unshakeable certainty than engage in dialogue. They aren't trying to change minds, they're reassuring themselves.
Steve Stewart-Williams: "14 million twin pairs confirm: All traits are partially heritable; the home you grow up in has surprisingly little effect on how you turn out."
I've often assumed that many people have pets instead of riskier potentially unmanageable children. And sometimes I've assumed that many people cherish pets more than they cherish people. If a dog and a person fell overboard and you could only save one, who are you going to save?
Now we have this study: "Pet owners often see dogs as soulmates and value them more than human lives."
Abstract:
Dogs have ascended to core family members in American households. Across three studies, we show that modern dogs now occupy roles historically reserved for close human relationships and often receive greater moral concern than people. Approximately three out of four dog owners view their dogs as primary sources of emotional support and companionship, and this “soulmate” bond is associated with a tendency to prefer and prioritize dogs over people. Childless dog owners are especially likely to view their dog as a soulmate, and national and county-level analyses further reveal that declining birth rates are strongly associated with increased pet-related spending. This suggests that dogs may fulfill caregiving roles once reserved for children and close kin. To assess the implications of this shift, we presented dog owners with moral dilemmas pitting the welfare of dogs against humans. Owners who viewed their dogs as soulmates were more likely to feed, fund, and save the life of a dog over a person. More than half of dog owners chose to save their dog over a human stranger, one in five chose to save an unfamiliar puppy over a person, and one in four chose to give money to a puppy in need over a child in need. The moral elevation of dogs may reflect—and potentially contribute to—declines in human social connection.
Is there a downside to this pet worship?
This same study points out:
While dogs may seem easier than human relationships, favoring them could come at the cost of human connection. Research suggests that social connection can be zero-sum; forming deep bonds with some often results in less concern for others. Reflecting this phenomenon, owners strongly bonded to their pets often socialize less, opting instead to stay home with their pets.Increased attachment to dogs may also have ethical consequences. Animals, especially dogs, are frequently cast as helpless victims and receive greater concern than vulnerable humans. Many report feeling more distress for dogs than for adult people, and dog owners in particular often prioritize their pet over a human stranger in life-or-death scenarios.
I asked Grok: "What characteristics would you attribute to people who refuse to engage on the issues and instead engage in ad hominem attacks?"
Grok's response (I think it's an excellent response):
People who consistently avoid substantive debate on issues and resort to ad hominem attacks—insulting the person rather than addressing their arguments—often exhibit a cluster of psychological, cognitive, and behavioral traits. These aren't universal, as context matters (e.g., stress or cultural norms can play a role), but based on observations from psychology, rhetoric, and social dynamics, here are some common characteristics I'd attribute to them:Intellectual insecurity or defensiveness: They may feel their beliefs or knowledge are under threat, leading them to deflect by attacking the messenger. This stems from a fragile ego or imposter syndrome, where engaging deeply risks exposing weaknesses.1. Lack of substantive knowledge or preparation: Without strong facts or reasoning to back their position, they fall back on personal jabs as a shortcut. It's easier to call someone "stupid" than to research and counter an argument effectively.
2. Emotional immaturity or high reactivity: Prone to letting emotions override logic, they might have poor impulse control or unresolved anger issues, turning discussions into personal vendettas. This aligns with traits seen in low emotional intelligence (EQ).
3. Cognitive biases in overdrive: Things like confirmation bias (only seeking info that supports their view) or black-and-white thinking make them dismiss opposing ideas outright, viewing disagreement as a personal affront rather than an intellectual challenge.
4. Manipulative or bad-faith tendencies: In some cases, it's a deliberate tactic to derail conversations, common in trolls, propagandists, or those with narcissistic traits who prioritize "winning" over truth-seeking. They might enjoy provoking reactions for entertainment or control.
5. Poor communication or conflict resolution skills: Often stemming from upbringing, education gaps, or social environments that reward aggression over dialogue, they haven't learned (or choose not to use) tools like active listening or constructive criticism.
These behaviors can be self-reinforcing, as they alienate thoughtful interlocutors and surround the person with echo chambers. If it's a habit, it might indicate deeper issues like anxiety disorders or even cluster B personality traits (e.g., borderline or antisocial tendencies), though that's speculative without clinical context. On the flip side, everyone slips into ad hominem occasionally under pressure—it's the refusal to engage that's the red flag.
On all topics we need to get the facts straight before we can have any meaningful conversations. Joe Rogan brings up two examples regarding immigration.
1. FAR more people were deported under Obama than under Trump I and II. Look it up or see the link in the comments.
2. Hillary Clinton position on illegal immigration in 2008: Re people in the US illegally,
If they've committed a crime, deport them, no questions asked. They're gone. If they are working and law abiding, we should say, "Here are the conditions for you staying: You have to pay a stiff fine because you came here illegally. You have to pay back taxes and you have to try to learn English. And you have to wait in line."
What changed after Hillary Clinton took this strong stand that would convince her to reverse her stand? And for most elected Democrats and their supporters, what changed? What changed that would reverse their positions on warmongering, censorship, immigration, COVID mandates, experimental transgender medical interventions and the "need" for primary school teachers to confuse their students about whether they are boys or girls? How is it possible that so many people would flip their positions without a massive revelation of new facts to justify the flip? I suspect that the mechanism is social contagion (of the type discussed by Abigail Shrier), but what was the driver of the contagion? I suspected it is the highly coordinated actions by NGOs, many of whom were financed through the federal government (though USAID). The evidence is starting to pour out, starting with the Twitter Files
Here are Grok's numbers of deportations under Trump and Obama:
During Barack Obama's presidency (2009-2017), the U.S. government carried out approximately 3 million formal removals (deportations) of noncitizens. This figure refers specifically to removals, which involve a formal court order and often carry long-term consequences like bars to reentry, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Some sources cite higher totals for Obama (around 5.3 million) when including voluntary returns at the border in addition to formal removals.During Donald Trump's first term (2017-2021), approximately 1.2 million noncitizens were formally removed. Other estimates put this at around 2.1 million when including returns.
As of late August 2025 (about seven months into Trump's second term), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had deported nearly 200,000 people. When including actions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Coast Guard, and self-deportations, the total rises to nearly 350,000 deportations since January 2025. By September 2025, this number would likely be slightly higher but still far below Obama's totals.
Overall, far more illegal immigrants were deported under Obama than under Trump's second term to date (or even his first term).
Rogan's conclusion, we are being subjected to a "massive concentrated psyop."
A psyop, short for psychological operation, refers to planned activities designed to influence the perceptions, emotions, attitudes, and behaviors of targeted audiences, often through the dissemination of information, propaganda, or other non-violent means. In a military context, psyops are used by armed forces—such as the U.S. Army's Psychological Operations (PSYOP) units—to convey selected messages that support strategic objectives, like persuading enemies to surrender or building support among allies. This can involve tactics such as leaflet drops, broadcasts, social media campaigns, or cultural engagements to shape opinions without direct combat.
The term is closely related to psychological warfare (sometimes called PSYWAR), which encompasses broader efforts to demoralize opponents or rally support using misinformation, rumors, or symbolic actions. Outside of official military use, "psyop" is sometimes invoked colloquially or in conspiracy theories to describe perceived manipulative campaigns by governments, media, or other entities, though this is more informal slang than a formal definition.
Also see Robert Malone's new book, Psywar.