How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

2025-11-1914:40358259www.joanwestenberg.com

Is There Still a Return on Being Reasonable?

Somewhere around 2016, the smartest people I knew started saying increasingly stupid things.

These were folks who could parse dense academic papers, who understood reason, who were entirely capable of holding two competing ideas in their heads without their brains short-circuiting.

One friend became “convinced” that every major news story was manufactured consent. Another started treating political disagreement as evidence of moral corruption. A third began using the word "liberal" as if it was a personality disorder rather than loose coalitions of sometimes contradictory beliefs.

The common thread: their extreme positions got them more of what they wanted. The friend who saw conspiracies everywhere built a following. Then an audience. Then a 7-figure income stream. The one who tribalized every issue found a ready-made community that validated every prior. Etc, etc.

The incentive gradient was clear: sanity was expensive, and extremism paid dividends.

We talk a lot about polarization as if it were a disease that infected society, but we’re missing a key data point: polarization is a growth hack, and it works.

When you pick a side and commit to it wholly and without reservation, you get things that moderate positions cannot provide. You get certainty in an uncertain world. You get a community that will defend you. You get a simple heuristic for navigating complex issues.

Above all: you get engagement, attention and influence.

The writer who says "this issue has nuance and I can see valid concerns on multiple sides" gets a pat on the head and zero retweets. The influencer who says "everyone who disagrees with me on this is either evil or stupid" gets quote-tweeted into visibility and gains followers who appreciate their approximation of clarity.

The returns on reasonableness have almost entirely collapsed.

The problem is what happens when everyone optimizes for the same short-term wins.

You end up in a world where changing your mind becomes impossible because you've built your entire identity around being right. Where admitting uncertainty is social suicide. Where every conversation is a performance for your tribe rather than an actual exchange of ideas. You lose the ability to solve problems that don't fit neatly into your ideological framework, which turns out to be most important problems.

Someone who goes all-in on ideological purity might start with a few strong opinions. Then those opinions attract an audience. That audience expects consistency. Any deviation gets punished. So they double down. They have to keep escalating to maintain their position, finding new heresies to denounce, new lines to draw. They've locked themselves into a trajectory they can't escape without losing everything they've built.

They're prisoners of their own brand.

Scale this up and you get a society where nobody can back down, where every disagreement = existential, where we've lost the ability to make tradeoffs // acknowledge complexity.

The incentives push us toward positions that feel good but make us collectively stupider.

And you can't opt out by just accepting your side lost.

You're stuck in stupid-world too.

  1. Start by diversifying your information diet in ways that feel actively uncomfortable. The goal isn't to agree with everything you read. You'll still think most of it is wrong. But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons. This sounds obvious when written out, but your social media feed has spent years training you to believe otherwise.

  2. Second, practice distinguishing between stakes and truth. Just because an issue matters doesn't mean every claim about it is correct, and just because you've picked a side doesn't mean you have to defend every argument your side makes. The tribal logic says you have to accept the whole package, but that logic is selling you certainty you haven't earned.

  3. Third, find (or at least, look for) communities that reward humility, not tribal loyalty. These are rare, but they exist. They're the group chats where someone can say "I changed my mind about this" without being treated like a traitor. They're the forums where "I don't know" is an acceptable answer. They're the relationships where you can test ideas without performing for an audience. You cannot be reasonable in isolation. You need a small group of people who value truth-seeking over status games, and you need to invest in those relationships deliberately.

That’s an individual choice.

You'll lose: reach, influence, certainty, the comfort of being part of something larger than yourself.

You'll gain: the ability to think clearly, the capacity to update your beliefs when evidence changes, relationships based on something other than shared enemies, and the possibility of being right in ways that matter.

These trades won't feel equivalent. The losses are immediate and visceral. The gains are distant and abstract. When you refuse to join the mob, you feel it right away. When you maintain your ability to think independently, the benefits accrue slowly over years.

The discount rate on sanity is brutal.

But consider the alternative.

The people I knew who went all-in on extremism got what they wanted in the short term. Some built audiences. Some found communities. Some gained certainty. Most of ‘em made bank. But they're trapped by their earlier positions. They can't update without admitting they were wrong, and admitting they were wrong would cost them their community. They've optimized themselves into a local maximum they can't escape. They won the game by its current rules and lost something harder to quantify.

The world will keep offering you bad trades, will keep rewarding positions you know are too simple to be true. Every day you'll watch people cash in their nuance for influence. Every day you'll be tempted to do the same. The only defense is to remember that some things compound differently than others.

Extremism gives you a fast start and a ceiling.

Sanity gives you a slow start and no limit to how far you can grow.

Remember: the world only rewards insanity because we're measuring the wrong timeframe.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By HeinzStuckeIt 2025-11-1915:146 reply

    The author writes, “You end up in a world where changing your mind becomes impossible because you've built your entire identity around being right”. Yet social-media personalities regularly do a 180° turn on some issue (e.g. pro-Ukraine to anti-Ukraine or vice versa) and still keep their following and ability to monetize it.

    Social media is full of parasocial relationships; followers are in love with an influencer’s personality, not their views or factual content. So, the influencer can completely change his mind about stuff, as long as he still has the engaging presentation that people have come to like. Followers are also often in love with the brand relationships that the influencers flog, because people love being told what stuff they should buy.

    • By alexachilles90 2025-11-1917:481 reply

      It's more about being confident and extreme on their stance no matter what it is at that particular moment. People are attracted to personalities that are confident and says they are right all the time. Heck, personalities like that gets all the influence in the workplace too. Imagine John Doe in your office who has a solution for every problem and knows the code base like the back of their hand. You might find that they are not so right all the time (maybe 2 out of 3 times it's pure conjecture) but gosh you will go back to him for solutions the next time you run into a problem. What I am saying is that we are attracted to the extreme, the flamboyant, the controversial. Maybe it's time we prioritize critical thinking for the future generation no?

      • By cal_dent 2025-11-1922:571 reply

        I see it as the continued corporatisation of everything. I suspect that you'd be hard press to find anyone who has ever been anywhere above middle-management in a corporate organisation who doesnt see, and chuckles at, the similarities in the worst places they've worked and this:

        "Where admitting uncertainty is social suicide. Where every conversation is a performance for your tribe rather than an actual exchange of ideas. You lose the ability to solve problems that don't fit neatly into your ideological framework, which turns out to be most important problems"

        Politics is the obvious one to see this effect in action but it's bled into so many facet of society now because society is one giant grey areas but our mediums don't like greys. The medium continues to be the message.

        • By lmm 2025-11-206:091 reply

          That's not corporatisation, it's basic human tribalism. If anything one of the the best things about corporations is that they can sometimes escape that kind of culture.

          • By cal_dent 2025-11-2018:07

            Sure but fwiw in 30 odd years in large corps, I’ve never come across any corp that doesn’t succumb to a sanitised form of basic tribalism

    • By JohnMakin 2025-11-1917:351 reply

      I have been a small content creator for 10 years now. I've been hampered a lot by actively discouraging these types of parasocial relationships - every now and then I'll get a gaggle of followers that spend entirely too much time on my crappy content or my personality/posts and I get extremely weirded out to the point I want to stop doing it entirely. Everyone tells me I'm doing it wrong, but I swear, 10 years ago it wasn't as much of a thing to create a cult around yourself on social media or streaming platforms. Now it's the primary monetization path.

      I've even gone so far to say to more than one person, "look, I like and appreciate you really like my content or my personality, but, you don't know me at all, I don't know you, and honestly, we're not friends, no matter how much you want that to be the case. That isn't to say I dislike you, but you need to be more realistic about the content you consume, and if this hurts your feelings a lot, I'm sorry, but this content probably isn't for you."

      Then there's the type of content creator that gets a following by being a huge jerk to their fans - I don't like that either. I just tell them to treat it like a TV show. It's not real, the character in the show doesn't know you or like you. Unfortunately for today's youth and media landscape this is an utterly foreign concept.

      • By sizzle 2025-11-1920:49

        Can we like and subscribe to you? Post the link

    • By astroflection 2025-11-1916:092 reply

      > Yet social-media personalities regularly do a 180° turn on some issue ... and still keep their following and ability to monetize it.

      And they asserted that they were totally right the entire time. That's how. And the sheep kept on following them.

      • By BLKNSLVR 2025-11-204:48

        There are / were a couple of right-wing shillers that were literally paid to promote Russian talking points and they just fit it right into their schtick without blinking.

        Nothing on the internet is real. If it wants money or opinion or attention, consider it hostile and try to find the strings (although it's generally not worth the time to try and find the strings, just move on and do something productive instead).

        https://www.npr.org/2024/09/05/nx-s1-5100829/russia-election...

    • By pengaru 2025-11-1916:031 reply

      People are also more isolated than ever, positioning them poorly for having robust real relationships. This makes them vulnerable to mistaking "influencers" as their friends.

      • By sandinmyjoints 2025-11-1917:16

        Yeah, "You cannot be reasonable in isolation" from the article really struck me.

    • By volkk 2025-11-1916:002 reply

      the words we use matter a lot. the "pro" and "anti" anything is a pretty large reason why all discourse has become so stupid sounding and talking with people about any issue is enraging. nuance is dead. the cultural zeitgeist is being controlled by algorithmic feeds that create neuroticism (i am definitely affected), general anxiety, and anger.

      • By robot-wrangler 2025-11-1919:111 reply

        My take on this is that persons are great, everyone should know a few. Groups of people on the other hand are, and always have been, genuinely pretty awful in almost every way. IMHO this is down to some really basic primate stuff that's just inevitable. Social media is a big problem because it makes it easier to create groups, and algorithms are a big problem because they essentially take all of the dynamics that would inevitably lead to conflict anyway, and accelerate them.

        Groups, algorithms, and conflict itself are all things that lead to wicked problems. Each one tends to spiral, where the only solution is more of the same, and if you escape one funnel then you fall into an adjacent one. Problem: Some group is against me. Solution: Create a group to bolster my strength. Problem: People are fighting. Solution: Join the fight so the fight will stop sooner. Problem: My code is too complicated to understand. Solution: More code to add logging and telemetry. Problem: Attempting to add telemetry has broken the code. Solution: Time to start a fight

        • By hamasho 2025-11-2012:31

            "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it"
          
          Quote from Men in Black

      • By EB-Barrington 2025-11-2011:48

        [dead]

    • By draw_down 2025-11-1915:27

      [dead]

  • By rsynnott 2025-11-1915:198 reply

    > But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.

    The idea that being articulate implies intelligence and/or sanity is very common, but really a bit weird. You can find plenty of articulate defences of, say, flat earth theory.

    • By y0eswddl 2025-11-1916:052 reply

      Ezra Klein's book why we're polarized cover this a bit and basically studies show that intelligence level has little to do with what people believe and more so just affects their ability to defend whichever position they already hold.

      • By mikepurvis 2025-11-1917:082 reply

        Indeed, and an articulate, confident defense can also be that much more insidious. I never found it hard to ignore obviously bad-faith talking heads on cable news, but when someone is on a podcast conversation with a host I like, it's much easier to nod along until that moment where they say something demonstrably false and I have to rewind my brain a minute or two to be like... wait a sec, what? How did you get to that position?

        • By jkmcf 2025-11-204:191 reply

          They were called Sophists in Ancient Greece and were despised by Socrates because their arguments were based, not on truth or facts, but whatever rhetoric would convince the audience.

          • By simpaticoder 2025-11-204:29

            Yes, and the antithesis of rhetoric is reason.

            The quality I value in myself (and others when I find it) is a bias to doubt evidence of things I already believe, and to accept proof of things I do not believe. The bias isn't strong (that way lies madness!), but it makes your mental model of the world stronger. It's also a much better filter than "intelligent", "polite" or "articulate", which are all orthogonal to the kind of rational, open skepticism I advocate. The big downside is that such qualities are subtle and hard to judge. Tribal affiliation is, for all its faults, easy to measure.

            Another point of optimism: being a persecuted (or neglected) minority can have some positive effects, if you can find your people.

        • By vacuity 2025-11-1921:40

          And in a classic stroke of Gell-Mann amnesia, if you're questioning what you just heard, how much should you trust what you were hearing five minutes ago?

      • By hexator 2025-11-1916:271 reply

        Speaking of people who are very articulate and also very wrong.

        • By y0eswddl 2025-11-1916:32

          in general, maybe - In not a fan of how sycophantic he's gotten... but this was just the citing of outside studies, not his personal opinion.

    • By thisisbrians 2025-11-1917:432 reply

      Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting the Sun, for example.

      • By atmavatar 2025-11-1918:091 reply

        The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author.

        I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author.

        The original claim was:

        > But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with you without being monsters or morons.

        In truth, it does no such thing. Articulate arguments serve neither as proof the person making it isn't a monster nor that they are particularly intelligent or knowledgeable about that which they argue.

        Though, I would also point out that monsters can occasionally be right as well.

        • By LorenPechtel 2025-11-2120:48

          I think he's using the wrong word here. "Articulate" isn't enough. What you need to do is compare the arguments from both sides about the subject, especially how they address specific things. Who is using facts, who is using emotions? How do claims stand up to time?

      • By spencerflem 2025-11-1918:00

        For example, the author is articulate and wrong about needing to give consideration to republicans :p

    • By lazide 2025-11-1915:232 reply

      However, there are fewer articulate (and internally consistent) defenses of flat earth theory, than say… particle physics. In my experience.

      Plenty of timecube style ones, however.

      • By rsynnott 2025-11-1915:39

        That's true, but if you want one, you can find one. If you've conditioned yourself to think that articulate==credible, then sometimes it only takes one.

      • By whatshisface 2025-11-1917:47

        Yes, and this is not just due to the intelligence of the "believers" but due to the fact that describing 2=2=2 in a self-consistent way only takes understanding it while describing 2=2=3 in a way that appears self-consistent requires a true rhetorical genius.

    • By astura 2025-11-2013:48

      Yeah, that really stood out to me, I feel certain positions are monstrous no matter how articulately stated. Saying something really mean in a more palatable way doesn't make it (or the speaker) less mean.

      This seems like a cognitive bias on the author that they are mistaken for universal truth.

    • By morellt 2025-11-1918:30

      Absolutely agree. Many, many abhorrent ideas and perspectives are accepted very often due to them being deliberately well thought-out and appearing more "academic" sounding to the layperson. There are entire organizations (colloquially, "think-tanks") dedicated to writing pamphlets, books, and memos filled with eloquent in-depth talking points that get distributed to their respective talking heads. I can't blame many people today for seeing this problem as the foundation of all mainstream media, instead of taking the time to individually investigate each source of information. However it does lead to this "everything is the opposite of what we're told" hysteria the author talks about

    • By corpMaverick 2025-11-1915:501 reply

      Not all the flat earthers are true believers. Some are there just for the attention or other motives.

    • By dylan604 2025-11-1916:011 reply

      Even with the number of articulate examples like this are far out numbered by the number of inarticulate arguments that the rule still has merit. Exceptions do not make the rule bad.

      • By Kye 2025-11-2012:47

        A good rule can be a bad heuristic. In my experience this one misleads more often than it informs.

    • By potato3732842 2025-11-1916:121 reply

      >The idea that being articulate implies intelligence and/or sanity is very common, but really a bit weird. You can find plenty of articulate defences of, say, flat earth theory.

      The author has to say this because the consumers of the author's content would stop being right if the author was constantly dropping truth bombs like "being articulate doesn't make you right" they wouldn't get liked, retweeted, shared, and circle jerked about in the comment section on the front page of HN.

      Literally every content creating person or company with an established fan base is in this quandary. If Alex Jones said "hey guys the government is right about this one" or Regular Car Reviews said "this Toyota product is not the second coming of christ" they'd hemorrhage viewers and money so they cant say those things no matter how much they personally want to. Someone peddling platitudes to people who fancy themselves intellectuals can't stop any more than a guy who's family business is concrete plants can't just decide one day to do roofing.

      • By beepbooptheory 2025-11-1916:382 reply

        Alex Jones literally did this though starting around 2016.

        This is a strong argument probably but strangely aimed here. Reading the article, it does seem like you and the author agree about everything in this regard? You are kind of just rearticulating one part of their argument as critique about them. Why?

        Or where do we place the reflex here? What triggered: this author is BS, is pseudointellectual, is bad. We jump here from a small note about articulation and intelligence, to what seems like this massive opportunity to attack not only that argument, but the author, the readers, everyone. Why? Does the particular point here feel like a massive structural weakness?

        What was the trigger here for you, for lack of better word? Why such a strong feeling?

        • By Karrot_Kream 2025-11-1918:45

          There are YouTubers that have talked about their struggle to change content that they discuss in their channels. The general advice is, make a new channel for a new topic because of how fans and their attention work. One YouTuber I occasionally watch talked about how they at first got hate mail when changing their topic because people in their old topic perceived the YouTuber to be one of the only voices in that field.

          My guess is Alex Jones is actually a big enough personality to be able to have a brand independent of his ideas. Not every creator has that luxury.

        • By potato3732842 2025-11-1917:031 reply

          Not every internet comment is a disagreement with what it's replying to.

          The entire "media intended for voluntary casual consumption" industry is rife with these sorts of "gotta keep doing what you're known for" traps. Pretty much every industry with minimal product differentiation is like this to varying extents. Sorry my examples weren't completely devoid of exceptions <eyeroll>.

          Anyway, two can play this stupid game. Why is it such a problem that I'm alleging this content is basically scratching the same itch in the same way as tabloids but for different demographics? Why do you feel the need to make this out to be an attack on everyone rather than a narrowly targeted "the world do be the way it is" criticism?

          • By beepbooptheory 2025-11-1918:00

            I don't really think its a problem and didn't indicate as such. Its why I was asking questions, trying to reconcile arguments, and overall not trying to assume one way or the other. But I can see I somehow have wasted your time regardless, sorry about that!

            For everything else, sorry, I really don't know what you are saying, but your kind of righteous anger at the author is something I can certainly respect even if I am not quite sure what context you are coming from here. "Media intended for voluntary casual consumption" seems to be a pretty wide net.. what are you trying distinguish with that phrase? Media whose consumption is compulsory and not casual.. Maybe like educational/job training videos I guess? Instructional manuals? Also, what is the author here known for, that they have to keep doing? Really trying to parse here, is it maybe just "being intellectual"?

            Small aside, but it's easier to talk to my cat recently then to try and use any form of prose to communicate something successfully on HN. The breakdown of communication is almost surreal these days and I don't even know what to point to. Threads get like 3 levels deep and it just becomes a mess! While never perfect, this used to be such a great place for deep discussion, whats changing?

  • By Bukhmanizer 2025-11-1916:566 reply

    As a long time proponent of reasonable-ism I disagree with a lot of this. The assumption that a lot of our problems stem from 2 sides just seeing an issue differently is just nonsense in this day and age.

    The big Problem, is that one side has slid heavily into authoritarianism, and the other side is completely ill-equipped to fight it.

    On any particular issue, the right will say whatever gets them more Power, and the left will bring out some sort of philosophy professor to try and pick apart the nuances of the conversation.

    • By spencerflem 2025-11-1917:57

      For real. Honestly, the idea that all people are good and caring and just see things differently is the comforting lie.

      I really really want to believe it. You get to feel happy about humanity, smarter than all the hysterical people, etc,

      It took so so so much evil from the Republicans to convince me that they are Not a reasonable side, do Not warrant any consideration, and that people who follow them Are morally corrupt.

    • By scuff3d 2025-11-206:523 reply

      I was thinking about this while reading the article. 15 years ago I prided myself on actively searching out opposing views and engaging with them. I still do that in the small scale, talking with coworkers or friends who have opposing views, but where the fuck can you find any reasonable conservative commentators these days. What are the most prominent voices? People like Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder? They don't have an intellectually honest bone in their body.

      How the hell can you even get a balanced view in terms of news/media you consume when one side is dominated by lunatics and bad actors.

      • By immibis 2025-11-2110:22

        At this point isn't the balanced view simply the non-conservative view?

        Don't listen to Democrat party propaganda either of course, but there's much less of that and it's slightly more aligned with reality.

      • By disgruntledphd2 2025-11-207:35

        Oren Cass and Commonplace are pretty good writers on the US Republican side.

      • By throwaway31131 2025-11-2018:072 reply

        I'm not familiar with Ben Shapiro or Steven Crowder but what makes you so sure that their point of view is unreasonable? It seems you agree that their viewpoint is opposing, which likely means their premise are different, so isn't it entirely possible that their conclusion is reasonable and logical when one starts from their position?

        Also, there isn't one source that can represent the "conservative" viewpoint because there isn't one conservative viewpoint. There are many factions within the Republican party with sometimes shockingly different points of view. Just like the Democratic party representing the "liberal" agenda.

        I could just as easily ask, where is the one source I go to get an understanding of the liberal agenda? (Just a rhetorical question, I actually don't follow the news and don't plan to.)

        • By immibis 2025-11-2110:23

          Sure. When you start from the axiom that people unlike yourself are evil and must be harmed at all costs, you might end up near those positions. However, most people don't have that axiom, and we shouldn't attempt to compromise those who do, but should fence them (as in a distributed system fencing failed nodes).

        • By danlivingston 2025-11-2023:44

          How can you speak on this conversation at all if you're not familiar with anything?

    • By LorenPechtel 2025-11-2120:55

      And you don't realize there are problems on both sides?

    • By hughdangus 2025-11-1917:01

      [dead]

HackerNews