Applied Epistemics #2: Schrodinger’s Truth and the Conditioning of Doublethink

Applied Epistemics #2: Schrodinger’s Truth and the Conditioning of Doublethink

Applied Epistemics #2: Schrodinger’s Truth and the Conditioning of Doublethink

How perpetual narrative superposition prepares populations for cognitive surrender.

I. The Environment of Permanent Ambiguity

There was a time when contradiction still felt like a rupture—like a sign something had gone wrong in the system. A lie exposed, a politician caught in hypocrisy, an empire forced to reveal its violence. These moments once produced a kind of clarifying shock. The mask fell away, and for a brief second, people glimpsed the machinery underneath.

But in the 21st century, the machinery has learned how to incorporate the exposure into its performance. Contradiction doesn’t break the system anymore. It is the system.

We live inside a cognitive habitat where every belief, no matter how incompatible, can be both true and false—so long as it remains useful. This is what I call Schrodinger’s Truth. It is the strategic normalization of narrative superposition: the deliberate maintenance of contradictory claims, floating in an unresolved state until some authority or tribal consensus demands that you pick one.

And even when you pick one, it’s only temporary. The contradiction will be reactivated when it suits the next cycle.

You can see this most clearly in the American treatment of Israel. The same institutions and public figures will tell you, without irony, that Israel is a beacon of liberal democracy and also that Israel is a necessary ethnostate to preserve Jewish sovereignty. That it is a secular bulwark against religious extremism and simultaneously a chosen people fulfilling a religious destiny. That its military is the most moral in the world and also that its constant indiscriminate shelling is an unfortunate but unavoidable necessity.

None of these positions are stable. None are designed to be. The point isn’t to convince you of a single reality. The point is to accustom you to the idea that reality itself is provisional—subject to endless toggling by whoever has the largest megaphone.

In this environment, ambiguity becomes not an aberration, but a normal climate. And as any biologist can tell you, when an organism is forced to live in a new climate, it adapts—whether or not the adaptation is good for it in the long term.

II. The Code-Switching of Belief

When you live in permanent ambiguity, you learn to protect yourself by becoming a different kind of creature. You become a person who keeps every possible position partially alive in your mind, just in case you have to pivot on command.

This is the code-switching of belief.

We usually talk about code-switching in terms of language or identity—when marginalized people have to adapt how they speak, dress, or express themselves to avoid punishment from dominant groups. But code-switching also happens in the epistemic domain.

If you’re a leftist in a conservative region, you know this intuitively. You learn to scan every room before you speak. You gauge which phrases are safe and which will end the conversation or make you a target. If you’re a liberal in a libertarian workplace, you learn to frame your arguments in economic terms—never in moral ones. If you’re a conservative in a progressive institution, you keep your criticisms of identity politics zipped up, and you rehearse disclaimers so you can express doubt without being accused of bigotry.

And if you have any critique of Israel, you learn to measure your words like a bomb technician—too strong, and you’ll be smeared as an antisemite; too soft, and you’ll be dismissed as unserious.

This code-switching is adaptive. It keeps you employed. It keeps you socially safe. But it also teaches you, in a thousand small, invisible lessons, that your own convictions are less important than the tribal consensus around you.

It teaches you that clarity is dangerous. That consistency is naïve. That any belief, no matter how sincerely held, must be kept in a kind of epistemic quarantine—alive but hidden, in case you need to deny it later.

Over time, you start to forget which version you really believe.

III. The Mirage of Resolution

One of the reasons this environment is so exhausting is that it never allows for the relief of finality. Every time you think a contradiction is about to resolve—every time you see a debate that looks like it will end decisively—something intervenes to maintain the ambiguity.

A pro-Palestinian protest produces thousands of photos of murdered children. The image circulates. It gains momentum. Even some liberal outlets cautiously acknowledge the scale of the violence. For a moment, it feels like the truth has breached the narrative perimeter. Like clarity is inevitable.

And then, within days, a fresh wave of reframing appears:

  • “It’s complicated.”

  • “It’s not genocide—it’s war.”

  • “Hamas hides behind civilians.”

  • “This was fact-checked by an independent outlet (with undisclosed ties to Israeli PR).”

  • “Actually, the whole image was probably staged.”

The new talking points don’t have to be persuasive. They only have to be plausible enough to reopen the ambiguity.

And the minute the ambiguity returns, the system wins. Because ambiguity—contrary to what you’ve been told—doesn’t create critical thinking. It creates exhaustion.

It creates a state in which people learn to wait for the next consensus rather than demand clarity now.

This is why the marketplace of ideas is a mirage. The marketplace pretends to be an arena where the best argument will prevail, but in reality, it is a carousel of ambiguity, each horse labeled with a different truth, circling forever while you wait for the ride to end.

But it doesn’t end.

It’s designed not to end.

IV. Parasocial Collapse and Instant Reversal

In a system this disorienting, the average person will eventually seek relief in someone else’s certainty.

That’s why we have the influencer phenomenon: thousands of people outsourcing their cognitive burden to a charismatic figure. Joe Rogan. Tucker Carlson. Hasan Piker. Chapo Trap House. Whoever.

These figures do not merely offer opinions. They serve as parasocial collapse points.

When the ambiguity becomes intolerable, when you can no longer keep all the contradictory truths alive in your head, you wait for your chosen authority to declare which version you’re allowed to believe.

And because their pronouncements are ephemeral, the process becomes recursive:

  • Rogan says Israel is democracy.

  • His audience repeats it.

  • Rogan says Israel is imperialism.

  • His audience repeats that, too.

There is no introspection about the reversal. No reckoning with why you believed the first version. Just a collective pivot, justified by the affective bond between authority and follower.

This is how Schrodinger’s Truth becomes a functional ideology. It doesn’t matter which position you pick today, because tomorrow you’ll pick the opposite one, and your tribe will validate the switch.

If you’ve ever argued online with someone who flipped their position mid-thread, then denied they ever held the first one, you’ve seen this in action.

The contradiction isn’t accidental. It’s an operational necessity. Because if every truth can be reversed, no truth can ever be held as evidence against power.

V. From Superposition to Doublethink

It is tempting to think you’re immune. To imagine that your literacy, your critical thinking, your emotional discipline protect you from this dynamic.

But every time you reflexively hedge your statement, every time you say “it’s complicated” when it isn’t, every time you withhold your clarity to preserve your social position, you are participating in the process that makes doublethink inevitable.

Here’s how it happens:

First, you learn to hold two contradictory positions in your mind.
Then, you learn to switch between them depending on context.
Eventually, you forget that you ever expected them to reconcile.
And finally, you accept that both are true—because no authority ever forced you to choose.

At that point, you have entered internal doublethink. The quiet, unspoken consensus that reality is too fluid, too unstable, too tribal to ever be fully named.

It doesn’t feel like surrender. It feels like maturity. It feels like you’ve become nuanced, sophisticated, post-ideological.

But you haven’t. You’ve just learned to make peace with incoherence.

And in that peace, you have forfeited your right to say that anything is categorically true.

VI. The Relegitimization That Never Arrives

The system that produces Schrodinger’s Truth also promises that, someday, it will resolve. That if you wait long enough, if you stay moderate enough, if you keep your mind open enough, clarity will emerge naturally.

The phrase “it’s complicated” is used as an indefinite suspension of judgment—an excuse to defer moral commitment until all the evidence is in.

But the evidence is never in. The narrative market ensures that every new fact is contested, every new witness is impeached, every new argument is buried under performative rebuttals.

The effect is a permanent cognitive purgatory.

And in that purgatory, the moral urgency that would force you to act is dissipated. The clarity that would allow you to risk something is neutralized.

This is the ultimate design: a system that makes you think you are being cautious when you are really just being contained.

Relegitimization—the rebuilding of a coherent, shared reality—is always framed as just over the horizon.

But you will never reach it if you expect it to be delivered to you by the same authorities who profit from your confusion.

Conclusion: Clarity as a Practice, Not a Gift

In a landscape defined by Schrodinger’s Truth, the most radical act is to collapse the waveform yourself.

To look at a contradiction and refuse to pretend it’s complicated. To acknowledge when one side is lying, even if it costs you the approval of your tribe. To hold your clarity in public, without apology.

This isn’t about being dogmatic or unreflective. It’s about reclaiming the expectation that reality can be named. That truth, while provisional, is not infinitely malleable. That coherence is not a luxury but a discipline.

Because the alternative is to drift further into a culture where sincerity itself is treated as a liability—where every conviction is a mask you wear until the next reversal, and where no belief is ever stable enough to anchor solidarity, accountability, or revolt.

If you want to be free, you cannot wait for clarity to be gifted to you by someone else’s consensus. You have to build it, moment by moment, from the wreckage of all the contradictory stories you were told to keep in suspension.

That’s what makes clarity revolutionary in the age of Schrodinger’s Truth.

Not that it is perfect.
But that it is yours.

Back to blog