Welcome! Are you wondering how to find out accurately what is going on in the world? This page is for you! Together, we will eliminate the confusion and misinformation on what research entails. Whether you are a professional in whatever discipline, or simply someone who wants to navigate the information overload in this world, I hope you will find this useful.
About my research
I’m Dan and I founded this movement. After being appalled by some of the goings on in the world and realising that some things I grew up to believe were not correct, I embarked on a very long term and ambitious research project. My ultimate question is how do we make the world a better place.
To come up with a way to improve the world, a non negotiable requirement is to have a good understanding of how the world works. I don’t unquestioningly believe what we are taught in schools, in my own upbringing and in popular understanding. This means that I have had to pretty much research every discipline across science through history and politics and economics. No subject is off the table, including spiritual and esoteric ones.
My research is targeted at making tangible change in the world, not at adding to the dizzying array of published literature. I have published aspects of my research in specific circles for the aims at starting projects, but I haven’t published the whole picture. Doing so would be a phenomenal effort and yield a series of books, and I’d rather spend my time accomplishing genuine change.
In some subjects, I have created new models and made discoveries that I don’t think have been made before. In others, I tout established ways of thinking about them. Some of my findings are controversial. Some of them are not. Some of my research is relatively technical, and some of it can be explained to a seven year old without difficulty. Much of it is based on underlying themes of how various subjects are connected.
I can summarise the most useful things I have found in a few paragraphs.
- There is not an existing way of thinking that is a hundred percent correct. Not scientific, spiritual, political ‘left’ or ‘right’ leaning, conspiracy or otherwise.
- Science is less complicated than it is presented. Some mainstream scientific beliefs are completely unfounded. Many are extremely good, many more are badly explained
- Subjects are far more interconnected than most people believe, with basic scientific concepts reaching in to humanities for example
- The basic principles of control (regarding regimes and the system) are universal and not particularly complicated
- People on different sides of political divide have far more common ground than they think they do
- Some ‘conspiracy theories’ are correct. Some are utter nonsense. Some are partially correct, or badly presented
- Many spiritual or esoteric sounding subjects can be verified scientifically. They work through scientific principles, not by bypassing them
- There are many perspectives of the world that work, and many different ways accurate information can be presented
- There is a lot that I cannot explain
Teach me something!
I have been in this game for a decade. Can you prove me completely wrong about something, or show me a perspective that works better? Absolutely! If you learn to research, but adjust it to your own perspective and ways of seeing the world, you will probably come up with something that I haven’t thought of. You probably already know something I don’t.
Be bold and challenge people. I don’t care how many letters they have after their name or how ‘intelligent’ they are. Don’t assume that someone knows what they are talking about. Brainy academic types are as thick as a plank of wood in certain regards, and occasionally they realize this. I sound academic (sometimes) and can cope with technical subjects, but I have no degree and I have to translate academic literature into basic English in order to understand it. I have had a child correct me on rocket science before!
Understanding the basics of how to do general research means you can audit yourself for bias and incorrect belief systems. You don’t have to be nose deep in books and spend years studying in order to get an improved understanding of the world. General research feels natural and intuitive. By following these methods (or even adjusting them), you can very quickly get to a level where you can correct me on certain areas. Why? Because your perspective is unique and can see blind spots that I can’t!
If you think you’re right, you’re probably wrong
Step one is to get that ego in check! Almost everyone thinks their opinions are correct. Why? Because it feels correct. If a load of contradictory opinions are held by people who feel their opinion is correct, something has to give!
Sometimes our opinions are flat out wrong. More often than not, they are partially correct. The bits that are correct are quite convincing for obvious reasons. An opinion, or complex set of opinions, comes from our environment, so a set will usually have a mixture of objectively true elements and wrong ones. Most people will take the set as true because some elements of it are obviously correct. Don’t fall for this trap!
I have frequently been wrong. I grew up in my own environment with my own set of opinions, for them to be demolished time and time again in the face of contradictory evidence and different perspectives. It’s an uncomfortable feeling, but one that I now associate with greater knowledge. Believing something that is factually wrong is never an advantage to someone committed to the truth, and the truth can always face challenges from a different perspective.
Know thyself
Accurate research that is geared towards a general understanding rather than a specific specialty is less about intensive study and more about awareness of ones own bias. In fact, there is often more eliminating than finding out. The feelings you get when you approach different subjects, and being aware of them, are extremely important. They can lead you to right or ruin.
As importantly to understand is that your perspective is unique and valuable. It is the gateway through what all evidence comes in. The self is the primary tool of a researcher, and we are all different. That means that you might be able to come up with a unique answer to a problem. Don’t worry if you’re not a boffin with a bulging forehead, I have met intelligent people who look and sound like they grew up in a barn! I have also met many, many, nerds with letters after their name who are hilariously clueless as to how the world works. If you think you’re stupid, you probably aren’t in many respects, so don’t be afraid to question people.
The primary source of information is through how we perceive the world. Take a list of data and it goes through the eyes, or ears if it is read out. If reality is an illusion, we still have perception and whatever we can make with that. Your personal experience in this world isn’t something minor – it is the most important thing for you as a researcher. It is your primary information bank. Other people’s experiences matter too, quite substantially in fact. But awareness of other people’s experiences comes from your own; for example, your memory of that deep conversation or reading their story online.
As the self is the primary tool of a researcher, you have to have some self awareness. It doesn’t have to be perfect, don’t worry! You don’t have to delve into the deepest depths of the soul and emerge a pure being of light. I have achieved quite a lot with very imperfect self awareness, but I have generally known how I feel when presented with contradictory information. Accurate research, when it comes to a broad landscape, involves plenty of discomfort, and it involves being wrong. You need to be able to come to terms with your own bias at the very minimum.
Objective reality versus faith
You don’t have to ditch your religion and culture and become some boring sod like myself! Actually, I do have my own beliefs that I cannot objectively prove, but I somehow find helpful. Faith is like a colour for your research. It is part of your individual perspective, and remember how valuable I said our individual perspectives were? Faith is something that doesn’t rely on objective proof, and doesn’t pretend to.
I personally think there is an objective truth to the world, but I might be wrong. More importantly than finding this is finding a perspective of the truth that suits you. This isn’t just about religion. It can come through cultural background as a whole, which includes, for example, political leanings and the like. The perspective element can be separated from the objective, it is totally possible to have, for example, a left or right wing perspective whilst heavily questioning aspects of these leanings.
Religious or political dogmatism to the point where it feels rigid and intolerant of other perspectives will not stand up in the world of genuine research. Trust me on this. Don’t confuse this with faith.
The golden rule
A conclusion isn’t proved by the weight of evidence, but by just enough evidence and the continuing absence of contradiction.
If two things you believe nakedly contradict each other, at least one of them is wrong. Maybe the whole framework of your belief system is wrong. Whatever your rough guesstimate of how the world works is, it needs to be internally consistent. It needs to be consistent with external fact as well. A piece of evidence can pop up and contradict an entire belief system. Don’t panic if this happens! It is uncomfortable, but just re-evaluate what you believe. Maybe be more flexible.
A mental framework of the world around cannot contradict itself, and it cannot be contradicted by observation. This is the golden rule. By ignoring this, it is literally possible to spend a lifetime collecting ‘evidence’ for a completely wrong conclusion. Let this sink in.
Be comfortable with uncertainty, and explore
‘Based on the evidence, there is a high probability that this conclusion is correct.’ This should be a comfortable thought, although maybe it sounds less square in your head. For a researcher who wants to find out roughly what is going on in the world, it is quicker to get things looking more or less correct and then move on than it is to dot the i’s and cross the t’s. Doing this gives an intuitive picture of what is generally going on. The golden rule is here for exactly this.
By using the golden rule, quickly getting a rough idea of a subject and moving on eliminates wrong conclusions fairly quickly. The trick is, is that your general understanding of reality has to be flexible, and never assume you are definitely right. Where new evidence doesn’t fit with an existing belief, you simply go back to what you think you know and start adjusting things. Treat the world of knowledge as a playing field or a canvas, be playful with it!
Anchor points
An anchor point is a conclusion, or a statement of overall fact, that is extremely difficult to contradict. When playing with your concept of the world around, your anchor points will be the slowest to change, if at all.
An example of an anchor point for myself is that I am having an experience in this reality. For example, regardless of whether we are in a matrix – style simulation, I am having the experience of typing on a laptop right now. I perceive pain when I spill scalding coffee on my leg (again). The fact that I am experiencing this reality cannot be contradicted by any philosophical drivel, and no piece of evidence will contradict it.
‘X is morally wrong’ is not an anchor point. ‘Event Y happened because everyone believes that’ is not an anchor point. ‘The overwhelming majority of people in this reality wear clothes when out and about’ is an anchor point, but morality associated with nudity isn’t. When being creative and adjusting your worldview, basic observations like that most people wear clothes are not likely to change.
There can be a hierarchy of anchor points. For example, that I am having an experience in some time-space reality will never change, even if some scenario shows that this ‘reality’ is somehow not ‘real’. For some, an unlikely scenario could crop up that questions the anchor point. With the clothes scenario, perhaps I am under some serious delusion, or there are more hidden civilizations that don’t wear clothes. Both these scenarios are highly unlikely, so for practical purposes this is an anchor point.
Learn to be wrong – a lot!
The definition of ‘learning’ when it comes to navigating a confusing world involves being wrong, and adjusting to be right. I have been in this game for ten years, and I have been wrong a lot. Additionally, when I have been somewhat correct I have found better perspectives of the issue.
If you adamantly think you know best on most things, you probably don’t. Rigid opinions are the bane of research, as you will have no doubt figured out by now a flexible mindset that is open to adjustment (or overhaul) is a non-negotiable trait. Most people get a very uncomfortable feeling at the prospect of being wrong, and I am not exception. However, discomfort is not always a bad thing.
When you go to the gym to work out, it is uncomfortable. People who build their bodies to be what they want them to be assign a different meaning to discomfort, they associate it with growth and can even get pleasure out of it. Researchers in a specific, non-controversial avenue don’t have to deal discomfort so much, but when getting an overall picture of the world it is an integral part of the process.
Being wrong and adjusting accordingly is not an attack on character. It doesn’t make you stupid, quite the opposite. The people who doggedly think they are right (when they are not) will be stuck in their bubble until they die or reality slaps them in the face. Reality did slap me in the face a few times! You’re the one who is self aware, learning and discovering. By continuously being wrong, being open and adjusting your beliefs you will become more knowledgeable than the vast majority of the population.
Learn to recognize group-think
Humans are a social species. A lot of our motivation is to find acceptance and confluence with people, and to avoid conflict. This is instinctive behaviour. Groups, large and small, develop their own set of beliefs. My perspective of the world is heavily influenced by these underlying social instincts, and so is yours. Those who are arrogant enough to think this is not the case are poorly suited to research.
Incidently, this applies to the groups and belief systems who’s primary basis is that they are non-conformist or open minded. I’m sure people in these groups know who they are. They would even talk about group think themselves, and slate other people for being susceptible to it. If you think you are not vulnerable to bias, you most certainly are!
The reality is that there is no belief system or ideology that is a hundred percent correct. This applies to political leanings, spiritual thought, conspiracy beliefs, scientific perspectives and anything else you can imagine. They often have correct aspects, even quite a lot of them. Even perspectives that are technically correct could benefit from some critical evaluation and adjustment. If you are looking for the existing set of beliefs that is correct, it doesn’t exist!
What are the symptoms of group think?
- Stigma about believing in or curiosity towards alternative perspectives
- A ‘vibe’ of what opinions are correct and acceptable and what are not
- Evidence, or apparent evidence, that supports the general set of beliefs is accepted without much question, whereas that which opposes it is subject to more scrutiny or outright dismissed
When someone’s belief system is primarily based on group-think, it looks obvious to others. I can spot this even in people I mostly agree with! There is a certain vibe about the person, at least when they are expressing ‘their’ opinions. Whether these are right or wrong isn’t the point, because having a perspective narrowed by what will bring confluence to a group limits the potential for understanding regardless. Even seemingly correct viewpoints need to be challenged.
However, that does not mean that it is ‘wrong’ to be part of a group, or consider yourself part of a belief system. It will only limit you if you let it. The trick is to have this perspective with an open mind and not believe that this is all there is. Groups developing their own perspective of the word can be an extraordinarily powerful thing if done with a flexible collective mind. Don’t think for a second that you need to outright ditch any sort of named belief, just have it mindfully.
Learn to recognize insecurity
Emotions are important. Someone with basic self awareness and basic emotional intelligence is far more suited to general research than a high achieving academic type who couldn’t recognize his own insecurity if it slapped him across the face with a wet fish. I don’t care if you couldn’t pass an exam to save your mother’s life! Academia is well suited to research specialties, but not for getting a general understanding of the world.
When a contradictory viewpoint is presented, often an uncomfortable feeling can be felt in the gut. This ultimately stems from insecurity. Awareness of this is your strength. I have been in the game for over a decade and I haven’t ‘graduated’ from these feelings! They are a signal to strengthen certain areas of my understanding and a valuable tool.
Why the insecurity? Finding out that something we believe is ‘wrong’ is seen as some sort of attack on the ego. Contradicting what we believe causes discomfort, and when something threatens to do so it initiates the discomfort ahead of time. Don’t confuse these feelings with actually being wrong, you might not be. Additionally, there could be taboo involve, or something that seemingly risks you being judged or ostracized by your social circle (one of the mechanics of groupthink). The perspective that is causing these feelings could be aligned to a group that has caused trauma somehow, this is a common dynamic of ‘right’ versus ‘left’ perspectives. It could even be related to personal dynamics, for example trauma from childhood.
How do we deal with insecurity in research? A solid basis in your belief largely eliminates it. When you know your perspective on the world and what evidence it is based on, seemingly contradictory opinions won’t upset any equilibrium. This doesn’t feel like a rigid ‘I’m right, you are wrong’. Listening with openness and compassion to a contradictory viewpoint yields useful information without challenging your conclusion – if said conclusion is solidly based.
Where does evidence and information come from?
Go back to the self. From my perspective, the prime anchor point is that you are having an experience. Every single aspect of your own experience is a piece of evidence. Listening to someone else’s experience ultimately happens through your own experience. That is evidence also. If someone writes convincingly about a subject, your experience reading that is a piece of evidence, even if they have gotten a couple of things wrong.
Let’s say somebody has an opinion, and that opinion is completely wrong. Is what they say ‘evidence’? Yes and no. That somebody has a completely wrong opinion is a piece of the puzzle, but their opinion isn’t evidence towards that opinion being correct. Now lets say someone writes extremely convincingly about a subject, with fantastic internal consistency, but some of the evidence they go on isn’t something you can personally verify one way or another. This is evidence towards their viewpoint, but not conclusively. Uncertainty is part of the game here.
Someone else’s experience is a big piece of the puzzle. Their opinions are less so (but still important). If someone experiences something and tells you, they are either lying or not. People can misremember things, but you should be careful dismissing people’s experience as dishonesty or delusion. If multiple people have similar experiences, that is a fairly solid piece of evidence.
A scientific study that comes to a certain conclusion can either be evidence of that conclusion or not. If you are not a hundred percent sure how they came to that conclusion, don’t take it as gospel. If the evidence in the study does not support that conclusion, that is evidence of bad practice. Apparent complexity can often hide bad practice. If the study or experiment makes sense, clearly supports the conclusion and better yet has been repeated, that is very solid evidence. Observation of reality is ultimately the best litmus test of scientific phenomena – Newtonian physics, for example, can easily be observed and tested.
Verifying every single claim would take multiple lifetimes. This is what the golden rule is for. If I can’t prove that a well accepted historical event happened, I personally assume it probably did until contradictory evidence comes into play. Ultimately, general research is less about actively collecting evidence and more about sorting it.
Does it make sense?
I recommend making use of other researchers, but taking them with a pinch of salt. Let them do some of the work for you for the price of a book! Bear in mind, something I commonly find is that they are correct in many things, but demonstrably wrong in others. This is fine – just take the good bits!
Generally, people who know their subject can explain it well. Information that you don’t understand is almost useless, so don’t get mired down trying to understand something too complicated. Complexity is often seen as if the subject is beyond the understanding of most people and those who are studying it are smart. This is sometimes the case, but often the reality is that said boffin is actually a bit confused.
Incorrect belief systems (or agendas) combined with genuine research is often the culprit. For example, someone explaining a political situation who believes something that is not true about the issue has to do an array of mental gymnastics, and that is why they are difficult to understand.
Oversimplifying things is also a problem. This is used in political agendas where the goal is to get support for something rather than to explain it correctly. Look for simple statements that are polarizing and emotive. It can also look true. ‘x causes y’ might be supported by observation at face value, but there could be a lot more involved that isn’t being mentioned. Oversimplifying can actually coincide with over-complicating – look for the aforementioned simplistic statement followed by drivel!
If someone explains something well, you can keep an eye out for complimentary or contradictory evidence. It engages the intuitive side of your brain, which is the one that can spot patterns or break them. You can probably read five easy to understand books in the time it takes to read one book of overly complicated nonsense. Reality is moderately complicated – it can’t be very well summed up in a phrase, but having a general understanding (even of science) isn’t out of the realms of possibility for most people.
Look for patterns
All subjects on the planet are very much interconnected. In science, electricity follows similar mechanics to water because of the underlying principle of energy transfer, and likewise surprising similarities can be seen in social dynamics and economics. Underlying themes can be found in the world of systems and control, such as using the population’s response to trauma and similar control tactics presented differently.
Generally, if you progress in general research, your picture of the world should start looking more coherent. Connecting principles are like the steel beams and concrete pillars, whereas details are the cladding, the services, the walls and the furnishings. Principles that are found across subjects and not contradicted by anything guide you. They should make it quicker to grasp the basics of new subjects.
Here are some of mine, just to help you get started. Remember, that anything I say should be questioned as well.
- Energy and information flow is absolutely universal across all subjects. It looks slightly different depending on the situation, but this can be found from small particles to human interactions and mechanical contraptions. ‘Vibes’ are a form of information and they flow in discernible patterns. Money operates in a similar way to bulk energy transfer in physical systems, with some slight differences.
- Coordination is a key principle of conscious systems, from minute cell biology to ecosystems human systems and even creative arts. Restricting coordination is a universal control element for oppressive regimes
- Any control system can be modeled as a compartmentalized hierarchy. This looks like a somewhat coordinated ruling class with a divided workforce on a lower ‘tier’, that directs more resources to the ruling class
- The concept of fractals makes it easier to understand everything. In most cases, large systems operate under similar principles to small ones. This saves time if you wanted to transition from sociology to cell biology for example
- Certain mathematical concepts are totally universal. For example, sine waves, exponential functions, rates of change, basic accounting (energy follows accounting principles). Understanding these conceptually is more important than complex problem solving. I have never encountered a problem that called for pages of complex calculations – save that for engineering!
Some of mine might seem a bit sciencey, because I came into politics and control system structures from science. However, yours may look different. It depends on how your head works. Spiritual perspectives of principles are completely valid as underlying principles, as long as they actually work. It is good to be creative and experimental with it and make it make sense for you.
Controversy is fine
Any self respecting researcher will run into subjects that are controversial. They could be controversial to most of the population, or to your social circle. How do we deal with it? Treat controversial subjects exactly the same as non-controversial ones!
Correct information is sometimes controversial, and sometimes it isn’t. Not all controversial subjects are correct either, and there are some widely accepted theories that are completely wrong. Accept the discomfort, and apply exactly the same methods as your would for anything else. Is the theory internally consistent? Is it supported by evidence, and not contradicted? Does it make sense? Could there be other ways of putting the theory, or alternative explanations?
Sometimes the truth is behind the veil of stigma, and stigma is part of the censorship of that juicy information. Sometimes, beyond the veil of stigma lies absolute nonsense. I have genuinely and shamelessly considered that some of the most ridiculous theories are true, only to demolish them outright without breaking a sweat. Assuming that controversy by itself is evidence for a theory is a fast-track to delusion, and the people doing this know who they are. Being unwilling or too cowardly to touch certain subjects, likewise, is like trying to research in a straightjacket.
The term ‘conspiracy theory’ is used to denote a colossal range of perspectives, ranging from genuine research to utter bollocks. If the term was taken literally, as in a theory which involves a conspiracy, left-wing and right-wing viewpoints would go under this umbrella as well as they all involve some sort of hidden control element. Of course, they don’t because the term is primarily used to dismiss something that is controversial and not agreed with.
Some well known ‘conspiracy theories’ are correct. Some are outright wrong, and many more are partially correct or could be explained better. Much of how the world works is not controversial in the slightest. The same applies to theories that are primarily ‘left’ or ‘right’ leaning. If you haven’t investigated a theory, you do not know if it is correct or not.
Curiosity about a point of view does NOT make you a ‘believer’ in that point of view
Ideologies that I am vehemently opposed to have aspects that are correct. They also have reasons why people adhere to them. If this point of view involves, for example, some extreme racial hierarchy such as Neo-Nazism or Zionism, is anything they say likely to ‘convince’ you? Probably not if your reading this! The only thing to be scared about is judgement from your own peers. Judging every single aspect of an ideology or the associated culture with a negative lens is intellectually lazy and limits your understanding.
Those are some extreme examples, but the same applies to the more common views across the political spectrum. Curiosity about far left and far right ideology does not make you any of those things. Given the principles in this movement, I highly doubt someone who is calling for brutal and draconian policies on immigration would be reading this. However, these groups have important information that does not readily filter into a left wing perspective.
Give people the benefit of the doubt. Don’t look for opposition – acknowledge that there are aspects that are factually wrong (or morally abhorrent), but go with the intent of finding common ground. Compassion is your best friend here!