Misinformation and Social Media Moderation

 

Granting free speech to others is not a natural human impulse.  It is very unsettling to think that one's world view is a perspective rather than an absolute truth.  To institutionalize free speech is to tacitly accept that 'truth' is more uncertain than that and often more relative than absolute.  It doesn't mean that throwing out rationality and resorting to a position of 'my truth' is supported, but rather we need to accept that conflicting evidence is the norm in the real world and consequently one should, at all times, temper one’s certainty. 

So, the impulse to 'moderate' misinformation is not surprising.  However, it is unacceptable for two reasons. First, we have practical examples where, from the Russian collusion to the source of the SARS-2 virus to Hunter Biden’s laptop, the ‘misinformation’ that was censored by the major social media platforms often turned out to be more likely correct than not. However, it also is a matter of evenness of application.

I am a Marlovian.  That means that I believe that Christopher Marlowe wrote the plays and sonnets that have been attributed to William Shakespeare.  I have concluded that the evidence best supports the hypothesis that Marlowe's death was faked, that he fled to the continent and had his friend, Shakespeare, register the plays in his name.  I won't go into all the evidence here.  However, the community of experts in English Literature would consider the Marlovian theory to be misinformation.  It might be correct or it may be wrong, but either way, the First Amendment and other nations' provisions for protecting unpopular speech allows me to present my case.  I and other Marlovians are not censored, which is an example of uneven application of misinformation moderation.

It is obviously not just me and my Marlovian belief.  For example, Walter and Luis Alvarez, in 1980, proposed that the primary cause of the extinction event 66 mya at the KT boundary was the result of an asteroidal impact.  It arose from geological studies that Walter Alvarez undertook in the 1970s that found excess iridium in the KT boundary layer.  Despite the rewrite that you will find on the Internet, the initial reaction was extraordinarily rancorous with the mainstream Paleontology community flatly rejecting it.  Eventually, the 'smoking gun' crater was found in the Yucatan and it was dated to the KT boundary.  This made it difficult to reject the hypothesis, though to this day some Paleontologists still try.  Until then, it was absolutely treated like 'misinformation'.  However, while derided, it was not censored.

When I was young, it was believed that ulcers were caused by stress and lifestyle. However, in 1982 Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium known as Helicobacter pylori.  For this they eventually won the Nobel Prize in Medicine.  However, when they first published their findings, it was ridiculed.  Today, it would be called misinformation.  So, again we see, the danger of censoring what is considered misinformation.

In a more current example, the 'Hunter Biden laptop', when published by the New York Post, was labeled as misinformation and consequently censored in most of the news media.  We now know that it was legitimate.  Some people, including me, think that the misbehavior of a politician's family member is not relevant to the election process.  However, the laptop does contain evidence that may be construed as evidence that Joe Biden was involved in a 'pay for play' scheme with foreign governments while Vice President.   I will leave that to be adjudicated elsewhere, but the laptop itself, whether it was politically relavent or not, was an example of 'misinformation' that turned out to be true.  And that is the point.

Because we can only hope to distinguish truth from falsity through an open and unthrottled public discourse and we really can't be completely sure when someone is mistaken and when they are purposely lying, lying, too, must be protected speech.  In a truly open, free speech environment, lies eventually fall under the weight of contrary evidence. 

I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point.  A very significant portion of what might be called the advancement of human knowledge began as misinformation.  If we censor it, while we may remove disingenuous and often silly narratives from the public discourse, we do so only at the cost of stifling important, new insights.  This is why Free Speech must protect misinformation.  We must allow the process of argumentation to resolve these issues, not Moderation Boards, whether constituted of social media platforms or government officials.  

 In criminal matters the jury is admonished that in order to convict guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. That is even a less stringent burden of proof than that to be exercised before condoning censorship. Traditionally, it has been the likelihood that the speech could reasonably be expected to result in overt public harm, with crying ‘fire!’ in a crowded building where it could result in stampeding deaths as the most often quoted example. Some legal scholars even claim that the possibility of public harm is too low a burden of proof.

Lastly, hate speech needs to be protected, too.  For many, that may seem counter-intuitive, but the same argument of uneven enforcement applies.  If you listen to a Leftist talk about Donald Trump, the hatred is obvious and expressed.  If you listen to a Rightist talk about child pornographers, likewise, the hate is not disguised.  Nearly everyone, save for a few very devout Christians on the Right and absolute Libertines on the Left, people hate and they most often consider their hate to be justified.

So, we are caught in a situation where we all disapprove of speech that communicates hatred in some contexts but approve of it in others.  For some, it is OK to hate Nazis, some hate Jews, others hate the opposite sex, a growing number hate people who try to impose gender norms.  It seems that everyone wants to ban some hate speech but nobody wants to ban all hate speech.  Thus, the banning of hate speech becomes highly problematic.

So, it should be obvious that a different approach to moderation of social media sites must be found.  This is a very current concern because Elon Musk has purchased Twitter and has vowed to restore Free Speech.  If he continues with the moderation model, he is doomed to fail.  As we saw above, there is no way to do it well.

However, it is understandable that a company that offers a website that is ostensibly a public forum will feel a responsibility to have their site to be usable and that the venom that can arise when contentious issues are discussed won't intimidate participants to the extent that they do not participate to their fullest desire or even flee.  So, the first impulse is to ban misinformation and hate speech.  I, personally, don't think that ad hominem has any place in public discourse and I block people who engage in it.  However, anyone who has waded into social media knows that most people don't agree with me.  People have different tolerances to hostile rhetoric .  Wherever the social media site sets their hurdle for hate speech it will be too low for some users and too high for others. 

Elon Musk cannot 'fix' Twitter simply by tweaking the algorithms or changing the members of moderation boards.  A completely different approach is required.  After some deep reflection, I advocate the method delineated below.  It will involve moderation on these three levels.

1. Twitter should have algorithms that flag potentially illegal speech or posts that appear to be reasonable evidence of crimes.  These should be referred to law enforcement. These instances transcend simple censoring or banning.  While an additional minor challenge, each jurisdiction within which Twitter operates will likely need a different algorithm.  The bigger problem will be to determine within which jurisdiction the speech actually took place.
   

2. Users should be able to set blanket editing on their accounts.  For example, if a person does not want any pornography, they can select that setting and it will be 100% throttled.  If the algorithm inadvertently allows them to see something they don't want to see, they can flag it and, using algorithms, similar posts will be throttled.  Over time, the algorithm will learn precisely what the user mean by pornography.  These blanket consumer based censoring algorithms should expand to include ones that might offend people on both sides.

3. When a person bans someone or throttles them, others who are statistically similar (banned by the same people) will be downgraded or throttled.  Essentially, they will be throttled more than before the ban.  When you like or retweet, that lowers their throttling, if there is any, and those who are similar.  The statistics behind this idea is complex but this is ultimately doable.

In essence, each user will, over time, create their own custom silo that will be a fuzzy set when compared with other users.  This will create 'environments'.  Some users will be inclined toward STEM, others toward the arts.  Some will create ribald and 'in your face' environments while others will be more urbane.  That is the proper implementation of free speech.  Essentially, you are free to say whatever you want, and I am free to hear it or to not hear it.  It is not Twitter's responsibility, or any other social media platform purporting to be a public square, to assure that the public square is carefully moderated to eliminate harsh rhetoric and/or misinformation.  They can, through modern technology, allow those in the public square  to choose the audiences to which they belong and what speech they will hear.

I understand that some people will say that believing in pyramid building aliens is harmless misinformation, but advocating for opening schools during the COVID-19 pandemic was dangerous.  No.  Actually opening schools may or may not have been dangerous, but arguing for or against it was not.  Clearly, both the governments of may jurisdictions as well as most large social media platforms were overtly attempting to stifle any messaging suggesting that schools should have been open.  Today, in hindsight, it is not clear that their position was the correct one.

EUNA needs to realize that no matter how good the intentions (and I am not sure that they always are pure) this censorious impulse may be, it is fundamentally illiberal and should not be supported by thoughtful citizens.

The Polymathica Founders Group

I am dedicating 2023 to the recruitment, organization and deployment of 100 founders of our subculture, Polymathica.  We will have a private discussion area within my Substack, but we will also hold Zoom meetings, etc.

This will not be a debating society.  We will initiate projects, recruit leaders, get funding, if needed, and make it all happen.  It is all about creating a parallel economy, with our own news, our own TV, our own books, our own social media, etc.

Now, the people who join the Founders Group and are successful will likely acquire very affluent lifestyle.  But, don't do it for that.  There are probably easier ways to join the 1%.  This is primarily a big deal you will be one of the Polymathica Founders.  For the 10 million or so Polymathicans you will be where it all started.

For those of you who just stumbled in, Polymathica is a subculture of Western Culture that reveres Intellectual Sophistication and engages in a lifelong pursuit it.  Intellectual Sophistication is a combination of intelligence, erudition, objectivity and discipline.  Because of this, we kind of need to be Apollonian rather than Dionysian.  We are definitely part of Western Culture and, as such, we embrace liberal (not Liberal) values.  But, we have our own take on it and one that I think most of us are quite proud.

At the core of the Founders Group will the Polymathica Central Workgroup.  Literally, we will be building a web presence that will be sort of like a combination of Amazon, Facebook, Twitter (or Gettr), Youtube (or Rumble), and more.  It won't have as many monthly users (not even close), but what it lacks there it will partially make up for in breadth.  The members of the workgroup will, upon success, definitely become wealthy, but not Zuckerberg level wealthy.

I want Polymathica Central to be a collection of subdomains, bookstores, fashion boutiques, video streaming services, social media groups, educational groups, etc. Polymathica Central will charge 'rent' for being on the domain, like a kind of virtual mall, and that will be worthwhile because if you are providing goods or services to polymathic people, that is where you will find them.  This is called network effects and is what drives the Internet.

I will spend time and energy getting this started.  However, other people in the work group will be the CEO, CIT, CFO, etc. of Polymathica Central.  I learn, I think and then I write.  To that end I will create a subdomain, The Polymathic Roundtable.  It will be comprised of about 12 of the very best Polymaths I can find.  Each of us will have a newsletter, but we will also convene round table discussions on a broad spectrum of topics.  These may be presented in print, podcast or video.  If in video, which I expect to be the norm, they will be accompanied by subscriber Super Chats.

The going rate for paid subscribers on Substack is $60, though few newsletter writers can really justify that with volume of content.  The Polymathic Roundtable will begin on Substack and be an outgrowth of my current MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com account.  If you want to support the development of Polymathica Central and/or the Polymathic Roundtable but aren't interested in becoming a Founder, your $60 per year paid subscription will be greatly appreciated.

Your $60 Polymathic Round Table paid subscription will get you premium subscription status for your choice of 5 of the 12 Round Table members.  You may procure more at $12 per year each.  This, I believe, is a fair 'fee for service' or subscription price.  My goal is to actually make this service the best source of news, analysis and commentary available anywhere.

The top ten newsletters on Substack average $2,000,000 per year of revenue.  Substack is new and that will likely increase over the next few years.  My goal for The Polymathic Roundtable is that we will eventually have 500,000 subscribers for a total revenue of 30,000,000 USD revenue.  This translates to $1,750,000 per year of income for the average Round Table member.  This is will be a usual income for Polymaths.

Polymathica Central will enable Polymaths and serve Polymathicans in a growing number of ways and the initial 100 Founders Group is what will make it all happen.  Western Culture is fragmenting and if you don't want to be stuck with the choice between Woke and Right wing, you need to support alternative futures for yourself.  Polymathica may be your preferred cultural home.

If you are interested in being a Polymathica Central Founder, you begin by becoming a Founder Subscriber.  Your annual dues are $210.  This is used to fund the organizational development process that will include advertising, promotion and administration.  We will have articles and Zoom meetings where we will discuss the subdomain productive activities that you may want to consider.  Other Founders, especially those who will construct Polymathica Central may contribute other suggestions.

The advertising process itself will involve promoting articles, encouraging readers to become free subscribers and from this group we will recruit founding members.  The membership fee for Founding Membership will finance this process.  Because of that, Founders will have access to the growing subscriber list to undertake their project.

Early on, I will encourage one or more Founders to create a subdomain for crowdfunding.  Acquiring and developing a subdomain will not be free and often may require a small, private equity round of financing.  This will not only enable our subdomain enterprises, it will provide an opportunity for substantial capital appreciation among Polymathicans.

If you are interested in becoming part of the Founding team, I suggest that you join as soon as possible.  I am limiting this group to 100 and it is best to grab your place and get to work before someone else does.  If you want to support the development of Polymathica Central and incidentally the Polymathic subculture, do join as a paid subscription to my Newsletter.  We will work on increasing the premium services that are provided to paid subscribers.  Rest assured that much of your support will be used to grow the ranks of Polymathicans.

Lifespans of 100+ are a reasonable assumption

Most life expectancy tables do not distinguish on the basis of income, which have an effect on lifespan.  Of these, income has the greatest effect and it is increasing over time, as well.  At age 65, the sex difference has decreased from 4.2 to 2.4 years.  The difference between white and black has decreased from 1.4 years to 1.1.  However, during the same time, as we see below, for white 50 year old males, the difference between the lowest and highest quintile has increased from around 6 years to 12.7 years.  Furthermore, the upper 40% of 50 year old males are experiencing an increase in lifespan of about 2.25 years per decade compared to 1.6 years per decade for males in total.  

Because of this, not surprisingly, U.S. Presidents, who are primarily white males and well into the upper quintile of income are now living well into their 90s. Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan,  died at 93, George H.W. Bush lived to 94 and Jimmy Carter has already managed 97.  This, however, as would be expected, is a new phenomenon.  Prior to these four, only John Adams made it to 90 and only just.  So, the last three Presidents to die have also been the three oldest Presidents and Jimmy Carter will exceed all of those.  

The break-point seems to be for those born around 1910. The four Presidents before Ford, Bush, Reagan and Carter (not including Kennedy) lived to an average of 78 or 15 years less.  These are small data sets and, consequently, not very trustworthy.  Since the break point seems to be around 1910, I decided to look at lists of other prominent people in government and see if the trend continues.  

Vice Presidents are problematical because they often become President.  So, I looked at Secretaries of State.  There are nine born after 1910 that I counted, three of whom are still alive, but in their 90s.  The data set averages 88, compared to the preceding nine who lived, on average, to 76.   This is not as exaggerated, but it still is a 12 year difference.  Three of the nine are still alive, so ultimately, this could approach the age of the last four Presidents.

https://www.aeaweb.org/conference/2016/retrieve.php?pdfid=1025

The men who were 50 38.8 years prior to 2010 are now dying at aged 88.8.  To clarify, the subject men were born in 1921.  However, if you are 50 now you were born in 1972 or 51 years later.  As we see, the  life expectancy has been increased by .225 years per year or 51X.225=11.5 years.  That means the 50 year old of today, in the target group has a life expectancy of 88.8+11.5=100.3

So, if you are a man, around 50 years old and in the upper two quintiles in income, you should expect to live well into your 90s and quite possibly into your 100s.  That is without any extraordinary medical breakthroughs.  That is just based upon current trends.  Oddly, that expectation doesn't change much with your age.  That is because, if you are under 50, you have a non-zero chance of dying before you reach 50 and if you are over 50, you have a higher life expectancy because you survived to an age over 50.  So, for example, a 72 year old man who was in the top two quintiles when he was 50, still has a life expectancy of 98.3 or only 1.3 years less than the 50 year old even though he is twenty years older. 

But, that is not the end of it.  There are reasons to believe that the linear increase in life expectancy of .225 years per year could start to level out.  Admittedly, it includes all men and is just a 7 year trend but the CDC chart appears to be leveling off at about 87 years.  A growing percentage of people in their 90s are reaching the end of the road with technologies reducing early death from cancer and heart disease.  Additional increases may require dealing with what appear to be the most common causes of death for people over 100.  These are frailty, Alzheimer's Disease and Disseminated Amyloidosis.  The success in treating these diseases and extending life expectancy past the mid-90s or so may result in a different trajectory in life expectancy increase.  Of course, it could be faster or slower.

It is now understood that progressive resistance strength training substantially postpones frailty.  However, the loss of mitochondria, cell senescence and sarcopenia, the underlying causes of frailty can be delayed through exercise but, ultimately, increasing age will overcome the benefit.  More needs to be done in order to decrease frailty over the age of 100.  Part of the cause of mitochondrial malfunction has to do with the failure of autophagy especially mitophagy.  There is strong evidence that cellular senescence contributes to mitochondrial dysfunction and may be a primary contributor to gerontological frailty.

Fortunately, the health problems associated with aging due to the accumulation of senescent cells appear to be on the verge of a solution.  Over the last decade research has demonstrated that clearing senescent cells from aged mice dramatically returned them to a more youthful phenotype.  Of course, the mechanisms may be useful in short lived animals but not in humans.  However, there is an accumulating body of evidence that cellular senescence may be the cause of much of the elder phenotype in humans.  However, senolytics, while eliminating senescent cells, also eliminate healthy ones and further research is needed.

Two FDA approved drugs, Metformin and Rapamycin also appear to extend lifespan.  

Metformin, prescribed to treat type 2 diabetes was found in a retrospective study to extend life expectancy in T2DM patients, over time, to above that of the general population.  With typical scientific conservatism, trials were started with mouse models and have now progressed to human trials.  Initial results suggest that it probably does slow aging.  It is being speculated that it stimulates the same physiological responses as calorie restriction, a long known technique for life extension.  There are also suggestions that it may improve the energy pathways.

Rapamycin, an immunological suppressant used in organ transplants, also appears to have, in lower doses, anti-aging effects.  In middle aged mice, a 90 day course of rapamycin increased median life expectancy by 60%.  However, genetically heterogenous mice, while still experiencing a statistically significant increase in  lifespan, had substantially less increase.  Of course, as is the case with virtually all research using mouse models, the response is far more dramatic than it is in humans.  The use and positive results of a 90 day course of treatment confounds the generally accepted assumption that Rapamycin extends lifespan by reducing the incidence of cancer.

Of these three regimens, two of which are deliverable in 90 day chemotherapy treatments, the senolytics seem to be the most effective in modifying the elderly phenotype, while Metformin and Rapamycin extend lifespan, they may not necessarily extend healthspan.  

As stated earlier there are reasons to believe that, in the absence of fundamental breakthroughs, life expectancy may be asymptotic just above 100.  One study that applied the Gompertz law to human senescence rate found an asymptote at 104.  However, since senolytics clear accumulated senescent cells, that technology, if successful, may lift or even eliminate that limit to lifespan.  

A University of Michigan postmortem study of 7 supercentarians found that 6 of them died of amyloidosis, a disease closely related to Alzheimer's.  In combination with a senolytic therapy, this could result in much longer lifespans.  How much longer is difficult to determine because, until people routinely exceed 115, we cannot be sure what further medical challenges may surface.  It is only in the last decade that amyloidosis has surfaced as a problem to be solved.

We see that extending current trends for the top 40% of the population in income leads to life expectancy of just under 100 for men and just over 100 for women.  This life expectancy only increases slightly for young people (~30) compared to older people (~70).  We hope that this lifespan will be driven down to lower income levels until they are routine for everyone.  However, the reasons for lower life expectancies among lower income men are not clear. 

Healthspans also are likely to increase, partially from an understanding that exercise slows ageing and partially from senolytics.  While life expectancy over 100 and possibly over 115 is possible, it will rely upon medical breakthroughs that, while currently under study and promising, are not yet demonstrated.

So, my current assessment is that people today should plan on living to about 100 (with the understanding that there is a wide distribution) and, if so inclined, realistically hope for 115 or more.

A Couple More Tweaks to My Newsletter

I originally imagined that my newsletter would correct the false narratives of both the Left and the Right and that I would leave it at that. However, I am discovering that it is really too narrowly focused to function properly.  In reality I cannot divorce my efforts to solidify a community identity for the intellectually sophisticated from my efforts to promulgate an objectively supportable world view from my desire to correct 'misinformation' that is presented through the Legacy Media (formerly the Mainstream Media).

So, I will broaden my scope. I am 'in process' on four books.  They are :

• The Polymathican Subculture: Values, Education, Careers, Research, Lifestyles and Community
  Its purpose is to help solidify a community identity for intellectually sophisticated people and to present a preliminary roadmap to manifestation.
• A New Enlightenment: Crafting an Information Age Political Philosophy
  The Political Philosophy that was developed during the Age of Enlightenment was marginally sufficient to sustain liberal principles during the Industrial Age.  However, it was not a complete philosophy and the cracks, as the Information Age emerges, are beginning to show. So, here, I will make an attempt at updating the liberal paradigm.
• The Death of Capitalism: The Economics of the Information Age
  The 20th Century was dominated by a political argument between the principles of Adam Smith and Karl Marx.  As we enter the Information Age, they both are becoming progressively more irrelevant.  Rather than an upper class of 'owners', a middle class of 'manufacturers' and a lower class of 'service workers', we are headed toward an extremely affluent society comprised of an upper class of 'creators, owners and deciders' and a lower class of 'dignified service providers'.  So, everything changes.
• The Rise of the Microstate: Intentional Cultural Diversity
  When the principles of representative democracy and the Westphalian nation state collide with Information Age realities, we see a rising sense of alienation among cultural and ideological minorities and a rising clamor for divorce from the traditional nation state within which they find themselves.  While this is touched upon lightly in A New Enlightenment, it is really so profound that it deserves a deeper and in many ways more pragmatic consideration. 
  

While these four books will clarify much of what I mean by an objectively supportable world view, they are in the future and my article writing via this newsletter is in the present.  So, I cannot simply say, 'Wait for the book' when I make assertions.  I do need to deal with these ideas in the interim, while leaving the ultimate argumentation to such time as the books are published. That is in the near future.

Also, there are other topics that will not be considered in my upcoming books, but are still central to creating an objectively supportable world view.  Among these are:

• The Legacy Media reports on the basis of an alarmist, rather than balanced, view of climate change.  Even at my very accelerated rate of learning, I have had to dedicate thousands of hours to becoming expert in this arena and I don't expect a similar effort from my readers.  However, I cannot ignore climate change in my ongoing effort to help Polymathicans (people who subscribe to the polymathic subculture) in their quest for an objectively supportable world view.  The climate alarmist have made it too central to the world view for which they argue.  On the other hand, the Rightside media's take that there is 'nothing to see here', isn't right, either.
• The New Enlightenment must, necessarily, consider the diversity of social structure and the forces, both exogenous and endogenous, that drive that diversity.  While they all will manifest in the fullness of time, the breakdown of marriage and family is current and very poorly understood.  Women are quickly truncating the population of men that are allowed to procreate.  An increasing percentage of men are becoming both career and family discouraged.  In addition to increasing drug related deaths, violent deaths and suicide, this also contributes to male antisocial behavior.  There will not be a single resolution but rather a multifurcation of social solutions, many of which are mutually incompatible.
  
• The energy picture just could not be more screwed up.  We are being treated to a vision of a world of electric cars fueled by clean energy that just can't happen, at least not in the near term.  The 'powers that be' are killing fossil fuels faster than replacements are being implemented.  Some real straight talk is needed based upon 'what is', 'what is hoped for'.  As I discuss in an upcoming article, the objective is not to get you into an electric car running on clean electricity, but rather to push you out of the suburbs (if you are currently there) and into public mass transit.
  
• The socioeconomic classes are not going away.  Equality of opportunity can be constructively pursued, but equity of outcome is a fantasy.  Social class, rather than being determined by the social class of one's parents or by one's 'identity', is very quickly becoming determined by educational attainment, which is primarily determined by IQ which is primarily determine by parental genetic and environmental contributions.  The Simonton-Hollingworth Interval and Denissen Mutual Understanding Range (citations in The Inappropriately Excluded article) define socioeconomic classes.  Even if there are no structural impediments to class mobility, 1/6 will fall one socioeconomic class below that of their parents, 1/6 will rise one class above and 2/3 will find themselves in their parent's class.  No 'privilege' required.  That is just how IQ distributes.
  
• We hear a whole lot about falling life expectancy and it is real.  However, it is mostly caused by falling life expectancy in the lower half of the socioeconomic ranks.  The upper 20%-30% have been experiencing a 2.4 year per decade increase in life expectancy while the lower quintile, primarily because of lifestyle issues, have been falling by a bit more than that.  While upper classes are experiencing impressive gains in life expectancy, the 'radical life extension' movement, though inspiring, is not the most likely scenario.  Rather the evidence suggests that life expectancy, at least for the upper 50% of the population will increase to a mean of about 100 and then will likely stall.  Still, that, compared to the historical 80 years or so, will have profound effects on society.
  
  
  

Lastly, and I would say most importantly, as the microstates arise, one of them will need to be Polymathica. However, prior to the physical manifestation of Subcultural microstates, ministates and city states, virtual, subculturally defined communities are forming.  The Rightside 'parallel economy' is certainly the most developed example, though 'green', Christian, polyamorous, et alia certainly are coalescing.  The Right doesn't tweet.  They use Gettr.  They don't watch Youtube;  they watch Rumble.  They have their own fintech, web hosting, cell phone services, etc.  We Polymathicans need to do the same, not because we are suffering active hostility, but because our idea of a preferred lifestyle is so different from the rest of society that the mainstream social media is not user friendly.

I have named our parallel economy, Polymathica Central.  Of course, those Polymathicans who actually build it may choose a different name.  Whatever its name, it will accumulate Polymathicans and make them available to each other.  That may be for social media or it may be to find investors, donors, customers, audience, etc.  It needs to have available educational resources from K-12, continuing education, professional certification as well as access to an online library to assist in lifelong, autodidactic learning.  It should also kick off a process of creating 'bricks and mortar' polymathic communities.

To facilitate that, premium membership to my newsletter will be entitled, Polymathica Central Founders and will be used as a way to accumulate 100 highly motivated people to undertake projects that will make it all happen.  I will post an article on just that.  However, to clarify, it is a working group.  If you join, you will be expected to create something.

If you become a Founder, first, I will be publishing important information that will be circulated only to Founders.  It will be a kind of manifesto which I expect will be heavily modified as the 100 Founders weigh in.  However, we will also have regular Zoom meetings.  I will be creating some of these and they will be topic specific and primarily oriented toward creating meaningful and effective work groups.  Of course, other Founders may schedule Zoom calls, as well, an I expect that the work groups will.

Founders Group membership is most certainly not just about talk.  Our purpose is to effectuate a Polymathica Central Internet presence that will begin the process of creating the Polymathic subculture.  Polymathica Central as it matures will facilitate discussion, create polymathic online communities and provide many, many polymathic career possibilities.  Basically, we all can talk about being polymathic and/or Polymaths or we can make it mean something real.  I understand that most people will talk.  But, if I can get 100 Founders who will undertake the tasks of making Polymathica Central a reality, that will be enough.

While not necessary, I assume that most of the Founders will aspire to Polymath certification.  Creating a certification process is essential to making 'Polymath' a designation that is something more than self-assigned aggrandizement.  Anyone can call themselves Polymath, (are you equating yourself to Leonardo da Vinci?) but Certified Polymath means that other Polymaths agree.  Circular, I know but there is no other way to start it.

The Founders Group, upon success, will have not just contributed to the formation of an Information Age, virtual nation, but will also have a properly remunerated place within the community.  That means, in addition to all the intangible rewards, incomes can be expected in the six and seven figure range.  That is a typical Information Age lifestyle.

I do not want to be overly involved in the creation, growth and operation of Polymathic Central.  I learn, I think and I write.  Nowhere do I say that I am an entrepreneur and I am not.  However, early on in the process, I imagined that I would form a Cooperative of Polymaths called The Polymathic Roundtable.  That will enable the writing part.  We will write articles, but I imagine that we will also have actual roundtable discussions, likely via Zoom and published on a video platform. 

The going rate for a subscription on substack is $60 per year, though I have seen as low as $50 and as high as $100.  In truth, few can write enough articles to actually justify that as fair value.  Yet, in order to promote one's Newsletter, that level of revenue per subscriber is required.  Essentially, there is an inherent cost to acquiring a paid subscriber and the cost increases as the subscription price increases.  Many worthy newsletters just can't find a break even point.

Hence, The Polymathic Roundtable.  The Roundtable will be comprised of the 12 most capable Polymaths out there.  (Wouldn't it be a kick if I wasn't one of them? The market will decide)  For $60 per year, you will be able to subscribe to the newsletters of five of them.  You also will be subscribed to The Polymath, which will, monthly, publish the very best articles of all 12.  However, perhaps the biggest benefit is that you will have real time access to the Roundtable Discussions, themselves, and have access to the superchats where subscribers can discuss the topics themselves.

Of course, other Polymathicans will write articles, vlog, write books, publish podcasts (supported by Substack), etc.  And they will have an easy route to success because Polymathica Central will give them an easily accessible audience.  I will publish more about this in future articles in an effort to attract Founders'.  However, the point here is that my Newsletter will be advocating for Polymathica Central and recruiting a Founders Group.

I will also continue to expand and elaborate on the tab function that Substack provides.  My tabs include Nomadic Polymath because that is quite different than my other articles and you may or may not be interested.  By unsubscribing you will not receive Nomadic Polymath email notifications, but will continue to receive notifications for my main articles.  You can still go to MichaelWFerguson.substack.com and read Nomadic Polymath whenever you want.

I will be publishing articles that will be available to free subscribers.  However, over time, an increasing amount of content, once other Roundtable members join, will be for paid subscribers, only.  It is only fair that people who create valuable content be remunerated for it.  However, I do not want to dismiss the patronage impulse, either.  In other words, when Patreon started it was primarily a way for people to support people who were doing things that the supporters wanted to continue.  It was only over time that it morphed into a 'fee for service' platform.  I do encourage the patronage impulse.  I am advocating for Polymathicans or intellectually sophisticated people with the intent to improve their life choices.  If you want that to continue, supporting it primarily as a patron is also much appreciated.

Lastly, I do want MichaelWFerguson.Substack.com, as it evolves into Polymathica Central to be a community and for the comment function to be widely used.  If you are a paid subscriber, you can do that now and I encourage you to do so.