Ontological Shock

“Ontological shock.” I ran into this term on Reddit where folks were discussing the Epstein files and the dark revelations that come from them. The theme was generally around how folks are completely baffled at how rotten the core of our political arenas have gotten, and how folks “had a hunch” the elite did awful things, but not to the scale at which it appears Epstein et al. had accomplished. The term refers to a breakdown of their understanding around how a subject area operates and is interconnected in unique ways. It struck me mainly because it feels like society is under a collective ontological shock in some areas, and in others, to avoid this shock, they completely ignore or forgo any kind of evidence that would break down their ontology.

On a smaller scale than Epstein, however, I find this happens a lot in the “manosphere podcast” circle. I’m talking about Rogan, Huberman, even Alex Jones; they all have one thing in common regarding their listening base. All of their listeners seek to affirm their ontological framework, not to discover new information or challenge their ontological framework’s integrity. This is obviously incredibly frustrating; information only circulates in bubbles found online and never permeates their echo chamber boundaries. This also means folks lean into their beliefs way harder, to the point where they’ll rally the thousands online to affirm their “dunks” on their peers in their immediate circles in their community. They flock back to Facebook groups and dump screenshots of conversations with family about their political beliefs, framing their interaction from one perspective while omitting details that got them there.

This doesn’t exist just in the manosphere of pop wellness and man-culture-centered podcasts, this also exists in mommy Facebook groups. Anti-vax movements have fomented massive amounts of distrust in the medical industry, especially after the pandemic. Large numbers of women (and men looking for advice from moms) littered feeds with “life hack” videos depicting them heating up raw milk right below boiling it and not realizing that’s pasteurization. What’s truly tragic around these places to me however is the blatantly obvious grift in some of these places.

Andrew Huberman, an ocular neuroscientist, is a widely trusted podcaster who appeals to the average masses through his “protocols” that boil down to “get good sleep” and “eat normal portions of whole foods.” He also has a massive investment in supplements (not approved or vetted by the FDA) that he directly benefits from, and peddles them on his podcast as the “extra boost” needed for his “protocols.” Alex Jones also sells supplements that he makes an incredible amount of money off of, as well as doomsday supplies he peddles to his audience who is convinced the government is filled with pedophilic demons that aren’t human. These two men profit heavily from the ignorance of large groups of men looking for validation of their ontological framework. Huberman profits from folks who are disenchanted with the “pills solve everything” doctors who profit from pharmaceutical endorsements, and Jones profits from folks who are disenchanted with the left-winged dominance from 2008 to 2016. Their audiences, in some cases, have righteous justification for this. It’s true that some areas of our government are run by these “pedophilic demons” as Jones puts it, but it’s almost never their side that perpetrates. If it were, it means that they are also the bad guys. It’s also public knowledge that pharmaceutical companies encourage doctors to prescribe some newer medications, and we are constantly exposed to medication advertisements. The huge promises that come from these pharma companies, however, are no different than the promises Huberman and Jones make with their own supplements. “This pill will fix your sleep habits” is just as bad as “this powder will up your B-complex during your morning circadian cycle and improve your rest,” except one of these operates on the rightful distrust that has surfaced due to public inaction around these companies’ practices. Rejecting the grift means breaking their ontology, which is already “in shock.” The shock prevents them from recognizing these parallels.

Now, with all of the depravity and horror coming from the Epstein files, a large amount of people now exist in this “ontological shock.” I think it can take two forms: one form being the “I can’t believe this happened” form and the other “I won’t believe this happened.” I think both of these states can represent this shock, mainly because on both sides of this spectrum, people are now generally distrustful of the public office now. Locally, due to an LPSS superintendent and the board he leads being blatantly corrupt, a friend of mine in Lafayette named it PTSD tongue-in-cheek: “Post Trust Stress Disorder,” heralding that our local government is impossible to trust because of the repeated patterns. However, daily, these opposite ends of the spectrum (the right is filled with pedophiles, the left is filled with pedophiles, my team is the good guys, your team is the bad guys) go to work, coexist amongst each other, and go back home to continue arguing on the internet. It’s dizzying, sometimes nauseating, to know that everyone in the room believes something should change, but no one speaks up in fear of either ruffling too many feathers or even potentially losing their employment. This even extends to personal social circles; speaking up on anything meaningful community-wise can potentially be detrimental to someone’s social life. They want to affirm their ontologies before they suggest an action. This is incompatible with democracy, because it forces everyone into a zero-sum game of “if I can’t get mine, no one gets anything.” This is the antithesis of what a democracy operates upon, which at its core is compromise and consensus.

I recognize that this entire argument is inherently flawed as well; “my ontology is better than your ontology and I think you’re in shock semantically.” My overall stance boils down to this: it is acceptable to have discourse given there is nuance brought to the topic, but this bifurcation of every intellectual space kills any nuance through its nature to gravitate towards hardline stances. This also kills layman conversation through the network effect, and removes any kind of guidepost to a middle ground since it’s literally “my team” versus “your team,” whichever team it may be. How do we move forward after suffering from ontological shock in many more places than just politics? I believe ontological shock is the core problem to solve regarding our discourse, and why inaction has become not only comfortable, but standard.