I've always appreciated the mavericks of our world. In our polarized political landscape, where most commentators and politicians predictably tow the partisan line, the genuine independents are easy to spot and appreciate. These heterodox actors examine issues on their merits rather than through partisan filters. John McCain helped us see how to strike the balance between ideology and duty to country. Jonathan Haidt helps us understand moral foundations across political divides. Tyler Cowen's "state capacity libertarianism" challenges orthodox libertarian thinking.

These independents give us fresh perspectives and help to break us out of the hyper-partisan mud in which we get stuck.

It’s a path worth walking, but a narrow one that’s easy to fall from.

For every Haidt or Cowen, we find a dozen self-proclaimed heterodox thinkers who begin by questioning one orthodoxy only to become adherents of another. The "Intellectual Dark Web," coined by Eric Weinstein and popularized in Bari Weiss's 2018 New York Times article, initially represented intellectual independence but has largely fragmented along predictable partisan lines. What starts as thoughtful critique of established institutions and norms often becomes a new conformity—different destination, same rigid thinking.

This phenomenon reveals what we might call the heterodoxy trap.

From Free Thinker to Franchise Player

Understanding this pattern requires distinguishing between two fundamentally different paths to heterodoxy.

The first path involves thinkers who develop robust intellectual frameworks and independent thought processes absent partisan motivation. Their heterodoxy emerges from methodical reasoning and principled analysis, not reflexive contrarianism. Their positions occasionally align with different partisan camps, but this alignment is incidental rather than central to their identity. They effectively possess an intellectual immune system against partisan capture.

The second, more treacherous path occurs when individuals stumble into heterodoxy by challenging a single orthodoxy, usually within their professional or social circles. Their heterodoxy is defined not by what they believe but by what they oppose. They gain attention precisely because they appear to be apostates—liberals criticizing "wokeness" or conservatives denouncing Donald Trump.

This distinction matters. The first group thinks in systems. The second thinks in reactions. Using the seemingly new focus of this newsletter as an example, the first group may oppose Trump on principled grounds, while the second uses their opposition of Trump to meander to something that might resemble a set of principles.

Having tasted the rewards of challenging one orthodoxy (attention, book deals, speaking engagements, Substack subscriptions), the second group discovers that continued relevance requires not thoughtful critique of all sides when appropriate but increasingly strident alignment with their new audience's expectations. Like a political version of what psychologist Albert Biderman described as captive bonding, they gradually adopt the very qualities they once criticized in their former tribe.

When Rebels Become Regurgitators

Consider the trajectory of evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. Their heterodox journey began with criticism of progressive excesses at Evergreen State College—reasonable enough. Yet their subsequent evolution reveals the classic pattern of heterodoxy collapse: Weinstein shifted from campus critic to political partisan, even expressing disappointment at not receiving an administration position after supporting Trump's campaign. Their critiques, once directed at multiple power structures, now consistently target one political direction while offering uncharacteristic charity to the other. They didn't escape ideological capture; they merely switched teams and sought leadership positions within their new tribe.

Dave Rubin's transformation follows an even more transparent arc. Beginning as a progressive commentator on The Young Turks, Rubin rebranded as a "classical liberal" critical of the left. But his evolution didn't stop there—it accelerated. His commentary quickly leapfrogged traditional conservative positions, embracing election denialism and promoting fearmongering narratives about immigrants. His interviews, once featuring ideological diversity, narrowed to predominantly showcase voices from the conspiratorial fringes. Rubin didn't get out of the prison of ideology; he simply redecorated his cell.

Jordan Peterson initially gained prominence for criticizing compelled speech laws in Canada and offered substantive arguments for nuance in the age of identity politics. Yet his trajectory has increasingly aligned with partisan conservative positions unrelated to his expertise. His principled takes on personal responsibility have given way to meandering jeremiads and pseudo-scientific diet promotions. As his audience became increasingly conservative and skeptical of mainstream science, the man who warned against ideological possession now embraces many of his followers' political fixations.

Tim Pool's transformation from independent journalist to right-wing commentator perhaps most clearly demonstrates audience capture in action. Driven by social media algorithms that reward outrage (and some Russian cash to boot), Pool evolved from a seemingly reasonable populist to an apocalyptic doomsayer. Rather than advancing a coherent populist framework, Pool now dedicates airtime to vivid scenarios about how political opponents and outsider groups threaten societal collapse—narratives that reliably generate engagement even as they fail to materialize.

The Market Forces of Intellectual Conformity

Why does this pattern repeat so consistently? Why do so many seemingly heterodox thinkers descend back into the pits of partisan orthodoxy? The answer lies not just in the individual failings of these thinkers but in the structural incentives that shape our discourse.

True heterodoxy—the persistent commitment to evaluating each issue on its merits rather than through ideological prisms—faces powerful market disincentives. The audience for genuine intellectual independence is vanishingly small compared to the vast market for partisan affirmation. Media analytics confirm what content creators quickly learn: ideological consistency and party loyalty generate substantially more engagement than nuanced case-by-case analysis.

Consider the economics. A YouTube channel that criticizes both progressive and conservative orthodoxies with equal vigor will likely attract smaller audiences than channels that consistently validate the priors of a specific ideological cohort, as they alienate or frustrate twice as many viewers. Even a modest partisan skew can significantly boost metrics, as a higher percent of viewers interpret the creator as “on their side.” This leaves independents stuck in constant tension of trying to please enough viewers to be able to continue making content full time without losing their actual independence.

This isn't merely a matter of cynical calculation by content creators. Audience psychology drives these incentives. If a creator fails to at least try to reach audiences how they want to be reached, they will not able to create content that moves the needle on a consistent enough basis to counteract the radical fringes that make most of the money in political commentary spaces. Most consumers of political content don't actually want the cognitive burden of thinking alongside the voices they follow. What they want—what we all tend to want—are intellectual shortcuts.

If I agree with Ben Shapiro on several key issues, it becomes cognitively efficient to outsource my thinking on new issues to his judgment. Similarly, if I view Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a reliable thought leader, her position on an emerging controversy gives me a shortcut to deciding how I feel about a topic without having to shoulder the burden of actually thinking about it. These shortcuts aren't just lazy, either—they're necessary cognitive adaptations to the overwhelming torrent of information we face daily.

The problem intensifies when our information diet consists predominantly of these shortcuts. What psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls "System 1" thinking—fast, intuitive, and association-based—gradually replaces "System 2" thinking—slow, deliberative, and analysis-based. We stop evaluating arguments and start pattern-matching positions to those who we feel are inside of our tribe.

Political identity thus becomes not just a set of beliefs but an epistemological framework that determines what evidence we find credible and which authorities we trust. If Donald Trump supports a policy, millions of Americans will immediately support it while millions of others reflexively oppose it—regardless of the policy's specific merits. This pattern repeats across the political spectrum with different figureheads serving as cognitive shortcuts for different audiences.

The heterodox thinker who resists these dynamics pays a considerable price. They sacrifice larger audiences, greater monetization opportunities, and the psychological comfort of tribal belonging. They must continually disappoint portions of their audience by refusing to deliver the consistent ideological product that audience desires. The algorithmic social media market punishes this behavior with ruthless efficiency.

Few can withstand these pressures indefinitely. Even those who begin with genuine commitment to intellectual independence eventually feel the gravitational pull of audience expectations. Each small concession to audience preferences is a tiny death that shifts their center of gravity until, often imperceptibly, they find themselves orbiting a new ideological star.

This isn't just a problem of media figures. It's a mirror reflecting our own cognitive tendencies. Before we judge the heterodox thinker who slides into partisan alignment, we might examine whether we ourselves are engaging in critical analysis of complex issues or simply employing these unreliable shortcuts based on tribal affectation.

Genuine Mavericks vs. Tribal Mercenaries

So what distinguishes genuine heterodoxy from its counterfeit cousin? Who are the real free thinkers? Several patterns emerge from observing both the substance and structure of a thinker's positions over time:

1. Critique Inequity: Genuine heterodox thinkers criticize multiple sides, even when doing so risks alienating portions of their audience. Their criticism follows principles rather than partisan convenience. If you map their critiques over time and find a dramatic shift from an even distribution to a heavily skewed one, you're witnessing the heterodoxy trap in action. If you never anger your audience, you're not being heterodox—you're being strategic.

2. Complexity Avoidance: True heterodoxy acknowledges tension between competing values and embraces nuance. Watch how consistently a thinker applies analytical standards across different topics and targets. When a voice that once demanded rigorous evidence and nuance suddenly accepts reductive framing along partisan lines, you're watching heterodoxy deteriorate into tribal signaling.

3. The Predictability Trap: If you can reliably predict a thinker's position on new issues based solely on partisan alignment rather than their stated principles, you're likely observing new orthodoxy rather than heterodoxy. This becomes particularly revealing when they align with positions that contradict their previously established principles. Genuine heterodoxy occasionally surprises.

4. Money Matters: When a thinker's income depends on maintaining a particular audience, watch for growing reluctance to challenge that audience's core beliefs. Pay attention to patterns of monetization—book deals with partisan publishers, speaking engagements at ideologically homogeneous events, or fundraising that invokes partisan grievances. Financial incentives shape intellectual positions more often than we care to admit.

5. The Dinner Party Test: Genuine heterodox thinkers maintain dialogue across political divides. Track who they interact with over time. When a supposedly heterodox voice appears exclusively in ideologically homogeneous spaces and their collaborators come increasingly from one political camp, entropy toward partisan alignment has likely occurred. If you only dine with one tribe, you're probably a member.

Escaping The Gravitational Pull of Partisanship

The heterodoxy trap presents a cautionary tale for those attempting to transcend partisan boundaries. The institutional and financial rewards for aligning with partisan camps far exceed those for maintaining principled independence. "Audience capture"—a phenomenon described by social media analysts like Gurwinder Bhogal—operates as a subtle but powerful force, like gravity pulling independent satellites back into predictable orbits.

For consumers of heterodox content, vigilance is essential. Yesterday's refreshing independent voice may be tomorrow's partisan operative. The label "heterodox" often serves as temporary branding during transition between orthodoxies rather than a durable intellectual commitment. The path from heterodoxy to new orthodoxy isn't inevitable, but it is well-traveled. Understanding this pattern helps us distinguish between genuine independent thinkers and those merely passing through heterodoxy on their way to a new partisan home.

True heterodoxy requires more than challenging a single orthodoxy; it demands consistent application of principles regardless of partisan convenience. In a media ecosystem that rewards partisan alignment, maintaining genuine intellectual independence requires robust intellectual honesty, deep self awareness, and a willingness to consistently disappoint significant portions of one's audience. Because of this, it also unfortunately tends to require financial independence.

Perhaps most importantly, it requires humility—recognition that no political camp possesses a monopoly on truth or virtue. When heterodox voices evolve into absolute certainty about complex social questions, they've likely fallen into the trap, exchanging one form of dogmatism for another.

In an age where algorithms reward outrage and tribal affirmation, true heterodoxy may be our most endangered intellectual species. It's worth protecting.