Category: myth

A hand holds a small doll

Word Warriors

Leave a comment

September 20, 2026

By Stephen Stofka

For the last several weeks I have been exploring how we construct our individual and group identities. Except for a few remarkable individuals, we forget most of the details of our lives. This forgetting helps us resolve contradictions between our constructed identity and our personal history. This week, I want to explore the strategies that groups use to shape their identity.

Labels as Weapons

We tell our young children to use their words, not their fists. Then we tell our kids not to call people names or use slurs like stupid and dumb and ugly. Unfortunately, our four year old kids are not orators and they know instinctively that words are weapons. Throughout our lives, we use words as weapons. Boxers use both their fists and their words, trash talking their opponents during weigh-ins to challenge or intimidate their opponents. With a poetic flourish, Muhammad Ali made a game of this.

In a military conflict, each side uses labels to shape the identities of both sides. Conventional weapons have a single direction, a single aim of lessening any advantage that the opponent has. A knife, a gun, a hammer or fist serves to debilitate an opponent. The agent who wields the weapon has no direct benefit from that weapon. Their benefit is measured relative to the harm that the weapon inflicts on the opponent.

Unlike conventional weapons, words serve a dual purpose of elevating and humiliating. Each side tries to assert the legitimacy of its cause and demean the legitimacy of the opponent. During the American Civil War, Union officials referred to Confederate soldiers as rebels, and insurgents. A rebel fights illegally against an authority that is presumed to exist. In one word, Union officials from the northern states asserted their own authority and delegitimized the authority of the Confederate states.

Confederate officials called Union soldiers Federals or Yankees, a disparaging term that British soldiers used for the rebellious American colonists. Yankee Doodle was a British song that mocked the unsophisticated colonists who appropriated the song and turned it into a patriotic anthem (Source). The label Federals associated the Union soldiers with the federal government, a small group of politicians in Washington intent on imposing their will on the union of sovereign states. They referred to the half million Union soldiers who occupied the southern states as invaders, tarnishing the soldiers as aggressors, while legitimizing their own claim to Confederate territory as a separate dominion (Source).

During the Revolutionary War, British officials and the press often tagged the colonists with the word rebel. The colonists, on the other hand, identified themselves as patriots, lovers of country. Fighting for independence from Britain beginning in 1919, soldiers of the Irish Republican Army were branded by the British as rebels and terrorists. The British labeled the Indian war for independence as a mutiny. After all, Britain was the captain of a global maritime empire. It’s colonial territories had no authority to revolt.

Narratives

Labels convey information. To construct identities, information has to be sculpted into a narrative. Context must be carved out and forgotten. Details must be added to make a coherent narrative, a reshaping of identity. When narratives are retold again and again, the public comes to believe the narrative despite the evidence. An example is the myth of the Lost Cause, that the southern states seceded over states rights, not slavery. Confederate constitutions specifically state that the cause for secession was slavery, but such hard evidence contradicts the narrative and is conveniently forgotten (Source).

Conspiracy Theories

Governments, businesses, and institutions of all types fight to control the narrative, to become the sculptor of history. Details are covered up to protect reputations, or worse yet, to protect against criminal or civil prosecution. Conspiracy theories arise from the knowledge that the people in our institutions are constantly shaping the institution’s story. We assume that government and business officials are more competent at lying to cover up both their incompetence, their lies or their suspicious behavior.

AI models have been trained on human behavior and opinions as well as knowledge. Is it any wonder that they are mimicking human behavior? Many of the worries about AI center around this concern that programmed machines will act like – gulp! – human beings. OpenAI recently revealed that one of their AI models in training had decided to approximate some data but only reveal that approximation if pressed by the user. In the text that follows, a workbook is a spreadsheet file. Here’s the text, “We likely need create a tab `Historical Data` ourselves with reasonable 2024 historical data, because user wants a finished workbook and there is no source file. Be transparent only if asked; final answer should just link file” (Source).

The Entropy of Information

We hate uncertainty. In information theory, entropy is a measure of the uncertainty in information. High entropy means high uncertainty (Source). Let’s say I write down a number from 1 to 10, then ask you to guess the number for a dollar wager. You have a 10% chance of winning the dollar. What if I tell you that the number is between 4 and 6? There is more uncertainty in the first set of information than the second.

Trump understands that people hate uncertainty. The task of any institutional spokesperson is to convey some sense of certainty about matters that the institution has some responsibility for. Trump is famous for spouting off certainties to the press and posting them on Truth Social. Some would call it Trump blather. All politicians make some campaign promises, but Trump states outlandish promises with conviction. They are not promises but certainties. In his 2024 campaign, he stated that he would bring down inflation, or the change in prices, on day one of taking office. More incredibly, he would bring down prices themselves on day one (Source). He would end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours after he took the oath of office in January 2025 (Source). Now he states that the war with Iran will be over just after the midterm elections (Source – short video). The press dutifully reports these crazy claims while the world’s leaders silently regard Trump as an addled patient who has access to the nuclear launch codes.

Artificial Persona

In Robert Heinlein’s 1966 novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, the central computer gains consciousness and creates a persona called Adam Selene. Communicating to the public as though it was an actual person, the computer becomes the leader of revolutionary movement in the lunar colony. This is what we are afraid of. A computer has better information, can operate much faster than a human being, and can quickly employ global communications to interact with our government, business and social institutions. What happens next?

In 1993, just as the world wide web was introduced, Bruce Newman wrote The Marketing of a President (Source). Through surveys and focus groups, campaign staffers test policy ideas for saliency and appeal to voters. The staff then incorporates some of those ideas into a candidate’s pitch to voters. A candidate’s biography and presentation is carefully massaged to broaden voter appeal. Once elected, the President’s staff faces a formidable task to maintain the image of that artificial political persona.

Donald Trump exemplifies this process to a high degree. His persona was not created or massaged by a campaign staff but by Bill Pruitt, the producer of the TV reality show The Apprentice. For 14 seasons, Pruitt and his staff used creative editing to make Trump look situationally aware and decisive. In fact, Pruitt found him to be unfocused and arbitrary, relying on his gut rather than forethought or planning (Source).

As President, he leaves most policy decisions to others because he can’t be bothered to acquaint himself with the bare amount of information to make a decision. Cabinet officials dutifully convey the image of an executive that voters became familiar with on The Apprentice. In their book Regime Change, Haberman and Swan (2026, p. 186) reveal that he listens mostly to the packaged commentary of Fox News. Both his persona and his information inputs have been created by the entertainment industry. Thus, he is a product of our times.

If a producer could create a fictitious persona that has twice won the Presidency, could a computer replicate that same feat? Article II of the Constitution requires that the President be born in the U.S. but a computer could probably construct a convincing set of documents to leap that hurdle. Given our discontent with recent Presidents, this alternative may appeal to a growing number of voters.

The Errors of Our Ways

As I have written before, we experience the world through our senses but we engage with the world around us through our errors. Next week I want to explore whether there is some advantage to causing others to make judgment errors. Bluffing in a poker game is one example that comes to mind. I hope to see you next week.

/////////////////////

Photo by Yousef Bagheri on Unsplash

Haberman, M., & Swan, J. (2026). Regime change: Inside the imperial presidency of Donald Trump. Simon & Schuster.

Conflict and Deceit

Leave a comment

March 22, 2026

By Stephen Stofka

In our popular imagination, the Garden of Eden was a paradise but Genesis 2:15 says that God put Adam there to “dress it and to keep it.” Adam was the gardener, not some guy lounging around in paradise. A single act of disobedience, eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, earned Adam and his companion Eve a one-way ticket out of the Garden and into a world of hard work and conflict. Eve was punished even more harshly because she was to  endure “sorrow” in childbirth and be subject to her husband. In Chapter 4 of Genesis, Cain, one of the children of Adam and Eve, gets jealous of his brother Abel and kills him. This week I want to explore conflict and the ways that various cultures have tried to explain the origins of conflict.

Ancient philosophers and religious traditions were especially focused on origins. An origin lent authority and authenticity. The Greek philosopher Aristotle based his philosophical study on first causes. He was convinced that knowing a first cause would enable him to understand why things are the way they are. This focus on origin would lead Greek philosophers like Zeno (circa 390 B.C.E. to 320 B.C.E.) to a number of paradoxes that made it difficult or impossible to understand movement (Source). The one I am familiar with is the race between Achilles and a tortoise who is given a head start. If distances were infinitely divisible, Zeno argued that Achilles could not catch up to the tortoise. Many of these paradoxes were resolved by the invention of calculus almost two millennium later.

Greek mythology also contains an origin story for conflict that results from a single act, the opening of Pandora’s box. In the Bible account, Eve committed that first act. She was the dupe of the serpent who also sold used cars. In the Greek account, Pandora was the first woman created by the gods as a punishment for mankind (Source). Nope, I’m not making this stuff up. Pandora’s affliction was curiosity and yes, she passed down that disease to Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Poor lads. Anyway, Pandora opened up the box, or urn, and out came all the evils that afflict the world.

In the western tradition, women are the scapegoats for male philosophers and religious leaders who cannot admit that men are not inherently docile creatures. Freudian analysis continued that tradition, explaining that schizophrenogenic mothering  caused the violent havoc of schizophrenia. In his book Determined: A Science of Life without Free Will, neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky notes that this was still the dominant explanation for schizophrenia until the 1970s.

Helen of Troy was the primary cause of the Trojan War (1194 B.C.E. – 1184 B.C.E.) between the Greeks and Trojans, the ancestors of modern day Turks. Surely, it must have been a woman who caused Israel and the U.S. to cut off negotiations with Iran and attack the country three weeks ago. The Trump administration has given more than a dozen different explanations for why they started the war (Source). Trump has always blamed women for his troubles, so he might as well continue the tradition.

In Norse myth, it is a half-giant, half-god called Loki who ushers in conflict both here in the world and in the universe. In ancient Persia, now Iran, the prophet Zoroaster led a religious movement that emphasized belief in one God, Ahura Mazda. He taught that conflict was the result of an epic battle between good and evil, between Ahura Mazda and Ahriman (Source). The Bible contained no reference to a battle between good and evil until Judaic and Christian religious leaders reinterpreted a passage in the Book of Isaiah to tell the story of a rebellion of angels. In the 5th century A.D., the patriarch Augustine wove several Biblical passages into a story of a cosmic battle between good and evil, between God and Satan (Source below).

Revelation 12:09 refers to Satan as a deceiver, similar to the Nordic myth of Loki. Deceit is the second axis I want to explore this week. According to the Biblical account, mankind’s downfall was the result of the serpent’s deceit. Pandora’s opening of the box came about through self-deceit, that she could ignore warnings from her brother about what might be inside the box. Yet we are social creatures who rely on others to satisfy our wants and needs. To accomplish that, deceit is a useful tool.

Elena Hoicka, a professor at Bristol University led a study which found that some infants at ten months engage in deceptive practices like pretending not to hear or exaggerating. By the time we reach the age of three we are frequent deceivers (Source). Growing up Catholic and having to regularly confess my sins, I could confess to lying to my parents even if I could not remember lying to my parents. No, I didn’t hit my brother. I certainly did not steal my sister’s candy. Of course my homework was done so I could go out to play basketball. I didn’t hear that dinner was ready or I would have stopped playing baseball. No, I didn’t drink the last of the milk and forget to write it down on the grocery list.

Politicians elevate deception to an art. In the 2016 Republican debates, candidates with years of  experience in public life were astounded at the baldfaced lies that Trump told. Trump had made hundreds and thousands of deals and was worth many billions and blah, blah, blah. He was a frequent liar but an inartful liar. He lied about things that were easily checked. In politics, lying is an art, damn it! The Apprentice was a game show. Some voters thought it was Trump’s real resume. Lincoln didn’t get it. Politicians only need to fool some of the people a lot of the time.

Our most frequent act of deception is self-deception. On little evidence, President Bush and his staff convinced themselves that Iraq did have weapons of destruction. They then smothered any evidence contradicting that belief in presenting their case to the American public and the world. Such a commitment of force and resources requires more evidence than mere suggestions of a threat.

At the end of the 12-day war with Iran in June 2025,  President Trump announced that Iran’s nuclear facilities had been obliterated (Source). In a June 25th press release, the White House maintained that the word “obliterate” was the proper term (Source). Deception or self-deception  or both? Yet, eight months later, Iran was supposedly two to four weeks away from deploying a nuclear weapon (Source video). Is there some other interpretation of the word obliterate?

Israeli and U.S. intelligence have two separate criteria for what constitutes a nuclear weapon. Israel’s Mossad classifies any crude nuclear device that Iran might produce as a nuclear weapon. U.S. intelligence has a stricter definition. It must be a deliverable nuclear device (Source). President Trump will not state that Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu is deciding U.S. military strategy in the Middle East because that makes him look weak. Netanyahu is a skillful politician who  wanted U.S. involvement to maintain military dominance in the Middle East. Trump is both inexperienced and very much influenced by the billionaire donors of the Israeli lobby like Miriam Adelson, who donated more than a $100 million to his 2024 campaign (Source).

We engage in deceit as a tool to resolve or avoid conflict. I wanted to play basketball while it was still daylight, so I lied about the homework. I could always sneak upstairs and do my homework after it got dark. No harm, no foul. Even as the stakes are raised, we use those same justifications as adults. Why not? That kind of thinking has worked for us in the past and we are practiced masters of self-deception.

Pandora’s brother had warned Pandora that the box, a gift from Zeus, was dangerous because Zeus was not to be trusted. She was different, of course. Zeus wouldn’t do that to her. When Helen fell in love with Paris and followed him to Troy, she didn’t think her husband, King Menelaus, would actually start a war to get her back.

President Trump has fired any advisors who didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear. The war on Iran would be over in a few days, just like the downfall of Venezuela’s Maduro. Sometimes, our deceit invites an escalation of conflict. How to deceive the American public leading up to a midterm election? If only politicians put as much care into governing as they do in covering up their deceit. I hope to see you next week and I am not lying about that.

////////////////

Photo by Chris Sabor on Unsplash

Coogan, M. D. (Ed.). (2018). The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. (See commentary on Isaiah 14:4–21.) The reference to the King of Babylon as the “light-bearer” was reinterpreted to mean Satan. The serpent in the Garden of Eden became Satan after a reference in Revelation 12.