Last week we continued our philosophy series by focusing on the split between the material world and our ideas about it. We’ll return to that next week. But with war now upon us, I wanted to pause and talk about identity — especially core identity. Some opinions sit near the surface and can change with new facts. But core identity is different. When people feel that deepest part of themselves challenged, they do not always respond with careful reflection. Often they defend, retreat, or go silent. That deeper human reality felt worth exploring now.
I’m your host, Michael Alan Prestwood and this is the
Wednesday, March 18 2026 edition
of the Weekly Wisdom Builder. The core research that informs the week’s TST Weekly Column.
This is the expanded story mode edition.
With that, let’s frame the week’s key idea.
This week’s idea is Worldview.
This week, we explore the idea of Worldview.
Identity has a core and an outer rim. The core holds fast. The outer rim bends, absorbs, and reconsiders. When the pressure of events reaches the core, silence can be the first sound of change.
Now for this week’s 6 Weekly Crossroads. The goal, to blend and forge intersections into wisdom.
Each weekly edition of the TST Weekly Column consists of a central column supported by a research layer of stories, quotes, timelines, and FAQs.
Supporting the effort are tidbits.
Tidbits are the smallest working units of this project—focused facts, stories, or explanations tied directly to evidence and sources.
On the home page are the key ideas for each, the core takeaways are also available here, but this story mode is the only place to get the “rest of the story.”
1.
A History Story.
From History:
Subject: Orwellian Thought.
1903 to 1950, aged 46.
Orwellian Thought
George Orwell wrote about how corruption starts when language is twisted, facts are manipulated, and authority demands loyalty over reality.
At its core.
Born Eric Arthur Blair in British India, George Orwell wrote in English about how corruption starts when language is twisted, facts are manipulated, and authority demands loyalty over reality.
Now, the details…
George Orwell was born Eric Arthur Blair on June 25, 1903, in Motihari, Bengal, British India. His father, Richard Walmesley Blair, was a minor official in the Indian civil service, and his mother, Ida Mabel Blair, came from a family with French-Burmese roots. He grew up with two sisters, Marjorie and Avril, and spent most of his childhood in England after his mother took the children back from India. Orwell’s literary language was English, the language in which he wrote all his major works. His Burma years also seem to have left him with some working Burmese, though English remained his true public voice.
As an adult, Orwell never had a large or settled family life, but he did have one. He married Eileen O’Shaughnessy in 1936, and in 1944 they adopted a son, Richard Blair. After Eileen died in 1945, Orwell raised Richard for a time while continuing to write through worsening illness. His adult life was restless and varied: he served in Burma, lived in poverty in Paris and London, fought in the Spanish Civil War, worked as a journalist and essayist, spent time with the BBC during the war years, and later withdrew to the remote Scottish island of Jura, where he completed Nineteen Eighty-Four. Near the end of his life, he married Sonia Brownell in 1949.
Orwell died of tuberculosis in London, England, on January 21, 1950, at the age of 46. He died only months after the publication of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the novel that would make his name almost impossible to escape in modern political thought. Though he died young, he left behind far more than 1984. He also gave us Animal Farm, Homage to Catalonia, Down and Out in Paris and London, and some of the clearest political essays of the twentieth century. He was buried at All Saints’ Church, Sutton Courtenay, Oxfordshire.
That History Story,
was first published on TST 7 minutes ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
2.
A Philosophy Quote.
Subject: Identity.
- Michael Alan Prestwood.
- 2024.
Identity isn’t fixed. It shifts as we grow. Understanding yourself means accepting that “me” is a story in motion, not a finished definition.
That takeaway is this.
Identity feels solid, but it shifts with every stage of life. You are not fixed; you’re evolving. This line reminds us that “me” isn’t a static definition but an ongoing story. Knowing that frees you to grow, question, and become something better than yesterday’s version.
Now, the details…
This line came out of a moment in chapter 22 of 30 Philosophers where I wanted to distill a big philosophical idea into something honest and human. We talk about identity as if it’s solid and easy to define, but the truth is… it isn’t. We’re constantly changing. Growing. Contradicting ourselves. And if we’re being real, most of us only half-understand who we are at any given moment.
Writing about Descartes made this even clearer to me. Here’s a man trying to rebuild knowledge from the ground up, starting with the “I.” But even he couldn’t fully pin down what the “I” was. So I leaned into that uncertainty. The phrase “whatever that is” isn’t self-doubt — it’s self-honesty. It’s permission to be a work in progress.
And this matters because identity is the starting point for everything else — our worldview, our beliefs, our sense of meaning. When you allow your identity to be flexible, you create space for growth. You let yourself evolve instead of defending an outdated version of you. That’s the heart of my worldview: identity isn’t a fixed object; it’s an ongoing story, one we get to keep rewriting.
That Philosophy Quote,
was first published on TST 3 months ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
3.
A Science FAQ.
Subject: Worldview.
Cognitive dissonance is conflict of the mind. What happens when two things do not fit.
What matters here is this.
Identity is your sense of who you are. Your beliefs, loyalties, roles, and values that your “self.” Your worldview is your personal language, religion, and philosophy. Cognitive dissonance is your mind getting stuck between two things that do not fit.
Now, the details…
Cognitive dissonance is what happens when your mind gets stuck between two things that do not fit. You believe one thing, but reality, your actions, or new facts point another way. That creates inner tension.
So, what’s actually going on? Formally, cognitive dissonance is the tension that arises when a person holds inconsistent beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors, or when new information collides with what they already believe. Leon Festinger, the psychologist most associated with the idea, argued that human beings are driven to reduce that tension because inconsistency is psychologically uncomfortable. In other words, people do not just want beliefs. They want beliefs that hang together. When they do not, the mind starts working to restore a sense of balance, whether by honest revision or by self-protective rationalization.
From a science view, cognitive dissonance is not just a metaphor. It shows up in the brain. Research points especially to the anterior cingulate cortex, which is involved in conflict monitoring, and parts of the prefrontal cortex, which help with evaluation, adjustment, and control. When people encounter information that clashes with what they believe or have done, the brain appears to register that mismatch as a form of conflict. The feeling may not be dramatic, but the brain treats it as a problem to work through. That helps explain why dissonance can feel so nagging. Your brain is not just noticing a difference. It is reacting to a mismatch that calls for resolution.
This is where cognitive dissonance meets identity and worldview. By identity, I mean the relatively stable sense of who we are — the beliefs, loyalties, roles, and values that feel central to the self. By worldview, I mean the larger lens through which we interpret reality — our deeper picture of how the world works, what matters, and where we fit within it. Your personal language, religion, and philosophy. When new facts challenge a casual opinion, the discomfort may be small. But when they challenge a core part of identity or worldview, the tension gets much stronger. That is why people do not always change their minds when the facts change. Sometimes they defend, delay, go quiet, or recalibrate slowly. The science helps explain the pressure. Philosophy and critical thinking help us decide what to do with it.
That Science FAQ,
was first published on TST 6 minutes ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: What happens when your mind gets stuck between two things that do not fit?
Back: Cognitive dissonance
4.
A Philosophy FAQ.
Subject: Worldview.
Sometimes the hardest moral conflicts are not between good and evil, but between two loyalties a person cannot fully reconcile.
Looked at differently.
Collision at the core of your identity sometimes produces a moral burden. The task is not to hide in loyalty, but to stay honest about the tension, protect what is most human, and refuse to let identity swallow conscience. Camus did not resolve the problem neatly, he taught us to face conflict without lying to ourselves.
Now, the details…
When identity and loyalty collide, the result is often inner conflict, hesitation, and pain. We like to imagine that we will simply follow truth wherever it leads, but life is rarely that clean. Sometimes two goods pull against each other. Sometimes loyalty to a people, a place, or a cause runs straight into loyalty to justice, truth, or restraint. When that happens, a person may double down, drift away, or sit in the tension for a while trying to figure out what still fits. That is why these moments matter. They reveal whether our identity is flexible enough to face reality, or so tied to a side that we can no longer think clearly.
To explore that, Albert Camus is a useful guide. Camus was born in Algeria, loved the land deeply, and also saw the injustices built into French colonial rule. During the Algerian War, he found himself pulled between competing loyalties he could not easily reconcile. He opposed oppression, but he also feared terror and revenge against civilians. In 1956 he even called for a civilian truce, hoping innocent people might be spared, but his appeal satisfied almost no one. That is part of what makes him such a good example. Camus shows that when identity and loyalty collide, the problem is not always that a person lacks conviction. Sometimes the problem is that the convictions are real on both sides.
That is the deeper lesson. Collision at the core does not always produce a clean answer. Sometimes it produces a moral burden. But even then, the task is not to hide in slogans or let tribal loyalty do all the thinking. The task is to stay honest about the tension, protect what is most human, and refuse to let identity swallow conscience. Camus did not resolve the problem neatly, and that is precisely why he is worth remembering. He reminds us that when loyalties pull us apart, wisdom begins not with certainty, but with the courage to face the conflict without lying to ourselves.
That Philosophy FAQ,
was first published on TST 7 minutes ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
5.
Critical thinking almost always boils down to epistemology, and here, that means the Idea of Ideas.
Better ideas do not eliminate uncertainty—they manage it more honestly.
A Critical Thinking FAQ.
Subject: Confirmation Bias.
People don’t seek information to discover truth—they seek reassurance that they’re already right.
In short.
Confirmation bias is our tendency to favor information that aligns with our beliefs, which is perfectly fine for old information. The key? Make a strong effort to freshly evaluate new information. Challenge assumptions, seek opposing viewpoints, and ask yourself if you’re interpreting facts or fulfilling desires.
Now, the details…
Because much of our information intake is less about seeking truth and more about being reassured that we are on the right path. One reason for that is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is our natural tendency to favor information that supports what we already believe. In that sense, it is normal. We all do it. The problem begins when we ignore, downplay, or dismiss new information simply because it does not fit what we already think. That is where bias starts leading us away from truth and deeper into our own worldview.
While it is difficult to eliminate confirmation bias completely, it is possible to manage it. The key is to pay close attention to new evidence, especially when it challenges old, settled ideas. That is hard to do, because challenging evidence often feels uncomfortable. But discomfort is often where growth begins.
Take astrology. Believers in horoscopes often notice the predictions that seem accurate and overlook the many misses. That is confirmation bias at work. One way to challenge it is through a blind test, such as asking someone to pick out their horoscope without knowing which sign it belongs to. A simple exercise like that can shake even strong confidence.
Take meditation as another example. Many people speak of it as though it is the key to happiness, and there is real evidence that it can help some people. But confirmation bias can still creep in when we cling only to glowing testimonials and ignore studies that show mixed or limited results. The better approach is to seek out a wider range of evidence and resist turning a helpful practice into a universal answer.
Now consider climate change. Someone convinced it is a hoax may read only articles that reinforce that belief while dismissing the much larger body of scientific evidence pointing the other way. That is how confirmation bias works across serious public issues too. To push back against it, we have to engage with opposing evidence honestly, question our assumptions, and stay open to changing our minds.
That Critical Thinking FAQ,
was first published on TST 2 years ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
Front: What bias overvalues personal stories over data?
Back: Anecdotal bias
6.
A History FAQ.
Subject: Orwellian Thought.
Orwellian thought grew out of Orwell’s early experience with empire, poverty, and class. It sharpened dramatically in Spain when he saw propaganda and betrayal inside his own side.
Looked at differently.
Orwellian thought is knowledge your own side can betray its ideals too. It’s the idea that corruption starts the moment when language is twisted, facts are manipulated, and power begins demanding loyalty over reality.
Now, the details…
To understand the birth of Orwellian thought, let’s pick up George Orwell’s story in Burma in the 1920s. Before Spain, Orwell was already changing. As a young man serving in the Indian Imperial Police, he saw the daily machinery of empire up close and came away deeply disturbed by it. That experience helped turn him against imperialism and toward sympathy for ordinary people crushed by power. Over the next several years, through books like Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier, Orwell’s thinking moved further toward socialism, but it was still developing. He was already becoming Orwell, but the full shape of Orwellian thought had not yet arrived.
Then came Spain. In late 1936, Orwell went to support the elected Republican government against Franco’s Nationalist forces. For a time during the Spanish Civil War, he experienced a genuine sense of solidarity and shared purpose. But what he found was not just a struggle against Franco. He also found propaganda, factional infighting, suppression, and political dishonesty within the anti-fascist side itself. Stalinist forces turned on other leftist groups, including the POUM militia Orwell had joined. He was wounded by Stalinist-aligned communist forces within the Republican camp. Hunted by other leftist groups within the POUM militia Orwell had joined, he was forced to flee. Spain did not create Orwell’s conscience, but it sharpened it under fire. It forced him to confront a hard truth:
Your own side can betray its ideals too.
That is the heart of Orwellian thought. It is not just distrust of dictators on the other side. It is a moral defense of truth, plain language, and ordinary human decency against propaganda, cruelty, and ideological corruption from any side. Orwell came to see that once loyalty to a cause becomes more important than loyalty to truth, corruption has already begun. That is why Orwellian thought still matters. It names a pattern in political life:
Corruption starts the moment when language is twisted, facts are manipulated, and power begins demanding loyalty over reality.
Orwell carried that sharpened vision into the public works that made him famous. In Homage to Catalonia, he told the truth about Spain as he had lived it. In essays like Politics and the English Language, he warned that corrupted language helps corrupt thought. In Animal Farm, he exposed how revolutions can be hijacked by new tyrants. And in 1984, he gave the modern world one of its clearest warnings about surveillance, propaganda, and the political destruction of truth itself. Orwellian thought was forged in the 1920s and 30s, and the Spanish Civil War was the furnace that helped forge it.
That History FAQ,
was first published on TST 7 minutes ago.
By the way, the flashcard inspired by it is this.
That’s it for this week!
Join us again next week. A new set of ideas lands on TouchstoneTruth Wednesdays at 3 PM PST, and emailed Thursdays.
If you don’t subscribe, please visit TouchstoneTruth.com and click the Subscribe button.
Each weekly edition of the TST Weekly Column consists of a central column supported by a research layer of stories, quotes, timelines, and FAQs.
Thanks for listening.
The end.