You can witness the same scene on both sides and lose track of which is which. The same certainty, contempt, and attitude for an audience that reinforces it, and if you remove the banners, the vocabulary, and the moral argument each side recites, the intrinsic posture does not change. Claims get sorted by obedience now, accepted or refused by who said them and by whose side gains ground when they spread.

But none of this is new. Only the speed is. Belonging kept our ancestors alive, and agreement with the group worked as a sign that you were safe inside it. Belief bought cohesion long before anyone asked it to be accurate. Psychologists have a plain name for the residue that survives in us: identity-protective cognition, the habit of reading evidence in whatever way keeps your standing in a group you care about. Around 2017, the phrase “tribal epistemology” began to circulate for the end state, where a thing counts as true because it helps your side and false because it embarrasses them. 

Training slid into this the moment a method turned into a badge of who you are. An argument against it arrives as an insult, and applause for it feels like proof you were right about yourself. The group already settled which evidence counts before anyone checked it. Some questions never get asked out loud; everyone understands, without being told, which conclusions they are allowed to reach, and the argument stops being about what is accurate and becomes about who belongs.

In dog training, this has produced a conversation that is no longer about the dog, but about whose science carries more moral weight, whose method is purer, whose camp deserves to keep talking: “My punishment is better than yours”, “My reinforcement is more ethical than yours”. The platforms pay in attention, and attention flows to outrage and dries up around nuance, so the loudest and most certain voice wins the day by design. People settle into corners where nothing contradicts them, and the edges of every belief go hard. And because a following has become a living, a method hardens into ground that has to be defended. Around the ones who fight in the open, there is always a second group, quieter and harder to see, that never steps into the arena and never carries the risk, although indirectly they are there, and sometimes interact in a shy way to mark presence. They supply the heat. They reshare, they wink, they hand the mob its next target and keep their own hands clean, and they collect the audience the fighting throws off. 

Nature is full of this arrangement. Something always feeds on a conflict it did not enter. Animals that fight over something worth having rarely fight to the end. Most contests get settled by display, by threat and posture and signal, because tearing each other apart costs the winner nearly as much as the loser. The old hawk and dove models. Once both animals refuse to back down, the price of the fight eats the value of whatever they were fighting over, and the arithmetic turns negative for everyone still standing. Ritual exists to stop a conflict before it reaches that point. The screen deletes the cost. You can savage a colleague in front of thousands and walk away without a mark, so the restraint that keeps real animals alive never switches on. The mockery, the pile-on, the ridicule of a rival is a threat display with the brakes cut. It says this resource is mine, stay away from my business, my reputation, my name. And the animal that already occupies the ground is the one that fights hardest to keep it, which is why the cruelty runs deepest wherever a living feels threatened.

Underneath much of it sits something older and simpler, the wish to be seen as the one who knows. Dominance display was always about status as much as any resource, and a public fight is a stage built for it. Almost nobody sees the size of their own shadow. A practitioner with an audience is a model whether they meant to become one or not, and people copy what the model does, not what the model says. Every act of contempt teaches contempt. You spend years reinforcing behavior in animals with patience and timing, then you go online and reinforce cruelty in people without noticing it is the same work run backward. The following you build begins to sound like you, and it comes back worse than you are, because a crowd always does.

I always remember Nietzsche’s line about whoever fights monsters, how you should be aware of not becoming one, because when you stare long enough into an abyss, it stares back. Hate works as a reinforcer like anything else does, and feeding on it long enough changes the person. By the time you get aware of what you have turned into, the thing you built has a life of its own that you can hardly stop. You will have raised a legion that mirrors you, and it will not disband because you had a change of heart. It answers to the appetite you trained into it, not to your regret, and it does not leave. The abyss keeps what it takes.

While all of this performs, the dog goes missing from its own story, the one the field claims to serve, and becomes a simple “means to our ends”, an incidental to a contest that was never designed to serve them, the least interesting “thing” in the argument. One reality, one context, one narrow set of conditions gets exported as universal law by people who never worked outside their own corner, and whoever pays for the bad prescription cannot say a word in their own defense. Owners feel it from the other side. Most of them only want to learn and do right by an animal they love, and they show up to find they have to pick a flag before they are allowed to ask a question. So they go quiet. They stop asking, afraid the wrong word in the wrong place gets them named and mocked. The field pays last and longest. A public watching professionals behave this way stops seeing expertise and starts seeing a brawl, and it stops trusting any of us. Every pile-on spends down a reserve of credibility that the honest people took decades to build.

Ecologically, a living system stays healthy through variety, through many species filling many roles and balancing one another into something that can absorb a shock and recover. If you limit it to a single dominant form that suppresses everything else, what you get is one bad season from collapse, because you burned the redundancy that would have carried it through. A field that runs on one enforced view is a monoculture, and monocultures fail the same way everywhere. A system that organizes itself around aggression spends its strength on the fight instead of the work, and given enough time it consumes itself. The victory, if it ever arrives, does not cover what the fighting cost to win it, especially when the targets of a fight are simple consequences, victims of the system itself.

So before you feed the next fight, look hard at how it can affect the other living being, what it is making of you, and at who is watching you do it. Your influence is larger and quieter than you think, and it falls on people who never agreed to be your proof of concept. Change won through fear curdles; through example lasts, because the person who moved toward it was never cornered into moving. That kind of change asks for time, discipline, and respect, which is exactly what this climate refuses to spend. 

Also remember something you might not be aware of: You do not owe anyone proof of anything. If someone changes because of you, let it be because you were worth imitating and it made sense to them on their own terms. Step out of the noise long enough to think without a flag over your head. Treat the work as a path you stay on. The summit and the banner were never the point. Keep the aim small and honest. Better than you were. Not the best, just better.

Comments are not enabled on posts. To discuss an author’s post, you can reply directly to the email you receive if you are subscribed, or contact the author directly by clicking here.