Prior work suggests that loneliness is associated with a threat-sensitive cognitive style and that news media is often threat-focused and politically polarised. With this in mind, the present study develops and tests a model of loneliness, trust in news media and intolerance of political out-groups. We hypothesised that the more subjectively lonely a person is, the more politically intolerant they are, and that this relationship is moderated by trust in news media. To examine this, we conducted an online survey with 1,335 adults from the United States of America. Results suggested that trust in news media moderates the relationship between loneliness and two dimensions of intolerance: (a) intolerance towards out-group political affiliates, and (b) intolerance towards supporters of out-group political candidates. There was a direct effect of loneliness on both dimensions of intolerance; but that effect was stronger the higher the level of reported trust in news media. These findings lend support to a risk model of intolerance, and contributes to our understanding of how exposure to (and trust in) news media may interact with loneliness in ways that radicalise individuals against political out-groups.

UFO hunters and anti-vaxxers might seem like modern phenomena, but they both take inspiration from a little-known anti-science movement.

While political scientists have investigated political non-affiliation and religious scholars have investigated religious non-affiliation, no work has yet examined the correlates of those identifying as both religiously and politically non-affiliated. Across two separate studies, we investigate the personality, social network, and cultural engagement correlates of political and religious non-affiliates. Some statistically significant effects found in Study 1 fail to replicate in Study 2, though replicated findings provide interesting avenues for future work. Notably, compared to those who report being both politically and religiously affiliated, we find that dual non-affiliates are more socially liberal, more fiscally conservative, far less likely to vote, and less religious across several attitudinal and behavioral measures. Crucially, we find no consistent evidence that dual non-affiliates suffer from social isolation or a lack of social support.

In response to recent discussion about terminology, we propose “tracking science” as a term that is more inclusive than citizen science. Our suggestion is set against a post-colonial political background and large-scale migrations, in which “citizen” is becoming an increasingly contentious term. As a diverse group of authors from several continents, our priority is to deliberate a term that is all-inclusive, so that it could be adopted by everyone who participates in science or contributes to scientific knowledge, regardless of socio-cultural background. For example, current citizen science terms used for Indigenous knowledge imply that such practitioners belong to a sub-group that is other, and therefore marginalized. Our definition for “tracking science” does not exclude Indigenous peoples and their knowledge contributions and may provide a space for those who currently participate in citizen science, but want to contribute, explore, and/or operate beyond its confinements. Our suggestion is not that of an immediate or complete replacement of terminology, but that the notion of tracking science can be used to complement the practice and discussion of citizen science where it is contextually appropriate or needed. This may provide a breathing space, not only to explore alternative terms, but also to engage in robust, inclusive discussion on what it means to do science or create scientific knowledge. In our view, tracking science serves as a metaphor that applies broadly to the scientific community—from modern theoretical physics to ancient Indigenous knowledge.

When I was writing The Moral Arc, I found my life-long libertarianism challenged on so many fronts that I began to reconsider my politics and to look for a new label, one that better described what I came to believe was the right balance between Left and Right, between liberalism and conservatism. I believe I may have found it in classical liberalism, a defense of which follows in this essay, originally published in the online magazine Quillette.

Who is the 'Devil'? And what is he due? The Devil is anyone who disagrees with you. And what he is due is the right to speak his mind. He must have this for your own safety's sake because his freedom is inextricably tied to your own. If he can be censored, why shouldn't you be censored? If we put barriers up to silence 'unpleasant' ideas, what's to stop the silencing of any discussion? This book is a full-throated defense of free speech and open inquiry in politics, science, and culture by the New York Times bestselling author and skeptic Michael Shermer. The new collection of essays and articles takes the Devil by the horns by tackling five key themes: free thought and free speech, politics and society, scientific humanism, religion, and the ideas of controversial intellectuals. For our own sake, we must give the Devil his due.