Social Power Theory

A framework ranking the fundamental forces that drive human societies, where Money is the base, tangible power (controlling resources), the Individual (genius, leader, or icon) is the catalytic power that redirects history, and the Nation-State is the supreme, organized power that monopolizes violence and ideology. Jiang argues these layers constantly interact: great individuals (like Steve Jobs or Napoleon) harness money to create change, but ultimately get co-opted or crushed by the state apparatus, which is the only entity that can legally print money, wage war, and define truth. It's a cheat sheet for who really calls the shots.

Example: "Social Power Theory explains Elon Musk: he has Money power (Tesla wealth) and Individual power (cult following), but if he clashes with Nation-State power (the U.S. government over satellites or China over factory rules), the state will win every time. The house always wins."

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Social Control Theory

The study of how elites (states, corporations, institutions) keep the masses in line using a trio of levers: Money (economic incentives/debt), Ideology (narratives like patriotism or wokeness), and Fear (of chaos, violence, or ostracism). Jiang posits that stable societies master all three: pay people enough to be comfortable, convince them the system is just, and scare them with what happens if it falls. The theory examines which lever is pulled during crises—print more money, ramp up propaganda, or unleash the police.

Example: "During the pandemic, Social Control Theory was on full display: Money (stimulus checks), Ideology ('we're all in this together'), and Fear (of disease and social shaming). When one lever failed, they doubled down on the other two."

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Religious Power Evolution Theory

A historical model tracing how humanity's ultimate authority figure has evolved: from Polytheistic gods (multiple, chaotic, like Greek myths), to Monotheistic God (one, absolute, providing universal order, like in Christianity/Islam), to the modern "gods" of Science & Atheism (where logic, data, and human reason are the new sources of dogma). Jiang argues each stage centralizes more abstract and powerful control over human thought and morality. The current "Age of Science" is just another religion with its own priesthood (academics), heretics (climate deniers), and promise of salvation (technological utopia).

Example: "Religious Power Evolution Theory says wokeism is the new monotheism: there's one original sin (oppression), a clear devil (the racist/sexist), a path to salvation (allyship), and an inquisition (cancel culture). It's not science; it's theology with a sociology degree."

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Imaginary Control Theory

The radical idea that the most powerful forces in society—Money, Individual rights, and Nation-States—are collective hallucinations we all agree to believe in. A dollar bill is just paper; a border is just a line; your "freedom" is just a story. Jiang's theory states that power is the ability to control these shared fictions and make them feel real and immutable. The most successful elites are the master world-builders who can create a new "imaginary" (like cryptocurrency or a new national identity) and get millions to buy into it.

Example: "Imaginary Control Theory explains Bitcoin: it's a new shared fiction of value, created from nothing, that competes with the old fiction of the U.S. dollar. The 'truth' is just whichever story more people believe and enforce. It's all a meta-game of make-believe with tanks and bank accounts."

by Abzugal January 24, 2026

Hard Problem of Theology

The Problem of Particularity: If there is an infinite, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (or gods), why is the evidence for its existence and nature so ambiguous, culturally specific, and historically contingent? Why would such a being choose to reveal itself through ancient texts, personal feelings, and contested miracles—modes that look indistinguishable from human invention and psychological projection—rather than in a universally obvious, unchanging, and unambiguous way? The hard problem is reconciling the hypothesized nature of God with the messy, obscure, and often contradictory nature of the alleged evidence.

*Example: An all-powerful God desires a loving relationship with all humanity. The hard problem asks: Why is the primary method a 2000-year-old book, requiring translation, interpretation, and faith, which leads to thousands of conflicting denominations? Why not a continuous, direct, and clear communication to every person in a way that transcends culture and language? The obscurity and conflict surrounding divine revelation seem more characteristic of limited human cultural processes than of an infinite being with a clear message. The ambiguity itself becomes the central theological puzzle.* Hard Problem of Theology.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Science Spectrum Theory

The framework that rejects the binary "science vs. pseudoscience" divide, arguing instead that all knowledge-seeking practices exist on a multidimensional continuum of epistemic rigor. The spectrum is defined by axes like: testability, openness to falsification, methodological transparency, peer consensus, predictive success, and self-correction. "Hard" physics sits at one end, characterized by math, precise prediction, and controlled experiments. "Softer" fields like sociology or evolutionary biology, which deal with complex, non-repeatable systems, occupy a different region, emphasizing explanatory coherence and consilience of evidence. Even protosciences and failed theories occupy a place on the spectrum based on their methods, not just their conclusions. Pseudoscience is not a different category, but the far end of the spectrum where practices become dogmatic, evidence is cherry-picked, and contrary data is explained away rather than incorporated.

Example: Consider three points on the spectrum. Physics is far along the "predictive precision" axis. Evolutionary Biology is strong on the "explanatory power/consilience" axis but weaker on "immediate testability in a lab." Homeopathy scores very low on "consistency with established knowledge" and "methodological rigor in trials," but might have mid-range scores on "social consensus" within its community. Science Spectrum Theory says the task isn't to draw a line, but to plot a practice's coordinates. A field can become more "scientific" by moving along these axes—like economics incorporating better data analysis—rather than by magically crossing a mythical demarcation border.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026

Epistemology Spectrum Theory

The view that ways of knowing are not a hierarchy with "science" at the top, but a broad spectrum of complementary tools, each valid within its proper domain and context. The spectrum ranges from personal, subjective knowledge (e.g., "I know I love my child") through procedural knowledge (skills, crafts), consensual social knowledge (law, cultural norms), historical/interpretive knowledge (hermeneutics), to formalized empirical/theoretical knowledge (science and mathematics). Each point on the spectrum has its own standards of evidence, justification, and utility. The "hard problem" is choosing the right tool for the question, not declaring one tool universally superior. A hammer is great for nails, terrible for screws.

Example: Asking "What is the meaning of this poem?" You wouldn't use a spectrometer (empirical end of the spectrum). You'd use interpretive, contextual knowledge. Conversely, asking "What's the atomic weight of Carbon?" requires the empirical/theoretical end. The fool uses only one tool for everything (scientism or pure subjectivism). The wise person navigates the spectrum: They use empirical data from medicine to treat a disease (science), procedural knowledge from a physical therapist to rehabilitate (skill), and subjective/relational knowledge to maintain the patient's hope and dignity. Each form of knowing addresses a different layer of the complex reality. Epistemology Spectrum Theory.

by Nammugal January 24, 2026