At 15, I was in the top 0.01% in the US to get into an honors college with a full scholarship. My alumni went to Harvard, MIT, and Stanford... But I dropped out after one semester with perfect grades. Here's what happened(and why I left):🧵

@martin_masrna The question though is how engaged that audience will be, but nonetheless it's crazy. I remember when 5 followers in a day was crazy growth for me.

@NikHuno Thanks for sharing!

@WrongsToWrite Ghost

It may also be that he won't be able to get as many people to the church. I know my Dad for instance rejoined the church because Peterson brought him back to the values. But if Peterson had been a known Christian he wouldn't have even given Peterson a chance. So I'd give Peterson some grace. Especially since if he had converted before my Dad found him my dad may never have found the church again.

I hear you, and I’m not trying to be hypercritical or lecture you. But if we’re talking about something as important as truth, then it’s worth being precise. The core issue still stands—if truth is just interpretation, then how do we ever figure out what’s actually true? If every perspective is equally valid, then even the perspective that truth is objective has to be valid too, which contradicts the idea that truth is just subjective. That’s really what I’m getting at. If everything is just perspective, then any argument can just be dismissed as ‘another view,’ which makes real discussion impossible. At that point, it’s not about finding truth—it’s just about reinforcing what feels right. And that’s why I don’t see much point in continuing this conversation. I appreciate the discussion, though.

If everything is just a matter of interpretation, then truth doesn’t actually matter—only personal preference does. And if that’s the case, then there’s no real discussion to be had, because any argument can just be dismissed as ‘another perspective.’ At that point, it’s not about finding what’s actually true—it’s just about reinforcing what feels right. I don’t see the point in continuing a conversation where truth itself is treated as subjective, so I’ll leave it at that. Take care.

I get that you're trying to incorporate the fact that every perspective has the potential for corruption, even your own. But if that’s true, then how do you know your ‘internal compass’ isn’t leading you astray? Every person in history—good and evil—has followed what ‘felt right’ to them. Clearly, just trusting what ‘resonates’ isn’t enough to determine truth. But here’s the thing—Christianity, for all the criticisms people have of organized religion, has built the ethical foundation that shaped the most stable and prosperous societies. Concepts like human rights, justice, equality, and moral accountability weren’t just invented by individuals following what ‘resonated’ with them. They came from centuries of moral refinement through Christian teachings, scripture, and tradition, shaping the legal and ethical frameworks that uphold Western civilization. So if Christianity—despite human flaws within its institutions—has provided the moral structure for a functioning society, how do you know your personal moral compass, ungrounded in any structured framework, will lead to something better? If we dismiss the moral ethos that has guided civilizations for centuries in favor of individual intuition, what stops that from just devolving into self-serving morality? And when you say you try to embody Jesus, Buddha, and Krishna—how do you reconcile the fact that they taught completely different things? Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. Buddha denied a personal God. Krishna justified the caste system. These aren’t minor differences—they completely contradict each other. So which is it? You say religion is a tool, not a solution. But tools are meant to build something. If you’re just picking what feels "right," aren’t you just building something that serves you rather than actually trying to find the truth? And about projection—I don’t see how I was projecting anything. It was a logical conclusion based on what you’re saying. You reject religious institutions for being corruptible but trust yourself to pick and choose the right beliefs. If that’s not ‘figuring it out on your own,’ then what is? You assume religious institutions are corrupt because they claim to have authority on truth, but at the same time, you’re placing that same authority in yourself—trusting your internal compass to determine right from wrong while also acknowledging that every perspective, including your own, has the potential for corruption. That’s the exact issue I was pointing out. But instead of engaging with it, you called it 'projection'—which doesn’t really address the problem. If religious institutions can be flawed, then why assume your personal moral compass is any different?

I think you’re misunderstanding the crucifixion. Jesus wasn’t killed just because of religious dogmatism. He was a threat to both religious and political power structures. His message called out the religious elite, but it also put him on Rome’s radar—crowds were calling him a king, and that made him a political problem. So it wasn’t just 'dogmatic believers' who wanted him dead—it was a mix of religious leaders, politicians, and people trying to hold onto power. And Jesus didn’t just claim to be one with God—He claimed to be God. Huge difference. If he had only said he was spiritually aligned with God, no one would have tried to kill Him. Plenty of prophets and religious teachers had spoken about a deep connection with God before, and none of them got crucified for it. But Jesus went way beyond that—He called Himself God. He used God’s own name (‘I AM’) and referred to Himself as the divine Son of Man from Daniel’s prophecy. That’s why the religious leaders accused him of blasphemy, and that’s why the Romans saw him as a political threat. I get the concern about dogmatism, but isn’t the real issue false dogma rather than having strong beliefs? Everyone follows some kind of dogma—whether it’s religious, secular, or political. The real question isn’t should we have strong beliefs, but are those beliefs actually true and properly applied? Jesus wasn’t against dogma itself—He was against corrupt religious leaders who twisted God’s law for power. But at the same time, He made absolute claims ('I am the way, the truth, and the life'). So isn’t the problem bad dogma, not dogma itself? And if we’re talking about the misuse of religion, isn’t that more of a human nature problem than a religion problem? People twist political ideologies, science, and even secular philosophies for control and power too. Instead of saying 'dogma is bad,' wouldn’t it make more sense to ask whether a belief system has safeguards against corruption? Christianity actually does—Jesus constantly called out hypocritical leaders and made a clear distinction between true faith and power-hungry religion. And besides, rejecting dogma is just another form of dogma. Saying ‘we shouldn’t hold firm beliefs’ is still a firm belief. So the real question isn’t whether we should have dogma or not—it’s whether our dogma aligns with reality.

I completely understand where you’re coming from, and I agree that religion has been misused for personal gain. But I think there’s a key problem with trying to 'draw from every religion' to build a moral framework. If different religions contradict each other on fundamental issues, how do we decide which parts to follow? This idea also assumes that you’re incorruptible—that you won’t pick and choose based on personal bias. But isn’t that the same thing you criticize religious institutions for? It’s almost like saying, 'Yeah, those pastors, churches, and institutions are corrupt, but I know better and can figure it out on my own.' It also assumes that you are the one consciously choosing which parts of religion to follow. But as psychoanalysts have shown, we aren't the masters of our own house—our thoughts, beliefs, and desires are often shaped by unconscious forces we don’t fully understand. So how can you be sure that when you 'draw' from a religion, it's really you making that choice—and not a deeper emotion, impulse, or even something external influencing you for its own gain? This leads into dangerous territory, like Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch—where humans abandon external moral structures and create their own values. But when morality becomes self-made, it eventually becomes self-serving, leading to power struggles, chaos, and moral relativism. If one religion says God is personal and another says He is an impersonal force, both can’t be equally true. At some point, we have to commit to what is actually true, not just pick and choose based on personal preference. Wouldn’t the most important thing be to find the moral system that aligns with reality, rather than having a spiritual buffet and picking whatever suits you?

@Mr_Fireside Super educational!

@martin_masrna Hahaha

@NikHuno Amazing story, not too many would have the courage to leave Bloomberg!

@Tim_Denning 2025

@Tim_Denning Newsletter

@HaruhiAisaka Thanks for sharing!

@martinmasrna Loving this thread challenge. Great way to iterate super fast.

I get what you’re saying, but wouldn’t saying ‘the more righteous we are, the further we are from truth’ also be a claim about truth? If certainty about righteousness takes us away from truth, then wouldn’t that apply to this statement too? I think people confuse righteousness with self-righteousness. If righteousness means aligning with what’s actually true, then wouldn’t pursuing it bring us closer to truth, not further away? The only way righteousness could distance us from truth is if we were making up our own version of it—deciding for ourselves what’s right and wrong instead of aligning with something higher. But that’s not righteousness, that’s self-deification—acting like we’re the source of truth instead of seeking it. In my opinion, If truth is real, then seeking it isn’t arrogance—it’s the only thing that makes sense.

@NikHuno @itsericviviers I think there’s truth in all religions, but some are closer to the Truth than others. Just because something contains truth doesn’t mean it is the Truth. If that makes sense.