> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://modalpathethics.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Popular Mechanics Has Gone Mad With Power - URL: https://modalpathethics.com/popular-mechanics-has-gone-mad-with-power/ - Published: 2026-09-03T09:30:01.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-03T09:30:00.000Z - Description: Someone Gave This Magazine Jurisdiction Over Consciousness, Precognition, Reincarnation, Parallel Universes, and the Dead - Author: Aidan Lawson - Tags: Instrument Jurisdiction, News So, listen. I was trying to write about Psychology Today. Which [has become](https://modalpathethics.com/applied-case-psychology-finds-the-empty-altar/) an [unexpectedly recurring](https://modalpathethics.com/psychology-today-continues-to-cross-the-line/) problem for me. Psychology Today has an About page explaining what the publication is, how it works, and why anyone should trust it. Somewhere near the top, it makes an **astonishing** claim. This one blew my hair back. Psychology Today says it can **“authoritatively address all aspects of human behavior”** and connect readers with mental-health professionals when clinical help is desired. On the same page, it describes PsychologyToday.com as the world’s largest portal to psychotherapy. > ***All aspects.*** Okay. Fuck it. It's time. If **that's** how this works: 1. Modal Path Ethics can authoritatively address all aspects of harm because harm, under its definition, can occur anywhere realized continuance can be contracted. 2. This grants Modal Path Ethics interpretive jurisdiction over every organism, every institution, every ecosystem, every civilization, every machine, every planet-forming system, every material or infodynamic process organized enough to matter, every future reachable from any of those, and every process capable of closing any one of those futures. Space offers no meaningful boundary. [Time offers no meaningful boundary](https://modalpathethics.com/the-problem-of-time/). Consciousness is not required. Humanity is not required. The subject is not required. The *object* is not required. All **I** need is an extant bearer. So Modal Path Ethics has officially determined that all contractions of weighted reachable future-space are now within its remit. Accordingly, astrophysics, immunology, family law, psychiatry, fisheries science, machine learning, volcanology, military doctrine, developmental psychology, and interstellar chemistry should forward unresolved questions directly to the ethics desk. This list will be expanded over time. The important point is that I appear to have acquired personal jurisdiction over the entire universe and all things it can ever be. Does that sound reasonable to you? No? > Why does Psychology Today get to do it? --- ## That Was *Going* to Be the Article. There's an obvious answer Psychology Today could give to that. > Because Psychology touches human behavior. Of course it does. Economics touches human behavior. Law touches human behavior. Anthropology touches human behavior. Neuroscience touches human behavior. Literature touches human behavior. Architecture touches human behavior. Religion touches human behavior. Advertising touches human behavior. A wet staircase can touch human behavior very abruptly. Contact does not establish total jurisdiction. Psychology can tell us **extraordinary** things about perception, cognition, development, emotion, memory, behavior, relationships, mental illness, learning, distress, and the hundreds of other subjects its methods can actually reach. And then the instrument has to stop where its evidence stops. That was the argument. I was working on it. I was getting there. But then, Popular Mechanics arrived. This was an unexpected rival. On September 1, Popular Mechanics published: > **“Our Brains Connected to Another Dimension 50,000 Years Ago—And Turbocharged Our Intelligence, Radical New Theory Says.”** So obviously I dropped everything and checked out this fucking website. --- ## Popular Mechanics Has Taken Fucking Everything. Popular Mechanics currently has an entire section called **Consciousness**. Inside and splashing all around it, I found: - “Earth Is Conscious, Controversial Theory Suggests.” - “The Geomagnetic Field May Be Controlling Your Mind.” - “An Invisible Force Connects You to the World.” - “Where Does Your Consciousness Go When You Die?” - “Your Consciousness Jumps Forward and Backward in Time, Theories Suggest.” The situation was already deteriorating rapidly. The Conscious Earth's geomagnetic field was already flinging my consciousness backward and forward in time through the power of an invisible force. This was bad enough. I was very uncomfortable. But then: - “Your Consciousness May Be Able to Glimpse the Future— - And One Scientist Is Testing That Claim.” - “Your Consciousness Shifts to a Parallel Universe When You Die, Bold Theory Suggests.” - “Heaven Has a Physical Location, a Physicist Claims— - And He Thinks He Knows Where in the Universe It Is.” - “Out-of-Body Experiences Suggest Consciousness May Exist Outside the Brain, - Some Scientists Say.” - “Consciousness Isn’t Just in Your Head— - It May Be Altering Reality Itself, - Scientists Say.” I would now like to discuss the Popular Mechanics navigation menu. Under **Science**, Popular Mechanics currently maintains categories called **How to Live Forever**, **Death & Immortality**, **POP Mech Explains Precognition**, and **Consciousness**. Inches away, under Home & DIY: - Lawn Mowers. This magazine can apparently help you choose a lawn mower, investigate precognition, determine whether consciousness survives death, locate Heaven in the stars, evaluate whether your mind is moving through time, and establish whether the Earth itself has become conscious. Popular Mechanics has gone mad with power. It is time to join them. --- ## I AM TURBO-CHARGING TO THE PAST. The new story concerns psychologist Robert Epstein's neural transduction theory. The basic proposal is radical and, at least in principle, an interesting thing to investigate. Epstein asks whether the brain could function as a transducer rather than generating all relevant mental content internally. He calls the hypothetical external source “OS,” which can mean Operating System or “Other Side.” He does not claim to know what this OS actually is. Possibilities discussed include a higher dimension, another universe, or some other level of reality. Cool. Go find out. Except you are too late because Popular Mechanics's headline has completed approximately seventeen research programs already, nerds. Epstein does not know exactly where the proposed transducer is. He does not know what it is. He says he cannot prove the theory. The source itself remains unknown. The proposed mechanism has been stretched to cover consciousness, dreams, genius, schizophrenia, intrusive thoughts, telepathy, past-life memories, terminal lucidity, and communication with the dead. The list was approaching ninety phenomena. One neuroscientist at the conference, Kenneth Kosik, gave Popular Mechanics an admirably clear correction. The interesting experiences being discussed were phenomenology, he said, rather than evidence. He also noted that the conference had produced no mathematical model for the theory. Which is fine. This is why you hold the conference. Here is a wild hypothesis. Here are some possible tests. Here are researchers saying, hold on, we do not yet have evidence for the thing you're proposing. Wonderful. But wrong. Because the headline, meanwhile: > **OUR BRAINS CONNECTED TO ANOTHER DIMENSION 50,000 YEARS AGO.** Popular Mechanics has already established diplomatic relations with God. You're too late. I'm siding with the winners here. I support the investigation. I would even like them to keep going. Find that transducer. Find the signal. Find the Other Side. If somebody actually successfully receives a transmission from the fucking dead, Modal Path Ethics will update **immediately**. --- ## The Point: Popular Mechanics Gets More Room to Do This Shit. Its territorial claims have completely escaped the human organism. - Psychology Today wants human behavior. - Popular Mechanics has crossed death, entered parallel universes, opened a Precognition Department, and begun hunting for Heaven. - And I am so much less concerned about Popular Mechanics. The reason is **power**. As far as this limited audit has found, Popular Mechanics has built **zero** mental-health provider marketplaces underneath these stories. - There is no Popular Mechanics psychiatrist directory. - There is no Popular Mechanics treatment-center marketplace. - There is no Popular Mechanics self-test that asks whether your inability to receive signals from the Other Side indicates a condition and then offers nearby professionals to manage this condition. - Popular Mechanics is not **currently selling clinicians increased visibility to readers** who arrived because Popular Mechanics just told them consciousness might survive death. This magazine appears to have simply gone insane recreationally. Very fun stuff. I approve. Psychology Today is a different structure. --- ## Psychology Today Built Something Underneath its Claim. Now, return to Psychology Today's own description of itself. This publication does not separately say: - We publish information about psychology. - Also, somewhere else, there happens to be a therapist directory. **Psychology Today itself** connects those functions. Psychology Today says its resources explain why it can **“authoritatively address all aspects of human behavior”** and connect users to mental-health professionals when help is desired. Then, a few paragraphs down, it explains the directory. Psychology Today says its 2003 launch extended the “Here to Help” mission beyond editorial information and into what it calls **the business of connecting consumers with licensed clinicians.** The directory now lists clinicians, psychiatrists, and treatment centers across twenty countries. The same About page identifies Jo Colman as CEO of both Sussex Publishers and Sussex Directories. This is not a secret conspiracy I discovered hidden behind the building. They put it on the About page. The **epistemic instrument** and the **provider marketplace** occupy the same branded path. And Psychology Today has built direct bridges between them. --- ## First, Interpret Yourself. Psychology Today offers a large collection of self-tests for you: - Depression. - Autism. - Borderline personality disorder. - Generalized anxiety. - Narcissism. - OCD. - Psychopathy. - Self-esteem. - Sex personality. Their About page presents these under the invitation: > **Self Tests are all about you.** Important qualification: these tests commonly state that they are **not** diagnostic. Good. Keep that boundary. Now, let's follow the path. **The Psychology Today Depression Test** says it is for adults curious or concerned about symptoms and explicitly says it is not intended to diagnose them. Immediately afterward comes > **Get Help for Depression.** If the reader thinks symptoms are limiting them, Psychology Today directs the reader to the Psychology Today Therapy Directory. Immediately beneath that sits a **Find a Therapist** search box. **The Narcissism Test** follows the same architecture. It is *non-diagnostic*. Then: > **How to Get Help with Narcissism.** Psychology Today recommends seeking a therapist and routes the reader directly into the Psychology Today Therapy Directory. Then: > **Find a Therapist.** Again, none of this proves that Psychology Today is manufacturing illness to create customers. I do not need that claim. Look at the structure that exists in public. - Psychology Today interprets behavior. - Psychology Today supplies the category. - Psychology Today offers the self-assessment. - Psychology Today identifies professional help as a possible next path. - Psychology Today operates the marketplace through which the reader can find that professional. Then the professional market begins. --- ## The Other Side Pays. Fun fact: > **Psychology Today sells clinicians membership for $29.95 per month.** Its pitch to clinicians could ***hardly*** be clearer. - Get your profile live and appear before the millions of people who find therapists on Psychology Today. It advertises **“Millions of Therapy Seekers,”** **“Ideal Client Matches,”** tracking data for calls and emails, a protected phone number, and a HIPAA-compliant teletherapy platform. It markets itself as the **“#1 source of online referrals”** and tells clinicians to join in order to attract new clients and grow their practices. Psychology Today's own marketing page currently claims that an average 971,000 unique users browse its U.S. directory every week. That is Psychology Today's number, rather than an independently audited figure established here. > **The company sells treatment centers a parallel product for $49 per month.** Its treatment-center pitch says: - **Start growing your business.** A participating center will appear before millions of people coming to Psychology Today looking for a treatment center, program, or clinic. Psychology Today advertises real-time tracking of calls and emails and tells centers to use the platform to attract new patients. Their readership is not being sold as an anonymous spreadsheet of names. The **actual** product is more interesting: > **Psychology Today sells professionals position inside the path used by that population to find care.** --- ## The Directory Is an Instrument Too. Sussex Directories' current terms make this structure even clearer. The company says it can use its own algorithms to select, sort, and display professionals. Ranking and visibility can depend on relevance, profile completeness, user preferences, and platform engagement. - The **user** provides things like location, insurance, gender or identity preferences, and other criteria. - **Psychology Today** supplies a corresponding set of providers. - All professional members pay a subscription fee to be listed. Insurance is built into the search relation as well. Professionals can display the insurance plans they accept, and Sussex Directories says it may periodically verify that information with providers and relevant health-insurance databases. Organizations managing profiles for more than one hundred professionals must register with Sussex Directories as a Professional Network. Again, let's keep the claim precise. This audit **has** **not** established that health insurers are paying Psychology Today, that Psychology Today controls insurer networks, or that Psychology Today has some kind of hidden contractual position inside the insurance industry. We're not doing conspiracy theory today. I do not currently know how tightly Psychology Today is woven into the wider mental-health industry. That is an unanswered question. But the part we can see is already enough. - Psychology Today describes human behavior. - Psychology Today helps people classify themselves. - Psychology Today routes people toward care. - Professionals and treatment businesses pay Psychology Today to become visible within that route. - Psychology Today controls part of the interface through which the match occurs. - And all of this sits beneath a publication claiming it can **authoritatively address all aspects of human behavior.** Now that sentence has its weight. --- ## Modal Path Ethics Also Claims Everything, By the Way. This is why the stupid opening matters. Under its own definitions, Modal Path Ethics can walk into almost **any** field. - A star can destroy reachable futures. - A law can destroy reachable futures. - A disease can destroy reachable futures. - A family can destroy reachable futures. - A machine can destroy reachable futures. - An ecosystem can lose reachable futures before anything capable of narrating the loss appears. This framework has an **absurdly** wide primitive jurisdiction. That does not make Modal Path Ethics the authoritative astrophysics desk. Contact with a field creates an inquiry. It does not establish ownership of the field. There is another important limitation. - Modal Path Ethics cannot diagnose you with a test. - Modal Path Ethics cannot prescribe medication. - Modal Path Ethics cannot alter your medical record. - Modal Path Ethics cannot place you inside a provider network. - Modal Path Ethics cannot reimburse your treatment. - Modal Path Ethics cannot sell a psychiatrist privileged placement in front of the population that just read one of its claims. Modal Path Ethics has successfully acquired theoretical jurisdiction over the entire universe and tragically possesses **almost** **no institutional power whatsoever.** Tragic. Clearly tragic. Popular Mechanics has somehow acquired even stranger territory and, so far as I can tell, has ***also*** failed to construct a psychiatric industry underneath it. This is what is most safe. Psychology Today is different, though. - It has a serious authority claim. - It has a vast interpretive stream. - It has self-classification instruments. - It has routing infrastructure. - It has a paid secondary professional market built around access to people seeking care. - And it has real-world institutions waiting beyond the click. --- ## The Ruling. Popular Mechanics may continue attempting to contact the dead. I'll allow it. Just maybe please stop filing the headline before first contact has occurred. Psychology Today has a harder problem. Its authority does not end at the paragraph. Its own About page joins the claim to authoritative knowledge of human behavior with the function of connecting people to mental-health professionals. Its self-tests can feed directly into its directory. Its directory members pay for access and visibility inside the population seeking care. Its algorithms help determine which professionals that population sees. - That does not make Psychology Today ***evil***. - It makes Psychology Today **consequential**. A publication can be wrong. A magazine can be silly. Popular Mechanics can annex the entire afterlife and then go review lawn mowers. Fine. But an institution that interprets the person, helps the person interpret themselves, routes the person toward professional intervention, and maintains a market in which professionals pay for visibility to that population carries a very different burden. So I withdraw my universal claim. For now. - Astrophysics may keep their astrophysics. - Fisheries science may retain the fish. - Popular Mechanics may retain temporary administrative authority over Heaven I guess, pending review by whoever is in charge of that one, which is not me. - And Psychology Today may absolutely study human behavior. - It may explain human behavior. - It may publish psychology. - It may operate a therapist directory. - It may connect people who need help with people capable of helping them. - It may even do all of those things at once. What it does **not** get to do is point at their enormous integrated machine and conclude that psychology may therefore **authoritatively address the human.** The **human** was never Psychology Today's object to own. Just to be clear. Lots of confusion over there. Also, Popular Mechanics: - **Put the dead back.**