I believe the parent comment is trying to defend a "complexity science" approach to the world. Adherents would argue that all these "fuzzy patterns" (conspiracy

I believe the parent comment is trying to defend a "complexity science" approach to the world. Adherents would argue that all these "fuzzy patterns" (conspiracy-thinking, some might say) stem from shared generalized properties of networks operating in different substrates and scales and energy transitions. Societies, companies, cities, ants, cells, forests, biofilms, minds, languages, storytelling, social conflict, river networks, etc etc infinity. https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast https://www.santafe.edu/culture/podcast If you feel like it, pls do listen to this popular podcast by the Santa Fe Institute, and you'll hear them connecting things rather frenetically. Some adherents ground all this in rigorous science, but others participate very effectively as amateurs, guided by pure intuition/creativity that's often complementary and comparably fruitful. Complexity science offers an approach that elevates metaphor to a curious form of information/knowledge. Some amateurs in the community just participate in this "rhyming game" of networks, and leave the hard science to others in the community. That works fine. Cormac McCarthy (of "The Road" and "No Country For Old Men" fame) has been hanging out with these folks for decades, and participating in their discussions even though he lacks the scientific underpinnings. These's a symbiosis of sorts between the hard and soft "scientists" doing this work. Adam Curtis sounds like he's one of the "soft" researchers. If you can't straddle this fuzzy boundary, it doesn't mean it's not real wisdom they're chewing on -- it's just not the sort everyone can easily stomach/navigate/sift imho, just as some don't have the neurotype to excel in deep programmatic thinking) Anyhow, thanks for the opportunity to think this through out loud :)