Psychology
Psychology examines how people think feel, and act, often through competing frameworks: cognitive versus behavioural, individual vs. relational, a student’s stress as both a personal struggle like anxiety over grades but also the necessity of having a job that pays their bills since their parents can’t and won’t be responsible for absolutely everything, etc. Conflicts can happen within amphiism because of these competing frameworks.
Freud is the most famous psychologist of all in the West. Specifically, he was a psychoanalyst. He came up with the id, superego and ego. The id represents the primitive; for example, the sex drive, where someone obeys their sex impulses constantly without regard for consequences, morals, etc. The superego represents the conscience, and puts the brakes on uncontrolled sexual desires. The ego, most relevant to amphiism, moderates these two extremes. We shouldn’t ignore the consequences of sexual immorality, but nor should we become too strict, and forego opportunities that can give us undisputed pleasure. The ego takes a middle stance, like amphiism. Don’t be unrestrained but also don’t be a dupe, saying no to every sexual opportunity that you’re lucky enough to be offered. The strength of having a strong moral code can easily become a weakness if one extends it too far into fanatical territory. A prostitute doesn’t live the easiest of lives, but no more does an ultra conservative who shuns all premarital sex. Strike for balance!
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is fascinating. His hierarchy of needs start at the bottom with physiological needs associated with our most primitive drives. The need to eat and drink, and have sexual relations, are fundamental and should be satisfied before we even start thinking of higher-level needs. Otherwise, we will develop trouble later. The next highest level discussed by Maslow is safety. We need to feel secure. If we are constantly worried that we are going to be the victim of a violent attack, then we are not going to be able to focus on deeper philosophy. This is one of the very practical reasons why people should pursue pacifism rather than war. When children lie dead due to war casualties, their parents are not going to be concerned with heavy philosophical debates. Their world will be comprised only of the reality of their children who have been ultimate victims. The third highest level is a sense of belonging. Many of us feel happier when we identify as part of an established group. This could be amphiism, Marxism, organized religion, etc. Associating with like-minded people help us to recognize ourselves in others and enhances our own sense of self-confidence. The needs of hierarchy’s next level is related to that, esteem. We need to feel as though others respect us, especially those in our actual families. Maslow’s highest level is that of self-actualization. This is where we are rolling on all cylinders, achieving our full potential. The lower levels need to be successfully achieved for this to flower. It’s also important to note that we can lose ground and revert to a lower level. We constantly need to watch our actions and thoughts if we are going to progress, rather than regress (that’s why especially self-actualization is very hard to achieve!). To anyone reading this, I wish you, and myself, the best of luck, and hope that we all obtain our fullest potential.
Sociology
While perhaps not as obviously relevant to amphiism as a subject like Psychology is, is still important. Sociology studies how people interact within groups, institutions, and systems. It could involve a single framework under discussion, which limits it more than amphiism, which tries to engage with competing frameworks. We could be talking about the same job, but the owner of the company is clearly going to have a different perspective than one of the employees or workers. A landlord and tenant will view the lease they both signs with differences. An interview that might be interesting to try to investigate common ground could be the natural tension between a student renter and a landlord, perhaps a slumlord. Traditionally, in the past, focus has been on what major sociologists say about different sociological issues and trends, but think how much more useful and fair it might be to incorporate the diverse viewpoints of different renters, etc., people who have to make sacrifices on the front lines to make ends meet and to thrive (and/or survive in an increasing number of cases).
Religion
Religion is perhaps the most relevant discipline here, as it’s not just an academic subject; it’s also a way of life.
Maybe an interview could be between an Atheist and someone who is a committed religious adherent. The details of my own religious story in life hangs on a few important points: I was discriminated against for being a shemale, even though I received callings from leaders who knew that, my callings were ones meant for females, etc. I received a patriarchal blessing which said that I’m female but leaders stated my blessing was invalid, overturning traditional Mormon doctrine. My blessing became a test unrealized by me beforehand. I had no intention of testing the Church; it just turned out that way. My leaders definitely failed that test, although I don’t deny their essential humanity.
Religion is very obviously polarizing. Many wars have been fought, leading to the deaths of many millions of people, including children. It’s imperative that we take a new approach to religion and focus on commonalities, rather than differences. The differences should only be an examination of a difference of perspectives, not dwelling on differences for the sake of tension, conflict and death. Peace is not a fantasy; it needs to become a reality. We can do it, but we need to register and implement a properly amphibious viewpoints, in my opinion.
A very specific example of a unique amphibious take on religion is my situation, where I outline how leaders in the Mormon church robbed me of my rights, but I still defend their humanity. I know that at least some of them are good people overall, and their treatment of me should not define their lives overall. I hope that their good counts for just as much as their less than good in the next life. We’re all learning. I have made just as many mistakes as they have, I’m sure. If not more. I forgive them as I wish to be forgiven of my own awful sins. That doesn’t lessen their own culpability; it merely puts the entire situation in a necessarily wider perspective.
Gender studies
There are advantages to having men in society and advantages to what women provide. They also carry disadvantages with them. But we shouldn’t have knee-jerk reactions to gender. Both contribute. There are some wonderful men, bad men, wonderful women and bad women. And the vast majority fall somewhere in between the two extremes. A hundred years ago, had I been writing then, I likely would have advocated for more women’s rights, such as women’s right to vote, to pursue the educational goals of their choice, etc. But I would have tempered that fight with a realization that biology cannot be completely ignored. Only women can have babies. Women have certain characteristics which lend themselves to nurturing those babies. Some men are wonderful at nurturing, and we should never make blanket statements about any gender. But there are certain assumptions which are valid in society.
At various times, one gender will be seemingly blamed for everything wrong with society. Currently, it’s men, who are not appreciated for all they have to offer. They do the hard jobs in society like digging trenches, fighting wars, heavy lifting, garbage work, etc.
But they aren’t appreciated for this, or the fact that they are stronger than women in a physical sense, and I’d argue, emotional sense. Men are simple (in a good way) creatures. They just want to be appreciated, have their partners love and respect them, be height/weight proportional and so on. But there aren’t a lot of ‘so ons,’ because men tend to be a lot easier to please than women.
We’ve had a feminist movement, Perhaps we need a masculinist movement? At least until things even out, and the societal seesaw is level, with both genders being recognized for what they bring to all of us.
Perhaps the best place for a masculinist movement to be nurtured or fostered is to offer university classes where men’s contributions are focused on a lot more than they are now.
Men and women complement each other. One without the other, especially in a collective sense, means they find it a lot harder to realize their full potential.
Politics
Politics have become insufferable for the most part. People debate constantly. I don’t think anyone’s mind ever really changed because someone else had a superior argument. Politics touch on world views, and if someone has a particular world view, then they have too much at emotional stake to change their opinion on someone else’s say so, particularly when they can’t be sure they can trust the information they’re receiving.
A good thing to do when watching a debate is to write down in a notebook, or type on a computer, the main points each participant makes. Be honest when describing if the point is a bad or good one. Get into the habit of not dismissing someone because you’re aware that their ideology differs substantially from yours.
Amphiism is not about being neutral. It’s about examining all perspectives before making an informed decision. So it’s fine to identify with the conservative party in your country if there is one. It’s fine if the liberal party resonates more with you. But ideally, you go by principle rather than personality or the name of the ideology. Sometimes conservatives are right. Other times, liberals are speaking more truth. We need to stop having knee-jerk reactions to political situations.
Just like men and women, conservatism and liberalism can complement each other. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater!
There’s a trend lately in politics to converge towards the centre. And it’s actually a trend towards amphiism! Even though the word hasn’t entered the mainstream yet. Yet.
Mark Carney’s (he was just elected Prime Minister of Canada in 2025) “Blue Liberal” ideology, as reflected in his leadership and cabinet selections as Canada’s Prime Minister in May 2025, combines fiscal conservatism with social liberalism, emphasizing technocratic governance and economic pragmatism. An example of fiscal conservatism would be an austerity program designed to balance the budget. An example of social liberalism would be a commitment to climate change or equality for those in the LGBTQ+ community. If it came to a conflict between these two pillars, Carney’s emphasis would reside with fiscal conservatism. He is also committed to technology and advancing as much as possible with it. This, he hopes, will ensure greater innovation and will cement Canada’s place globally in this field.
Bill Clinton was also a centrist when he was in power in the 1990s. He also believed in fiscal responsibility, social liberalism and technocratic excellence. He called it The Third Way. A term he used often is triangulation. You could say he was a proto-Amphiist! He borrowed from both conservative and liberal paradigms to formulate various policies. Clinton focused on deficit reduction but also did not forget social safety nets for entrepreneurs.
Tony Blair’s New Labour ideology also took this central approach, although as the name suggests, his was an updating of traditional Labour politics. His motive was to broaden his appeal to an increasing number of voters. He updated the NHS, expanding what it could do for people. He kept Margaret Thatcher’s market-related policies at the same time, showing an effective balance between fiscal responsibility and social liberalism (Thatcher was too conservative for a centrist approach).
Macron’s (2017-present) Macronism ideology shows that he does not think in terms of left and right (by the way, these words came into being during the French Revolution when certain members of the Assembly sat on the left-hand side of meetings, and certain members sat on the right-hand side).
In their ‘former’ lives, both Macron and Carney were central bankers, and this informs their decision making. An example is how Macron did not wage war on the rich by raising taxes. He logically pointed out that the rich merely move their assets offshore, rather than pay prohibitive taxes, so high taxes really accomplishes nothing at all.
Journalism
Journalism is one of the best professions to employ the advantages of amphiism. A reader shouldn’t know what a journalists’ argument is going to be simply based on the publication for which they write. Journalism is where all the different facets of amphiism come together. Journalists are not supposed to give their personal opinions on matters. They are supposed to show both, or all, sides and let the reader decide for themselves. There’s a difference between journalists and commentators. Commentators can be partial; journalists should not be. Part of my series on journalism will highlight bias in articles and see how they could be improved. And I will, because I prefer to look on the positive, will more frequently highlight journalists who do indeed honour their mandate.
Philosophy
A potential debate could involve a deluded religious person and an Alisteir Crowley devotee, as one example. Some guiding questions could include what are the advantages of both sides, what are the disadvantages, has someone had a personal experience where they have suffered religious discrimination and/or been the victim of someone else who believes in doing evil? What is evil, anyway? How would you define good? Are good and evil inevitably intertwined? Is one necessary for the completion of the other? Does doing good rob one of their full potential? Does evil?
Economics
Economics is also connected with amphiism. Economics studies how people allocate scarce resources, and it often splits into opposing views, just like politics and life itself. Which do you prefer, market-driven individualism where there is an acceptance of supply, demand and an equilibrium point at which point prices should be set to avoid shortages, and collective welfare regulation and equity. Everyone should be treated the same, where possible at all (sometimes it isn’t). Absolutely no one should be discriminated against. Economic issues can include wage gaps (do they even exist?), must workers and employers always be at odds?, is labour routinely undervalued; are some demographics discriminated against more than others, etc. An effective interview could be between a communist and a capitalist, or socialist and capitalist.
Sex and amphiism
Sexuality freedom is a prescriptive ethic. Psychology sees the issues as basically drives, sociology as norms, economics as transactions, etc. An interview that would be very interesting is one where the parties are someone who believes we should do what we want with no limits, and someone who is a very regular churchgoer, mosque attender, etc.