Internal Locus of Authorship

Not every message merits a reply. Not every invitation is sincere. And not every opinion deserves to be absorbed or defended.

As an academic psychologist and professor, I publish essays, books, podcasts, and resources with the same care I bring to teaching. These works are offered publicly, available to anyone who finds them useful. That is the dialogue already underway.

What I do not engage in are unsolicited exchanges built on speculation, metaphysics, or debate for its own sake. Silence is not dismissal; it is a form of selectivity. It preserves the focus required to create.

Psychology uses the term internal locus of authorship to describe the capacity to keep one’s creative energy anchored to an internal vision and purpose. Once that locus is ceded to stray commentary, endless rebuttals, or vague invitations to spar, the work loses clarity — and so does the author.

This boundary is not about inaccessibility; it is about discipline. The work is already accessible through the body of writing and recording I have made public. True engagement is possible there, where intent and content meet.

In practice, this means I do not respond to pitches presented as collaboration but serving self-promotion, abstract inquiries loosely tied to my work, messages written as performance rather than genuine inquiry, or demands for defense and rebuttal of published material. Thoughtful engagement is always welcome, but in most cases the answer already exists within the work itself.

My principle is simple: publish, and protect. I share what I believe in, then allow the work to stand on its own terms. Connection remains possible, but on the grounds that preserve meaning. If you have been moved by a book, an essay, or a podcast episode, or if you carry a question that belongs in The Messy Middle, you are welcome to share it through the contact page. Reflections grounded in honesty and curiosity are always considered with care.