How we work

A publication that criticises other people’s claims has to hold itself to a higher standard than the claims it examines. These are ours. If we ever fall short of them, that is a mistake to correct, not a style to defend.

How we source claims

We cite primary sources — the study, the court record, the official statistic, the person’s own words — at the point in the argument where we rely on them, not just in a footer. When we give a number, you should be able to click through to where it comes from. Where the evidence is genuinely mixed, we say so rather than picking the half that suits the headline.

The method: watch for the deleted preconditions

Most of the myths we examine share a shape. A real outcome is stripped of the material conditions that produced it — the training, the money, the timing, the collaborators, the luck — until the only cause left standing is the person’s state of mind. Our job is to put the deleted preconditions back, because that is usually where the truth, and the useful advice, actually lives.

How we choose what to examine

We write about claims that are widely believed, consequential, and checkable — ideas that shape how people spend their money, their effort, or their hope. We are critical of ideas and of the way they are sold, and we try to be fair to the people selling them. We treat our conclusions as reasoned opinion based on the evidence we cite, and we keep the difference between a documented fact and our interpretation of it visible on the page.

Corrections

We will get things wrong. When we do, we fix the article and note what changed rather than quietly editing the record. A publication that demands rigour from others and hides its own errors has forfeited the argument.

How we make money

Beyond Growth is independent. When that changes — if we ever run advertising or earn affiliate commission on something we mention — it will be disclosed plainly, on the page, and it will never decide what we conclude. We do not take payment from anyone we cover.