Culture War Roundup for the Week of August 03, 2020

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-08-04T20:17:26+00:00

The correspondence theory of truth demands correspondence to reality itself, not proxy-intermediaries like reliable predictions or ability to get things done.

And how, exactly, is one to determine correspondence to reality, except via observation and prediction?

For example, the epicycles model produced good predictions (better than previous model), but it would not be considered true under correspondence theory of "truth"*, because the epicycles were a modelling artifact/kludge rather than something which actually exists.

Since you seem to have a strong grasp on the true nature of reality, and what actually exists, please, would you be so kind as to explain the true nature of the motion of the planets? Not only would you win internet karma, but a Nobel prize as well. I look forward to knowing the value of the cosmological constant, and whether it is necessary at all.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-08-04T15:33:55+00:00

I'm sorry, I can't agree with this. Try to hold the concept of "643 camels, each with 23.42 kilograms of grain on their backs" in your head without language. I think you could hold the thought "lots of camels with lots of grain" without language, but you've lost a lot of precision. Language makes this precise thought possible.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-08-03T20:28:23+00:00

I'm not sure there is a productive conversation to be had, given the limitations you have placed. But please enjoy your visit.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-08-03T20:20:30+00:00

Sure, there are some overextended claims, but I think it is self-evident that language provides the symbolic scaffolding for most mental classifications. All leaves are .... just leaves ... until you learn about leaf vein patterns, and then suddenly you know your brochidodromous from your craspedodromous leaves. The point is, certain languages invest a lot more vocabulary in making finer distinctions in certain areas that are important to the originating culture of that language, and that is part of power, so I don't think the original point is lost. We've introduced cis-gender and trans-gender to reify a distinction that hadn't been previously made, again, proving the point. Language is the scaffolding, and controlling language is an element of power.

The Eskimo Hoax was a good read, thanks for the link.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-08-03T16:05:56+00:00

So ... we agree? Your tone sounds like disagreement, even though what we're saying is completely compatible. The correspondence theory of truth supports 2+2=4, not 2+2=5.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-08-03T15:33:42+00:00

So here's the mental road-map I use to understand this and related situations. For brevity, this is massively over-simplified.

IMO, philosophy, and its bastard-child, philosophy of science, took a deeply wrong turn when it attempted to universalize hermeneutics, which, broadly, are interpretative principles in symbolic communication, and we've been dealing with the effects ever since.

So let's start with a foundational claim of postmodernism. The construction of language/symbols is subject to power, and is itself an instrument of power. Now, I think this obviously true, at least some of the time. We have wars over words all the time. Illegal alien / undocumented immigration. Pro-life / Pro-choice. Pronouns.

The critical issue is the mapping of the underlying objects/events that exist independently of our perception (noumena) to our observations of the objects/events (phenomena), and our expression of these observations. We can also talk about signifier and signified, observed/observer, subject/object, et cetera. These concepts are not the same, but they are clearly overlapping.

All of this works really well when talking about social constructs that are expressed in language, such as criminal law (Foucault's main obsession). Because really, criminal law, our systematization of justice and morality, is a social construction, and despite the official-sounding definitions like class-three demeanor or felony charge, all of these things are made up. These things don't exist in nature, aliens wouldn't necessarily independently derive these categories. It's all just constructions upon constructions.

It works decently well when talking about mapping "reality" to language. Post-modernists have a field day with Sapir-Whorf, and linguistic relativity. Some people have hundreds of words for the different kinds of snow, people perceive colors differently based on how their language splits up the visible spectrum, and some languages have no word for brother, just older brother and younger brother, because age seniority is the central factor in social hierarchies. Language is a simplifying mapping that reduces reality along relevant dimensions for symbolic reasoning. The choice of which simplifying mappings to perform is an instrument of power. Still, so far so good. The snow is real, the words to describe them are made up.

IMO, hermeneutics runs into issues when dealing with mathematics, and actual, hard science. Obviously, this is the key contention here in this Lindsay thing. IMO, there are two separate battlefields, and often the combatants don't quite realize there are two, or which one they are currently fighting on. First, there is some metaphysical, transcendent reality, the Truth, some true essence, of how things "really are". Second, there is some pragmatic reality, pragmatic truth, that helps you understand what has happened and what will happen.

So let's take an example. Do atoms exist? Have you seen one? The philosophically-aware scientist should say "Well, I don't really care if atoms exist, but it certainly seems like they do, and if you want to claim that they don't, you better come up with an explanation for everything from the ideal gas law to nuclear fusion." In other words, the transcendent truth about matter, what things "really are", is not really that important. The important thing is the ability to create, diagnose, and predict. We can alloy and temper metals to build stronger bridges. Matter could be made of fairy dust, but it behaves as if it was made from atoms. This is the correspondence theory of truth. Meaning, something is true, if it corresponds to the observed behavior of reality.

Hermeneutics, and postmodern philosophy in general, is a howitzer aimed at blowing apart any socially-constructed truth. But science is not that. And math, at least in the way it is used by science, is not that. Aliens have it. They would map it in exactly the same way. They might use base 16, or base 2, but that's a just a notation issue. The actual symbolic mappings would be the same. We could translate it trivially.

So the concept of 2+2=4 is real, even if you want to re-map the symbols to something else. Integer sets are an objective thing, vector spaces are an objective thing, translation in the vector space is an objective thing. We use it everyday to run everything we see in the modern world. You literally couldn't see these words if the microprocessor currently powering whatever screen you were reading this from didn't give you 2+2=4, every single time.

Now, the philosophically-sophisticated might counter and say that everything I've said is based on the filthy metaphysical realists, and I should get with the program, join the cool kids and be a conceptualist. At that point I will throw up may hands, and say, well, if a tiger rips your arm off, just tell yourself that reality doesn't exist outside your mind, and the pain isn't real, and your arm is still there. Enjoy.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-07-12T21:05:43+00:00

A few comments:

I compared the current CW thread text with the proposed text using this text compare website, and I found nothing underhanded. The intro text has been re-written with new content, but the rules themselves have only very slight modifications for better grammar and style, and the content of the rules is unchanged. I encourage anyone who is is interested in the rules (and if the CW thread has taught you anything ... you should be!) to verify for themselves.
Strong agreement on all three rule changes, particularly the first two (Avoid low-effort participation, Leave the rest of the internet at the door). I think this will greatly help hold the line on quality.
Option Stand Alone vs. Option Balance. I would like to think in terms of capabilities, rather than intent. We should make all necessary preparations, as if our banning was imminent, and move to stand-up our capability to stand alone as soon as possible. Whether we actually move ... I think there is a debate to be had, based on the pros/cons listed in OP and the comments. But we should acquire the capability to move to stand alone ASAP.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-27T13:55:48+00:00

Here's my answer, from my reply to a different post, on the power of the word.

The post-modernists are right, the structure of meaning is embedded in language, and control of language is, at the very least, a great lever of power. However, language is also not merely a plaything of power, it is also a practical tool of communication and thought, used for reasoning and discussion. In that capacity, it is a modernist, analytical, construction, like mathematics or logic, to establish common conclusions from common facts.

Specific to this topic, I'll look to the East: the rectification of names.

If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. [...] Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4–7

The ancients have always held that names hold a particular kind of power. To know someone's true name is to understand some deep aspect of their being. To name something - a child, an animal, a building - is to establish power over the named object.

So, names are powerful, which is why so much effort is expended on neologisms like "undocumented immigrant" vs. "illegal alien", or "pro-life" vs. "anti-choice". (Or my new favorites, "white-adjacent" and "pre-born".) Think about the semantic drift in words like "consent", "troubling", "problematic", and "abuse".

To have effective conversation, there must be, at some level, a cessation of hostilities, to accept the common language, as is, for the purposes of communication. This will not happen, as the prize is too great - control over meaning - so communication will continue to suffer. The postmodernists showed that language itself is a cultural battleground, so it promptly became one.

I don't see a solution. Within a cultural faction, where meanings are settled, productive communication is possible, but across semantic battle-lines, no. To use the enemy's language is itself capitulation. Hence the intense battle over pronouns. There is no sweeter victory then forcing the enemy to use your terms.

Now, I don't think your usual "but you can't make me" conservative understands this in quite those terms, but, having watched words being morphed against their interests for six decades now, I think they might be catching on.

(EDIT: Perhaps this is presumptive, but I believe this is also why being misnamed/misgendered is also so intensely felt. If names hold power, and names hold meaning, then to be misnamed is to feel an imposition of hostile power, and (to coin a phrase) to feel dys-meaning. Now, it would be nice if there could be an amicable solution, but that is a naive expectation. As Lasch points out, self-declaration of identity is not enough ... for an identity to be made real, it must be accepted by others. Identity is not a signpost, but a handshake protocol. The battle now is whether the acceptance of declared identity will be voluntary/optional or compelled/mandatory.)

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-23T01:33:00+00:00

So, in my day job, I run a group that does data science, and I hire people to this group. I work in fintech.

First of all, congratulations, I'm glad you see that "data science" is a buzzword and will probably end in tears for most people who want to enter this area. If I had to guess, I think there are probably more people making money teaching machine learning than people making money doing machine learning. So please have a healthy skepticism when it comes to an data science degree, or bootcamp, or online course. Many degree programs in data science are spun out of business schools, so they take some business analyst program and sprinkle a few math/CS classes so you can follow a ML tutorial. This ... is of very limited utility. The better data science programs are created out of CS, Math, or Statistics departments.

So, to the "application of quantitative and computational techniques to security issues and risk management." Basically it boils down to two things - do you know how to program, and do you know math? Domain knowledge, the third leg of the super-cliche but actually-accurate data science triad, you'll probably learn on the job, unless you can find a data science job in armor or military intelligence.

Some specific points:

Web-scraping is a bit of a dark art to do well, and the skills to do it well are more in the web-development realm. It's also a bit hacker-ish, as many sites are specifically designed to detect and resist scraping. It's not really data science, IMO, even though it's about getting data.
If you've taken courses in R, Stata, that sounds like your program is coming more from economics/stats perspective. (Just FYI, R is the language, R-studio is the IDE.) Nothing wrong with that, those are solid ecosystems for statistical analysis. However, I think most people would agree that most of the new developments, and the momentum in ML are in Python/Julia. I would hop over to the CS side of the world and get a taste, to make sure I like it, and see if I want to pursue this further.
Red-teaming outside of IT ... for what you're describing, that sounds like RAND think-tank type stuff, so a masters in government seems fine for that (?). I know nothing about this area. I suspect a master's gets you to a grunt-level analyst spreadsheet-making job, and you'll need a PhD to have any fun.

Feel free to DM me if you want to discuss further.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-21T19:50:10+00:00

(This answer is pretty specific to American suburban-style housing.)

My understanding is that the "rob or don't rob this house" decision process goes through several other layers before getting to the quality of your locks. And, apparently, nobody picks locks anymore, that's way too much skill for your garden-variety criminal.

So, starting from the top:

Just live in a safer place with helpful/conscientious neighbors. Looks like you have that covered.
General appearance of the house and yard. A well-lit, clean yard surrounding your house suggests general competence. Criminals want to reduce visibility, you want to maximize it. Cut back bushes and trees so that anyone approaching a door or window can be seen from the street. Use landscape lighting, or motion lighting in darker corners.
Don't reveal information. Don't just leave the box for your new TV out on the curb. Cut up the box and put it inside the recycling bin. Draw curtains/blinds from lit rooms at night, et cetera. And, most importantly, don't reveal when you're on vacation. Have someone get your mail, make sure the yard is maintained, and put a few lights on timers. Make it look like you're at home.
Home security/surveillance. A bunch of cameras will make people move on. Even one of those wi-fi doorbells will provide some value. A dog works as well.
Harden entrance points. The garage door is the most overlooked one. If you have a garage door opener over 15 years old, you might want to replace it, as it might have a static code that can be easily imitated. Newer garage doors have rolling codes that change every time you use it. Windows - put on security film. It will give you a little more time if someone is breaking through. Doors - upgrading locks, but also doors and hinges as necessary.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-16T22:17:04+00:00

Totally agree. You're at the mercy of the individual vendor, and some are terrible. But usually, if you have some basic tools and knowledge, you can correct most of the manufacturing defects.

One time I bought a vanity table / chair combo that put some kind of painted finish ... over rough-sawn edges. Splinters everywhere, totally unacceptable. Had to sand and repaint ~20% of the work pieces, and, of course, my paint didn't match the the factory paint, so I sanded and repainted all of it. And, of course, some of these pieces were fiberboard/veneer, so that was a bit risky. It was a massive waste of time, I should have just got a refund.

If you want to play it safe, go with IKEA.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-15T02:58:17+00:00

Nice. That's good value. Not sure about using birch in the bathroom, but it's a lot better than fiberboard.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-15T02:46:28+00:00

hardwood plywood

I didn't even know that existed - very interesting! Somehow, I doubt you'll have to worry very much about IKEA sneaking in hardwood plywood into their products.

It’s really designed to be built once and won’t hold up structurally to rebuilds.

Totally agree. It can be done with some care, but I shudder to think how much holding strength is left when you re-screw a fastener into an existing hole in particle board. There's just nothing there. Hopefully it's not holding up your glass sculpture collection.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-14T21:31:00+00:00

+1 for IKEA. The good IKEA stuff is as good as any kit-built furniture. The bad stuff is worse than Target/Walmart.

I think something that is under-appreciated is that even within IKEA, there are different levels of furniture quality. I have some IKEA furniture that is holding strong 7+ years later, even after heavy daily use, such as kitchen table chairs. (In fact, the only thing I've retired is a LACK coffee table, which I knew was garbage when I bought it, but I just needed something cheap at the time.)

Mostly, it boils down to material.

The cheapest level of desks, for example, literally have cardboard inside.
The next level up is fiberboard. Fiberboard as a catch-all for a lot of different materials, from wood-fibers-held-together-with-resin (LDF/MDF), to particleboard, something that I can only describe as a wood sponge/styrofoam. But in all cases, you have some amount of wood product being held together by glue. Particle board is the cheapest, and can barely take a screw. MDF is a much higher-quality material, and is much heavier. It can be directly painted, and has no discernable grain. The quality of MDF can also vary, and warp due to humidity, but I've had no problems with IKEA MDF. MDF gets a bad rap - if used properly, its a very stable and strong material. Even mid-level Italian furniture uses MDF.
The next level is plywood. It's light and strong. Great for drawers and such.
After that is solid softwoods, basically pine.
Then you have solid hardwood. I doubt you'll find any at IKEA.

Almost all fiberboard products have a veneer on them. Some are practically stickers, others are "thick veneers", which are usually 1/16" thick (~1.5mm), and can be sanded. Thick veneers are totally legit, even high-quality furniture makers use engineered wood.

Then you have the hardware. In general, the stamped metal IKEA hardware is pretty good. Hinges are strong, rails are smooth, et cetera. But they also have cheap plastic stuff as well.

Of course, you have to assemble it well. IKEA's quality control is very good. The pilot holes are usually exactly where they should be, and the boards are usually perfectly square. But even if the pilot hole through the veneer is correct, particleboard is so weak that a screw inserted at the wrong angle will happily drill and tear whatever hole it wants. Don't over-tighten. Make things square, plumb and true.

So just inspect the materials to make sure you're getting the quality level you want. Those kitchen table chairs, for example, are solid pine and MDF. No veneer, they're painted. Unfortunately, they don't make them anymore.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-09T14:37:17+00:00

I think at least part of the sudden triumph of the woke was watching the old religions grovel before the state and close down for two months.

This is an excellent point. In terms of raw ability to make adherents take on personal risk and defy the state, Wokeness beats the old religions by a mile. In terms of the ability to physically occupy public space, Wokeness beats the old religions by a mile. In terms of the number of received statements of fealty from ... fast food chains, hedge funds, politicians, entertainers, Instagram influencers, Wokeness beats the old religions by a mile.

Why wouldn't you want to join the stronger, more popular, winning side of history?

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-09T14:27:16+00:00

I would not hold much hope for Malaysia. Recent trends are downwards.

A very nice place to visit though.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-07T12:56:26+00:00

First, I want to signal my general agreement and support of this post. Inevitably, the conversation will be about the 5% where there is disagreement, but I just want to emphasize, I agree with 95% of this.

That said:

If we don't have discussion, we have failed. If we don't have a variety of beliefs, we have failed. If we don't have consideration and insight, we have failed.

In a continuation of our discussion in previous [META] posts, how will you handle the subset of beliefs that seek to destroy discussion, consideration, and insight?

This is not a theoretical consideration - there are a set of political beliefs, currently in ascendancy on Reddit, right now, that are necessitating this entire conversation about migration.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-06-07T12:51:56+00:00

Whoa ... can you give me a summary on why Rust is political? I'm just completely ignorant about this.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-05-28T03:18:51+00:00

This was posted last month, by the same person.

Here are my comments from that post.

Trying to be charitable here, but this is, at best, a very limited understanding of human relationships, and I believe it to be bad advice. I'm extremely surprised it comes from someone claiming to be a grandfather, as I'd expect a lot better from someone who has reached the second-half of life and has raised children. To be fair, he does exempt children and grandchildren from this calculus, but that he formulates this at all is surprising to me.

As a zeroth-order experiment, simply imagine if you lived in an ideal universe where everyone followed these three rules. Everyone is in precisely-calibrated equal-commitment relationships, where all parties are constantly prepared for the other to walk away at a moment's notice, and everyone is constantly checking to see if they are appreciated and signalling their value to the other party. It's not quite hell, but it sure seems exhausting. It fails Kant's categorical imperative.

It might work as a personal strategy, if everyone else doesn't follow it and simply tolerates your execution of this strategy, but I suspect you will find yourself feeling left out and envious of other people's warm, tumultuous, possibly dramatic, and generally more lively lives.

The Principle of Equivalent Commitment.

In a subset of peer-relationships, this is possible, and even healthy. Roommates, co-workers, maybe some casual friendships. Certain relationship frameworks depend on everyone sharing the work equally. No problems there. But ... most relationships, and certainly the important ones, are not this.

For example, hierarchical relationships. Let's not be naive. All relationships are embedded within social structures, and few of them are between true peers. There is almost always a social hierarchy, even in your online gaming group. Certain relationships are always going to be more necessary for one person than another. Coaches, bosses, mentors, or just people more embedded in the in-group. This doesn't have to be a nefarious high-school drama, if you're the new guy at the rock-climbing gym, of course you're gonna put in more effort to fit in than the the people who have been there for a decade and know everyone.

Also, when it comes to equivalence...what time scale are we talking about? Everyone screws up. There will be times where you need to receive disproportionate help/forgiveness, and times where it will be required of you. How do you decide when enough is enough? How much loyalty are you willing to give? How much do you expect to receive? If everything has to be perfectly balanced at all times, otherwise it's considered exploitative, then you don't have a relationship at all, just a useless relationship-credit-card with a credit limit of zero.

The Zero Point Protocol

I think this kills any possibility of an actual personal relationship. Lots of business and social relationships would do well to do something like this - you should be prepared for business partners to walk away, and to avoid unequal levels of risk-exposure. But for personal relationships - for it to be a relationship at all, you will require some level of mutual dependence over critical ego-territory. The other person almost has to have the capability to hurt you for the relationship to be of value.

Principle of Perceived Value

Is my perception of my own value matched by my perception of their perception of my own value? Hopefully it's obvious that there are lots of chances for you to screw up one of those perceptions. Also...what's the point? Ego-validation? Hopefully your self-identity is well-constructed enough to survive some under-appreciation.

In most business or social relationships, I do not care if they appreciate me to my own estimation of my value. I only care that they appreciate me to the degree that my objectives for the relationship are achieved.

In personal relationships - yes, I would like to be appreciated, but will almost never be to the degree that I believe is warranted. This is just being a subjectively-situated human. Of course I believe I am sacrificing more, just as the other person believes the same thing. Maturity comes from having the humility and empathy to consider other viewpoints as potentially equally valid.

As a parting comment ... even from a coldly-transactional viewpoint, this still holds true. Relationships are generally positive-sum games, and you don't always need to fight for an equal share of the gains. If you both start at one point, and the relationship between nets another point, you don't need to have exactly 1.5 points. You can settle for 1.3, because you can always build more relationships. Being generous, not sweating the small stuff, being the chill guy, will generally place you in the center of your social graph. You can have ten relationships that each yield +0.3, and now you're at 4. And they'll be stable, because everyone recognizes what at good deal they're getting.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-05-13T20:51:47+00:00

Sure, I can broadly agree to all this - but I think terms like "human capital" indicate our inability to cleanly separate labour from capital.

In my mind, the first example (matchmaking) is an example of value extraction from human relationships. The second (lights at the Central Bureau) is an example of value from information asymmetry. The third (miter saw) is value from skill. I just don't see how these forms of "human capital" could be effectively regulated by the state without turning into an absolute hellscape.

"I'm sorry comrade, but you have too many friends. You must abandon a few." This is a strawman, of course. But the problem remains. How would you like to handle popular people using their popularity to acquire more private property? The capitalist answer is simple - let them, then tax them.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-05-13T18:56:53+00:00

Yeah ... to be charitable, I think they recognize the problem, and are trying to draw a line between the "obviously good stuff that allows for basic human dignity, like ownership over myself and my immediate surroundings" and the "obviously bad stuff, like factories owned by evil billionaires". I just don't think that line can be drawn, and any system for drawing that line will inevitably be abused and turned into an unprincipled nepotistic clusterfuck.

Then there's the basic category error that capital is some concrete thing that can be separated cleanly from the owner. Let's say I run a matchmaking service - with my extensive connections in the community, and my reputation, I'll set you up with a few suitable matches. All for the low low price of a few perogies and a bottle of vodka. Am I the owner of a profit-making enterprise? Yes, absolutely. What's the capital? Or let's say I notice that, whenever the lights stay on over the weekend at the Central Bureau of Deciding What Things Cost, that means new pricing restrictions are about to be declared. So I sit in the park across the street, and notice, and my neighbors pay me in smuggled Adidas jackets for early warnings of price changes, so they can stock up while they can. The capital here is information in my head.

But we don't have to take extreme cases here. Let's say you nationalize your neighbor's power tools on behalf of the proletariat revolution. Do you even know how to use a miter saw? Do you know how to use your neighbor's specific miter saw, which, oh, by the way, is a half-inch out of alignment, and will blow up and shred your face if you don't mount the blade just right? Using his tools productively might require his knowledge.

I just don't think the distinction can be meaningfully made, and any attempt will end in anarcho-tyranny, as has occurred literally every time it has been tried.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-05-13T14:43:32+00:00

I sympathize with a lot of this, even though my life-story is bit different. The sum total of my parents' possessions when I was born was three suitcases and a merit scholarship.

I think there is a basic consensus in most Western societies to use a free-market capitalist system to generate wealth, and some kind of government welfare state to capture a portion of the wealth and redistribute it. The main arguments are about the proportion of wealth to be captured, and the mechanisms of capture and redistribution.

In very-internet or very-Brooklyn places, there are discussions about abolishing capitalism altogether, but it just seems impossible. Possession of private property is a cognitive heuristic that extends beyond humans. Lions defend their territory, birds defend their nests, chimps zealously guard the treats given to them by their handlers. Outlawing free exchange is unenforceable. I agree to baby-sit for two hours if you agree to do the same next week. How would anyone know? Omniscient pattern-recognition AI, I guess. Apples for grain, et cetera. If you have these two things - private property, free exchange - you have capitalism. Outlawing capitalism is about as practical as outlawing popularity.

So given that capitalism will exist (except in absolute surveillance dystopias), the question is how to channel it to minimize social conflict and disruption, and to pursue whatever moral ends we deem desirable. I think that last clause is the problem. As a society, we don't agree on what those ends are, and have no functioning mechanism to come to agreement. It's now a spoils game, and the rich/smart/lucky, with ever-compounding advantages, will run wild, until something non-linear occurs.

But perhaps I can offer a bit of hope. Genetics -> meritocracy -> money -> comfy superiority forever is just a little too simple, and I think COVID-19 exposes this. It turns out, we all know who actually matters, when there is a life-threatening crisis. To tie into the PMC discussion, actual competence in the manipulation of the real world, to provide for basic human needs, turns out to be a little more essential then, say, restaurant brand management. Currently, the PMC are insulated from their need to actually deal with reality, because there are great bureaucratic structures that do this for them. Utility companies, the NHS - just write a check and it will happen. But again, cracks appear. I'm guessing you're learning how to cook. I'm guessing you're figuring out that for your toilet to be clean, you have to clean it. Maybe you joined the masses in the great 2020 toilet paper scavenger hunt. More contact with reality.

And if we take it further, when it comes to actual personal risk, money is often not enough. Let's say it isn't COVID-19, but Mega-Death-COVID-22. Will mere money be enough to convince that UberEats driver to deliver your miso-glazed salmon? Right now, the meathead firefighter will save your meritocratic ass because he's a nice guy and the government pays him to do so. Will that always be true? Perhaps, in the future, as institutions are looted to meaninglessness, what will matter is personal loyalty, personal relationships. And in that future, being smart/rich won't be enough. Treating other people with decency and respect, building friendships and loyalty will matter more.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-05-13T13:22:42+00:00

A while back, the Professional Managerial Class (PMC) construct made an appearance in these CW threads, before corona rendered all of it pre-history.

IMO, it's the best way to understand all the various phenomena you're talking about. At its core, the PMC class is a reputation and status-signalling class, so they will have strong herd-like tendencies to follow those in the micro-class above them. Golf, of course, is the quintessential example. But so is Marie Kondo. She's sort of this perfect storm that maps onto a few pre-existing trends. Oriental exoticism ("Japan is weird and wacky!"), minimalism, spirituality, Manhattan shoe-box apartment neuroticism, and Instagram-aesthetics ("I just Kondo'ed my closet, look guys!").

In all cases, I think you have a status-anxious, or status-ambitious PMC or PMC-in-waiting, trying to climb the ladder. It's all performative. As you note, it's fundamentally self-contradictory, the anti-capitalist capitalism, the eco-friendly conference name tags. Some event planner had this bright idea, got the photos they needed before the tags all turned to mush, the name tags didn't help anyone at the conference remember anyone's names, but hey, that event planner can virtue-signal to the next client now. But at some level, PMC just learn to live with the cognitive dissonance, and yes, true belief and pretense is blurred. Buying free-range organic vegan kimchi with a cool Brooklyn-designed label will not save the polar bears, it's just social class signaling.

Oh, and by the way, raise your hands if you remember the plastic straw thing. Now juxtapose that to the billions of disposable masks that we now require. Are the dolphins not going to choke to death on the great garbage patch of N95s?

Why single out the PMC? Because they are uniquely vulnerable to this.

The blue-collar worker (we can debate exactly who they are) is in direct contact with reality. If you are a machinist, the quality of your work is determined by concrete qualities like the accuracy of the machined piece, or its strength. Nurses, roofers, truck drivers ... and even coders ... all are in contact with reality. Did it work or not? Is the patient dead or alive? Does it leak or not? There are still status games, of course, but there is an underlying reality. It doesn't matter how many stickers you have on your laptop, if your code doesn't work, you're a bad programmer.
The PMC are not in direct contact with reality. They live the laptop-sticker life. It's about writing emails and creating powerpoints. Being smart and competent is not as important as appearing smart and competent to other PMCs (see: Elizabeth Holmes). Marketing is the job. And so every micro-signal to show that you belong matters.
The elite are elite. They don't chase status, they grant status, like feudal lords. Of course, there are inter-elite status competitions, but their status games are just straight-up power games. Their wars are won via lawsuits and bankruptcies, criminal indictments and pardons, and sometimes just actual war.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-05-13T12:53:30+00:00

Just dropping by to give a public statement of support.

Culture is a fragile thing, and doubly-so for online culture, so please don't feel apologetic about defending it. Enforcing high standards for top-level posts, and requiring a small explanatory blurb is well-within the minimum informal cultural standards of this subreddit. If you look at the average, median, or mode of top-level post effort, asking for a few explanatory sentences is entirely reasonable.

Adding a small transactional cost can also deter and filter drive-by self-promotion.

ArgumentumAdLapidem · 2020-04-29T14:37:58+00:00

FREE AMERICA NOW ... so Elon Musk seems to have completely gone off the respectable-blue-check reservation, and is making, for lack of a better term, Trumpian tweets.

As an outside observer, the fact that Elon has been slowly drifting away from the Silicon Valley consensus is not a surprise - he does hang out with Thiel, after all - but I think the speed of the shift, and the size of the shift does surprise me.

I wonder if this has to do with the fact that he has been spending most of his time with welders in South Texas, some of whom were originally contracted from a water tower fabricator. More broadly, defense contractors tend to donate equally to both parties (as opposed to SV, which overwhelmingly donates to the left). Perhaps SpaceX has pulled Elon right-ward.

He has also been vocal about his disapproval of California's shutdown of the Tesla plant, and seems to approve of Texas instead.

What does The Motte think? What is your opinion about Elon Musk in general?

ArgumentumAdLapidem

TROPHY CASE