coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
That cricket was an enjoyed pastime and some man developed a reputation for being good is not the same as the sports-celebrity culture today. Boys can name twenty athletes at minimum, they watch most of the games of their favorite team, buy the jerseys and shoes, play FIFA (315 million* copies sold) or Madden (130 million copies sold), invest significant childhood time on competitive sports. I doubt middle class children in England grew up worshipping pugilists or cricket players.
And I mean, maybe pugilism was prosocial when your destiny as an illiterate lower class Englishman was to soldier overseas or die of malaria; it instills courage and desensitivity to pain. But that wasn’t the world of the other classes, and now we are all in these other classes.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1d ago
Steelman of two of Vivek’s points:
Americans have been obsessed with productivity for a long time. Search passages by the Founders for “industry” or “industrious” and you will find thousands of hits, often lauding the virtue of productivity. In the early 1900s we had scientific management, described in the 1940s book and movie Cheaper by the Dozen (about the 1920s). The movie is interesting for lauding both productivity and fertility.
Dad always practiced what he preached, and it was just about impossible to tell where his scientific management company ended and his family life began […] Dad took moving pictures of us children washing dishes, so that he could figure out how we could reduce our motions and thus hurry through the task, irregular jobs, such as painting the back porch or removing a stump from the front lawn, were awarded on a low-bid basis. Each child who wanted extra pocket money submitted a sealed bid saying what he would do the job for. The lowest bidder got the contract.
Dad installed process and work charts in the bathrooms. Every child old enough to write — and Dad expected his offspring to start writing at a tender age — was required to initial the charts in the morning after he had brushed his teeth, taken a bath, combed his hair, and made his bed. At night, each child had to weigh himself, plot the figure on a graph, and initial the process charts again after he had done his homework, washed his hands and face, and brushed his teeth
Vivek is also right that we promote the wrong ideal in children. Our sports culture is ridiculous. Children shouldn’t look up to athletes and student athletes shouldn’t practice every day. This has no history in the first century of America, where a sport was enjoyed for its benefits and not as an end in itself. If you were a child in the 1800s you would look up to an historical hero, a national hero, or possibly some business titan. But not a sports player. Consumer sports obsession doesn’t even promote health, it discourages health by demotivating participation in local sports and encouraging sedentary activity.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
There’s also a bad message, though, that as a kid you can do things for yourself and not rely on adults, and that you can have heroic adventures doing things yourself. This is a good lesson for an 18-year-old, but probably not a child.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
I come from the people who more than any other group bred with a different freaking species than my own. If admixture between races offends God than my lineage has already been damned since the last glacial maximum.
Yes, or even the last deluge. We read this in Genesis 6.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
2d ago
Usha is already here. Usha is also not average H1B. She was a Supreme Court law clerk and her mother was a provost at UCSD. Also, people are likely to pair if they fall in love, and we are deciding a policy about whether or not to even invite Indians to the continent. I’m not trying to dictate whether people in love should marry or not.
admixture is human
Hahahah, tell that to Usha’s ancestors! Who for three millennia as Brahmins conserved as much indo-aryan DNA as they could by instituting a genetic caste system in which they have eternal control over society, which the Hindu religious system revolves around, which they created for that purpose. Are you curious why Brahmin IQ is high? Or why India’s Indo-Aryan DNA is exclusively patrilineal and your Inuit DNA is matrilineal? Men invade and conquer women because that is their genetic divine mandate, because that expands their genes, which at least Hinduism has the honesty to accept. Seriously, violating this is the nearest science has to violating the will of God: this principle is your creator, it is responsible for your very life and cognition, and you can appreciate it because this creator endowed you with thought, so that your reason can understand it if for some reason your instincts fail. Yes, you have the free choice to disobey your creator, in which case your genetic line will eventually lose eternal life.
immigration
We are talking about a very specific type of immigration which takes a somewhat higher income job. Which analysis did you read that focuses on H1B and first subtracts all of these immigrants from the “effect on wages”, eg the effect on non-H1B wages? When Elon hires H1-B for Tesla, do you really think that (checks net worth) he would not be able to spend 20k more on an American? It’s either H1-B or he closes shop? The profits and net worths of the highest H1B recipients prove that it is a way to hoard profit for owners and investors.
immigrants take up too much space is absurd
If humans tend to congregate around urban areas, which they do in both America and horribly dense India, then there is limited space for them, which means… they take up space. “Find a coding job in North Dakota” is not a real criticism here. The Indians can just as well find a job in the Himalayas.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
Even if it is not elastic with density, these people are going to be in your territory forever, whereas the original people still maintain dominion over their territory. So they have thousands of years to change fertility in their country where they often make up 99% inhabitants, but you introduced genes that will stay in your territory forever.
American population cannot growth infinitely and you are filling the land with far away genes. These people disproportionately take high income jobs. It deters the government and industries from problem-solving about our own fertility. Even nepotism aside, which is also an issue, it affects your reproductive success*. And you shouldn’t be sure that your descendants are going to forever mate in a separate sphere. Also, H1B is mostly men. Also, if you would only reproductive if you saw a woman who originates 8000 miles away, you are a genetic anomaly.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
I literally explained this in the parentheses of the first sentence. If you are an American, of literally any ancestry, then your reproductive success is harmed with the introduction of Indian genes. Your biological success is reduced by introducing H1B immigrants, especially as it makes eventual citizenship more likely. Because this is a new introduction at a time when every group is low TF. And so this applies to all non-Indian Americans. Are you American? You have genes and are affected.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
Americans (of any non-indian ethnicity) lose the biological competition regardless of whether intermarriage occurs 100%, 50%, or 0%. Because Indian genes will still make up 99% of India if +200mil were dropped in America. American genes simply reduce their prevalence (if admixed) or ability to proliferate (if no intermarriage occurs). It makes no sense to do this given what we know about our design: with instincts to form groups exclusively for the purposes of gene proliferation. Who would ever form a group that specifically reduces their reproductive success?
Is a person who has mixed-race children less biologically successful than one who has an equal number of children of the same race
If this continues, the genes of that organism will go extinct. Their genes are reduced by half per iteration.
the optimal outcome would be to field an army of clones rather than engaging in sexual reproduction at all
Humans did not evolve to be cloned, they evolved to live in somewhat small bands where 3rd-4th degree cousin marriage was common.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
We are no longer in a 7.0 TFR world, but a sub 2.0 world, meaning that any addition of immigrant either to the top or bottom is actively harmful. When TFR is high and the land is immense and farmable, then immigrants to the bottom may expedite the fertility of higher “classes”. The population of America in 1800 was only 5 million.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
3d ago
19th century immigration enhanced the fertility of Anglo-Americans because Germans and Irish began their life in the lowest economic position — indentured servants, apprentices, and some creating farming towns out of nothing. This at a time of zero public services, and obviously no DEI. Germany is also the origin of Anglo-Saxons (the angles and the saxons), and the Normans for that matter, and you can read the etymology of men like Washington and Lincoln to see where their forefathers originated. Meanwhile, Irish is so similar to non-Germanic British that DNA sites have difficulty distinguishing between them.
If hybrid vigor is our concern, then consider that India has a high rate of cousin marriage, whereas Europeans had consanguinity laws for much of their history. Look at the rate of genetic problems among Pakistanis in the UK. India has low hybrid vigor, whereas Europeans have a fair amount due to historical laws on >4th generation cousin marriages.
There's a strong scientific reason to be against H1B entirely, even if it increases GDP:
- Humans only developed the ability to form social groups because it benefitted gene proliferation. Community, society, and civilization are intrinsically tied to what benefits human gene proliferation.
- H1B and other forms of immigration actively damage the reproductive success of Americans because (a) our national fertility is low, (b) rival nations have a comparatively enormous population and take in few immigrants, (c) they take the highest wage jobs, (d) they take up physical space in the territory and (e) they accrue political power.
- H1B violates the only reason we are able, as humans, to form countries and organize socially at all, making it a rare case of an objectively bad evolutionary decision.
A funny hypothetical illustrates the point. Let's say that if we import 200 million Indians, our economy would be the best in the world forever. If we do this, do Americans “win”? Well, not biologically. We would have won a socially constructed number-based game that has zero impact on our biological success. We have lost in the deepest sense, because we have betrayed the whole purpose of cognition. Rather than making America competitive, we would have forever lost the evolutionary competition which designed our very minds. Probably because evolution selects for intuitive prosocial genes like empathy (flip-side: out-group prejudice) and not just raw abstract pattern recognition. We would have lost the game of life, and gained a small footnote in the future Hindi history of the world. We would have even reneged on the first words God ever spoke to us — “be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth”.
Obviously, 200 million is excessive for the point of a thought experiment. But this just means that the damage occurs to a lesser degree. Indian Americans are 1.5% of America, the highest paid group in America, and the fastest-growing demographic. Let’s say that a generous .1% are geniuses who have aided American military might. This reduces American reproductive success by at least 1.4%, arguably more because of the higher socioeconomic position. The greatest risk is that they begin to use their high earnings to lobby for more Indians, which seems to be happening presently.
I find it hard to believe that this arrangement is even in the evolutionary interests of “elite human capital”. If you are Elon Musk, you have more genes in common with the average American than the average Indian. If Elon is crowned Eternal King of India and begins the genetic proliferation that befits a medieval royal — along with a haram of beautiful nubiles — it’s doubtful that he would ever reach the level of similarity that he already has with Americans generally, and Northern European Americans specifically. So what is even the biological point? It makes no sense from a scientific point of view. It is a form of biological self-harm.
It’s weird that no one actually brings up the science in these discussions, only the economic studies. But the economic studies are only valuable when subordinated to and weighed by biology. Okay, economists are saying that if we add the Indians then the CEO gets another ski home… but the biology is quite clear that this is ultimately not in anyone’s interest, even the CEOs, and goes against natural design (both evolution and God). If you guys really want the ski homes then we can invade the Himalayas.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
5d ago
There are simple ways to protect against this threat if the threat were plausible. You could mandate that everything must be judged exclusively by Christ’s words and deeds as handed down unchanged for many centuries in the Christian gospel (with the apostles in a very far second place, never overruling Christ). This means that the standard of behavior can’t be changed. You can enact a “majority rule” vote decision, if any teachings needed to be changed. You could mandate that they must be married with children and have their children attend the religious schooling — meaning anything that harms the religion now harms their children. And so on.
Once you provide this blueprint to the 130 IQ+ sleeper agent I think they can imitate it well enough that to all external appearances they are a true believer and it's only on the inside that they are secretly trying to take over the community
In real life, people’s behaviors are motivated by rewards. This sleeper agent needs a genuine compelling reason to “take over the community”, such that they bear the discomfort of helping members of the community selflessly for decades for a small chance of taking over the community. Every time he helps someone he hates, he will be demoralized, while his virtuous counterpart is moralized. The virtuous counterpart enjoys pure cognitive efficiency, whereas the vicious one needs to constantly double-think everything he does. At the same time, the sleeper agent will be spending many hours a week being propagandized into loving Christ, which may involve persuasive arguments. At best, all of those hours are spent in discomfort; at worst, he is persuaded into virtuous behavior.
This is kind of like saying that an evil person who hates SpaceX will join SpaceX in an attempt to subvert it. SpaceX easily filters for people who genuinely care about the mission: they are made to work on it with their whole mind and heart and strength, to participate in “all night vigils” where they work on their project. A hater is less likely to be able to do all of this, because every aspect of it lacks the feedback loop of motivating reinforcement. Yet unlike SpaceX, Christianity involves rituals for propagandizing the faith, with music and poetry and spectacle and drama and stories.
Christianity in its original form (well what I strongly believe is its original form), in a “the words of Jesus decide 99% of the focus and the theology” form, has a rigorous immune system against vain purity spiraling.
infiltrators start gently rebuking everyone for everything because they don't adhere to the rituals in the 100% correct way, always ensuring that they are "holier than thou" for the people they are rebuking
Jesus specifically condemns those who prioritize ritual over substance. In fact, he saves his greatest condemnation for these people. He is put to death by these people, either directly or indirectly depending on your theology. It’s a surprisingly major part of the gospel. Some examples:
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees […] They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by others. […] But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
This trains Christians to be aware of anyone who signals virtue explicitly, where the spectacle of the virtue is sought rather than the substance. It trains Christians to be aware of anyone who prides themselves on stringent rule-following and burden-bearing. It then cuts out the possibility of the vain finding satisfaction in a prideful position, because Christians are told not to take any pride in that or even call themselves “teacher” or “instructor”. Then, it sets the actual standard for obtaining status: the more one humbles himself (in substance, understood as imitating Christ with all necessary sacrifices), the more exalted he will be in the community. Yet the one who exalts himself will be swiftly humbled by the community.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others
A purity spiral oriented around immaterial or vain issues is criticized. There’s a priority of importance.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
This trains Christians to be cautious of those who appear outwardly righteous or who seem put on an act for attention.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
This is great. It instantly reminds me of some high status academic giving a land acknowledge: do you really think, you status-seeker, that you wouldn’t have been the one taking the land were you alive back then?
Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar
This is the only place where Jesus goes absolutely demon mode condemning people. He was comparatively chill with the prostitutes and tax collectors. Even the woman with five husbands isn’t condemned but joined him for dinner, and she was a Samaritan, so not in his closest community. You see, the “scribes” are the journalists, “fact checkers”, and academic writers of Christ’s time. The Pharisees are like the combined “academic instructors” and “moral police” of his time. This is sufficient to understand his ire, really. And this isn’t an exhaustive list of criticism.
The crucial thing about Christianity is that Christ is conceived as a person (topical). As such, his character can be imitated in addition to his philosophy internalized. And his character was not “holier than thou”, which means that to obtain status, one cannot act that way. They have to act as follows:
Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross
What you see as a zero-day vulnerability would require all the Christians to be blind to it happening, to ignore the central teachings they are supposed to worship, and also for the Judas-defector to somehow be better at righteous conduct than the Christians. But by the defector’s very nature, they would be unable to defeat a good Christian in exemplifying genuine humility (no acclaim to be gained in the years of this practice, and they are apparently addicted to acclaim). And the reward for all of this would be genuinely miniscule compared to entering any other institution: it’s not like they would get extra gold or girls. If there exists some vicious person who is so addicted to power and status that they wish to subvert Christianity, it would seem that the years of Christlike conduct necessary to ingratiate themselves in the community would either cure them of their vice or make them absolutely mad. They would only be able to get their status fix from habitual conduct which is, if not debasing, equalizing. Now in modern Christianity they would be able to talk well, or claim to have a vision, or claim to know the most; not so in the OC religion.
I think the way that Christianity works — and the only way it can work — is if Jesus is perceived as a person in your community and becomes the sole measure of social status within your community. Everything else is corollary to this, an innocent dramatic exaggeration, or mystical poetry. You can learn every theological argument about God and not have your behavior changed; you can be an atheist yet a Bible scholar; and you can be a literalist Bible-thumper who also thumps his family. There’s no shortage of Bible-expert Church-going villainy in the world. But if Jesus (as moral exemplar) is the sole measure of all social status — all social interest, all self-worth, all peer competition and ranking, all value — then this will necessarily change your behavior. You might have your behavior changed kicking and screaming, feeling like a “prisoner of Christ”, or “a servant doing his duty”, or a chained foreign soldier dragged behind Christ’s imperial victory procession, but your behavior will certainly be changed for the better if all socially-mediated reward is contingent upon the imitation of Christ.
Christianity as a spectacle-sport where you hear someone charismatic and then go about your week (unless your whim or nonexistent “self-discipline” tells you to do something) is not its original form. It is amply shown in the primary text document of the religion that participation is cult-like. The apostles give up everything to follow their teacher across the nation. They exist at times in complete poverty. It is required that the church become your new family (Mt 10:37, 12:49). Disagreements between members are mediated by the community and the unrepentant defector is thrown out. The Church Fathers write about banning Christians from ever going to the theater or attending sports. They share everything in common and wash each other’s feet. The religion is called “the Brotherhood” — women don’t speak in church, and they keep their hair covered.
Imagine you were transported into this world. You try to bring up the local gladiatorial games and an elder gently rebukes you. Someone else talks about being a Rome First voter — they are gently corrected. Someone tries to talk about all he knows about the Bible — he is immediately questioned on why he is claiming to know anything at all when the illiterate shepherd boy shows greater faith through his conduct. Now imagine that, because everyone believes they will be judged by every unproductive and idle word they speak, that the conversations are always centered on (1) encouragement of moral conduct, (2) support for one’s moral conduct, (3) genuine brotherly love, (4) that the only thing of value is whether moral conduct is pursued as shown through their social superior. You will not get any social reinforcement or friendship except if you do this, and the only thing being reinforced is if you do this. What an alien world: no distractions, no (false) status signaling, no “empty knowledge”, just pure… effective altruism? In a Christian sense that is. “Taking captive every thought for Christ”. Poetry and hymns and incense are piled onto this substantive kernel, as morale-boost, but are not the main thing.
I like Jordan Peterson as an “idea factory” — he has produced some great ideas and a lot of bad ones. But JP is more like a pastor than an exemplar: he gives a dramatic performance with little evidence to back up his way of life. He extols cleaning his room and his own room is a mess. He extols reason but he cold turkey’d his psychiatric medication, putting him in a coma in Russia. His daughter is a divorced single mom who once met up with Andrew Tate. He literally only eats steak. He yaps a lot and sells a lot of courses. He is very much not Christ-like, just to draw the comparison.
My thoughts:
-
It’s hard to determine the relationship between vaccines and autism because of the confounder variables: Asperger’s has nothing to do with what we are talking about and is mislabeled as autism; parents of children who exhibit signs of autism are more weary about getting vaccines, and this applies to siblings; wealthier Americans are more likely to be vaccinated, may be less likely to have autistic children before the vaccine, but may be more likely to pursue an Asperger’s diagnosis for extra time on child’s tests; the least healthy parents are the least likely to opt in to all vaccines and the least likely to take child to doctor regularly …
-
You can reliably give monkeys autism symptoms by disrupting the natural mother-child bond, for instance Harry Harlow’s experiments with monkeys. The mother-child bond has been disrupted due to (1) early schooling, (2) stressed working mothers, (3) a generation of women who are not acculturated specifically for loving and bonding with young humans. This may have multigenerational effect, who knows?
-
the idea that the most STEM-brained men should mate with the most STEM-brained women is anomalous in history of humanity, this may have an effect
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
9d ago
Rules on attire have relaxed but other rules around work have become stringent. Smoking and drinking when staying late at your white collar office job is obviously gone; off-color and boyish humor is gone; flirting with female employees at work is gone. Progressive shibboleths have been instituted. Where you go to school matters more, whether you’ve stayed at the same job matters more. Appearance of hair and teeth matter more. So is the workplace really more “relaxed”? It’s just no longer uniform regarding clothing, but it’s less-permissive in a whole lot of other areas.
the boilerplate celebrity interview question "What book are you currently reading?" was retired years ago: no one is reading books anymore
A lot of this is that non-fiction is filled with filler as it’s considered more respectable to publish a book rather than a pamphlet or booklet (so diminutive!). You can glean a lot of the valuable information of a non-fiction book from reading reviews and seeing discussions online.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
12d ago
I read something interesting once about Chinese or Japanese military philosophy in ww2 and how they prioritized a pseudoscientific concept of energy flow which influenced their military directions. So like, they would march extra long without resting until they reached their destination because this enhances this energy flow. I think it was related to chi? Can’t find it again for the life of me, if anyone knows what I could be talking about
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
14d ago
All humans and primates are motivated by status. It’s not something we can opt out of. Whether we decide to care about our status consciously or not, our actions revolve around our status in groups due to millions of years of evolution. If he is a true believer, somehow willing himself into true belief, it’s still a belief that comes with the highest possible increase in status per his worldview. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing for Elon, only that it can’t be generalizable to humanity at large, and in fact may be pernicious if attempted.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
15d ago
Sorry what I mean by zero-sum is that it’s a “telic” zero-sum status game. The motivating force behind Elon Musk isn’t just “humans will inevitably reach Mars”, but that Elon is the one championing this species-significant event. He is involved in it, others are not; the fate of consciousness rests on his company’s shoulders. This is motivating for everyone at SpaceX: they at the company are the ones forever altering the trajectory of humanity, in their daily course of action. But this isn’t grounds for motivation for everyone else. In fact, this narrative kind of reduces everyone else’s motivation for perfecting their life. If they agree with Elon’s narrative, then their own boring “Uber for pet antibiotics” company life is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. They are just some person not at SpaceX.
I suppose you can try to enlarge Elonic ambitions so that it includes all of humanity. The janitor who stays late at Starbucks is doing his part for humanity, because he served the road repair crew of someone who might one day drive to SpaceX to repair a heating system. I don’t think this will be as compelling. I’m not criticizing Elon’s own mindset here, but noting that promoting this mindset is probably not beneficial and enlarging it is probably impossible.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
15d ago
It is definitely helpful to see Elon’s ambition as religious: he replaces a supercelestial permanent abode in the heavens for an extracelestial permanent abode in the cosmos, for all of humanity. The exaggerated importance of his dogma orders all of his steps in the world. Will Elon, like the Biblical Enoch, ascend through the heavens alive? My issue with Elonic aspirations is that it’s zero-sum. There can only be one Elon, and only one SpaceX, and if they’re deciding the future of humanity then you’re not. This unconsciously reduces the enthusiasm of everyone else on the planet, whose labor fails to have eschatological importance. This is a considerable downgrade from a positive-sum spiritual system that can motivate all of humanity equally, and not just the 0.001% involved in a particular company.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
15d ago
I don’t think “old tradition” is a requirement. If I’m looking for a rug and I see one like this, it doesn’t matter to me whether it’s traditional or brand new in style. It is innately pleasing to the eye. Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether it was made by some amazing machine or by human hands.
Re: “natural materials”, this is because rugs are a multisensory functionable object. Natural fibers are preferred by humans in terms of texture and smell and sound. So, natural fibers simply align with the most beneficial possible experience I can have with a rug. But if this design were placed on a storefront, it would still be beautiful even if the sign were made of plastic. (Though, humans actually enjoy natural materials more, probably for biological reasons, like the mood-enhancing effects of wood phytochemicals)
In a more complicated analysis, every object is socialized: our purchase can benefit another living being, which winds up benefitting ourselves. I think this is why humans usually prioritize “crafted” items. But this is simply part of the object’s experience: provenance is part of the product. And I mean, okay, same with stories…. But telling a story is different from an authentic story.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
16d ago
I think taste in art is simply an acquired intuition of which experiences of art are ultimately beneficial to experience. I don’t like the idea of a “story” because this denies us from understanding art which includes wordless intuition, like music and architecture. There’s no need to develop a story about St Mark’s Square as it contains biologically determined indicators of beauty in the form of symmetry and motifs. I have no understanding of Chinese history and stories, and yet I can intuitively find beauty in Chinese architecture. No storytelling necessary. This is because of its innate visual beauty as determined by biological responses to visual stimuli. I am not Persian, but Persian rug patterns are beautiful.
Really, the judgment of art is objective according to subjectively-determined social values, with the addition of biologically-determined beneficial stimuli. A war-like culture enjoys art which speaks to the qualities which produce good warriors. Art in a communal culture will be different from art in a raw individualist capitalist culture. And so on. But a Soviet socialist can still find beauty in Norman Rockwell, just might conclude that in the whole the art is bad because of its consequences. I am especially dubious of “taste as telling stories” because our culture has an overproduction of bad storytellers who justify their salaries by word count: most humanities professors, most fiction writers, most journalists. In their little cannibalistic and solipsistic micro-culture, art that is bad for normal people is good for them, because by pontificating on it they can justify their class position. I truly hate these people.
Kinkade is an interesting case. This is art for lower and lower-middle Americans, who want to buy art when they go to the mall. It is visually easily to consume and it portrays scenes of happy domesticity. 2. In viewing this art, someone who works all day and tends to familial obligations in his down time can remember why he is doing this: for the rare moments of celebrations and joy which are experienced as a family in lower income America. This may occur on the toilet, and at an age when one’s eyes have decayed from overuse. (The oversaturation reminds me of World of Warcraft; likely optimizing for visual engagement and ease of visual differentiation). Before we criticize this art, we should consider which art would be more beneficial for these people to experience. I would say with confidence: nothing that the parisitic class produces in modern art galleries, modernist music, or modern literary circles. And actually, very little art in normal art galleries. Okay, they see something beautiful by Caravaggio, but unless they are religious then that fleeting animalistic noveltyslop feeling of “ooh interesting” is lost on them. Norman Rockwell? Sure! Rockwell is probably better than Kinkade at expressing moments of domestic American bliss. “They should be challenged” might say a pretentious person, but this class has genuinely no benefit to being challenged, and in facts need less stress, fewer challenges, more optimism and simple joy.
Does school not regiment them enough? It’s definitely important to learn teamwork and to bond, but you can do when everyone merely plays sports, without making it an obsession that requires 1000 hours of skill training. Have a sports competition every week and control each time for skill, so that each time has a nearly 50% chance of winning. This incentivizes the prosocial qualities, plus exercise, without all of the waste. And having guys organize these themselves is better than having a coach tyrannically dictate everything — I don’t think most training has enough downtime to truly bond, or allow enough argument to truly involve teamwork.
More options
Context Copy link