site banner
PaperclipPerfector  12d ago (text post)   30516 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 9, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've been reading Charles Murray book, Coming Apart and watched the interview he had with Reason TV. In the book and interview, Murray discusses white America, and the pulling away of social classes. Giving two towns for the reader to take into consideration: Belmont, MA. and Fishtown PA. In Belmont, people are college educated, get and stay married, lead healthier lives, and pass all of these things onto their children. Fishtown is the opposite: people have the typical jerry springer family filled with baby mama/daddys, they likely only graduated high school or less than that and they are unhealthy with a lower life expectancy. Another thing that i found fascinating is that apparently, Many men are simply not working at all, and this is seemingly concentrated amongst the less educated as well.The effects of this on the marriage market is well documented. '

One thing that has been on my personal mind lately is how to actually fix or help fish towns residents? A bit of personal background here: I am a child of immigrants who is a year away from a bachelors degree, I have a help desk job at a nice company, in my major (IT), with hopes of working in software development. (I will be the first in my family to obtain a BAS, I've been flirting with perusing a masters degree). I'm currently dating a women who's family is the typical Fishtown resident Murray describes (She herself is a lovely girl). Her family behaves poorly. Her sisters constantly engage in borderline prostitution. They have no work. No money outside of that which they receive from men. One has multiple children, none of them regularly attend school. They are beaten regularly by their frustrated mother. Their fathers are no where to be found or worse, are actively harmful (ie, taking the son to a drug house). Ive been blessed that both my parents are married and educated. (My mother studied nursing, My father actually had a degree in his home country that did not carry over to the US, and began studying real estate instead, he now has a real estate license, and CDL, we were actually upper-middle class until 2008 hit). She is attempting to make it out herself by studying finance, however one interesting data point that I've come across is that people who grew up poor tend to lag behind, even after obtaining the degree. Which is even more frustrating: even if a Fishtown resident somehow makes it out: they will not have as much of the funds as they had hoped. Perhaps this may because of the types of degrees they obtain (ie. someone from the hood obtains a degree in education, hoping to help and educate others who are in her same position.) Given that education correlates pretty highly with income, ive always felt as if fostering values around education and its importance would be a crucial first step and the environment many are in seems to make this highly difficult, even after obtaining such education. She herself has told me how awfully stubborn her mother is with her bad health habits. I want to preference this by saying im no elitist who wants to look down on such people: My heart is quite heavy with sorrow for them.

Murray sites an array of causes he believes are to blame: IQ, changing social norms, and the welfare state. Im not personally a fan of taking away welfare from those who may have fallen on hard times, even if that means that some one may potentially abuse it, and the cat seems to be out of the bag with many of the social norms, many of which changed due to technology (contraceptives changing sexual norms for example). I know many working class men personally who couldnt even bother with condoms, despite their mass availability, and who'd scoff at the idea of passing up a potential encounter or partner. I dont have deep enough knowledge of IQ to even begin to think of a solution, assuming this is a possible cause.

There is one thing ive personally have planned on: Being responsible. Ive always used condoms with my current partner. I do not want to have my children out of wedlock. I want to marry my wife and have children with her and only her. I want my kids to go to school, (a school in a high income neighborhood, where they can learn and thrive). And in-still hard work ethic in them to excel academically. Continue building my projects and studying leet code so that i can be a better programmer and get the software job that will pay for the house in said neighborhood. Which i suppose is all i can do. Control my own actions and hope that others see and follow my example.

Social norms can in fact change because modern social norms are themselves due to change.

While it is true that working, having stable relationship and marriage are good, and it is commendable you follow them, your overemphasis on education is something I find more disagreeable

Part of what is modern education includes propaganda and miseducation. When it comes to people acquiring skills, and that is in fact part of education too but there is also credentialism and the fact that education leads to the unbalanced less fertile modernity way of living. So education becomes a tragedy of the commons at some point since you might benefit individually to have X credential, but society suffers from too much time wasted on that.

I disagree with valuing $ and social climbing above all. This idea of people leaving their area for high income schools is the way of progress results in people abandoning their communities instead of improving them and having a common ethos. Why leave for just higher income schools and not go to a different place altogether. It can be the case, maybe less in the USA, or places like Fishtown that certain schools aren't high income but are made by people who come from stable families.

There is something ugly about social striver modernity type of ethos. And I notice that part of that also includes a disdain towards blue collar work. Low skilled janitors are an expectation but we need competent people to be doing some blue collar works.

Take the Amish. https://www.f0xr.com/p/the-amish-fertility-miracle-part

Who are competent and do mainly blue collar work. Are rooted parts of their community rather than migrants with no strong ties to a place. Have plenty of children, and live in stable relationships but don't empathize education and follow strict religious norms. Have in general strong guidance and a set path to follow as a people. Have stronger gender roles. And of course don't personally use some of the modern technology. I am not saying everyone should be Amish, but I find your approach strays too much to the opposite side on some key issues and it isn't really the template for everyone to follow.

I think you'd also like Chris Arnade's Dignity, so let me recommend it here once again.

The answer is pretty simple- marriage. Some of this can be fixed(removing marriage penalties in welfare laws), and some of it requires cultural changes which have to be pushed by institutions(look down your noses at cohabitation again- seriously cohabitation is very very bad).

Indeed. One grave consequence of (mainly) the Sexual Revolution is that the women who'd objectively need marriage the most (lower-class and underclass women with high time preference) in their lives are exactly those that are least likely to marry. This has enormous social costs.

I think it should also include education and the media promoting those kinds of things. Tell people that marriage is cool and that motherhood is beautiful and being a dad is good.

Agreed. I think that doing that at scale is necessarily tied up with acknowleging and respecting gender roles so that you can equip people to fill them. Doing away with no-fault divorce would also help in the long run.

I think that modern Fishtown residents have rational concerns about the risks and benefits of marriage in their social environment. There are a lot of pieces to that. Top down changes could help, if that were an option, but there need to be on the ground changes too. I don't know how practical any of that is, absent another Great Awakening.

Doing away with no-fault divorce would also help in the long run

When France legalised no-fault divorce, male life expectancy went up by a year.

I'm currently dating a women who's family is the typical Fishtown resident Murray describes (She herself is a lovely girl). Her family behaves poorly. Her sisters constantly engage in borderline prostitution. They have no work.

Just some life advice, this is a very bad idea.

Friendly reminder that the internet always, always advises dumping. Now they don't even need any disagreeable behaviour, pedigree suffices.

Interesting, Can you elaborate on your perspective? Others have commented on this, but id like your POV as well

You've obviously heard you're marrying someone's family along with them. Very much so here.

Anyone in your situation will always wonder where to draw the line regarding when you help. If your post is any indication, you may struggle to define that line at an appropriate place, even if you figure out the best way to help from this thread.

Are you going to be able to stomach the physical abuse of your nieces and nephews? Endure holidays with disgusting food prepared with questionable food safety by your in-laws? Deal with your children being influenced by their traumatized cousins?

You will have to constantly watch people just one degree separate from you be some variant of miserable or even a little evil. I have to deal with this situation ~2.5 degrees removed, and it's a fucking drag. I can't imagine it being any closer.

Maybe this girl is worth it. Many fantastic crabs are willing and able to get out of buckets in the backwater places of America. But supreme caution is warranted here.

I feel obligated by existing to respond, but all I've got is "my dad is the exception in his family. We were not dragged down by the others." Which just feels weak.

Also, whenever a cousin wants a path out, either for themselves or their children, they've historically tended to go to my dad in some capacity, be it hiring (on condition of not committing any drug-related crimes recently), or assuming custody of his nephews when their parents wound up in prison. The wider clan has basically fallen apart with the death of Grandma ~18.5y ago.

And while I expect my dad would have found a way to thrive regardless, getting involved in his father-in-law's business made a huge impact. I'd also note that this had nothing to do with the reasoning behind the marriage; my dad was trying to get into white-collar work until my sister was born, and FIL offerred him a job as an electrician. At no point did he want to turn that into a career, but it turns out that it's reliable, pays well, is less depressing than paper-pushing, and being able to spot a building he personally empowered on every other street is worth something. Also, the magic of giving a damn and taking whatever work he does seriously made him the obvious one to take over when FIL retired.

I kinda think demonstrably overcoming the background disadvantages of one's origins or condition can be attractive all its own. Of course, you then have to worry about regression to the mean, children getting lured into the life of the extended family, etc. FWICT, of the four of us (his two bio children and the two nephews), only one seems to be on that path, and it took until adulthood to get there.

I love the story and see people elevate themselves regularly. I would never say that everyone is beyond help, even in a large family.

I kinda think demonstrably overcoming the background disadvantages of one's origins or condition can be attractive all its own.

Agreed here. I have found that hiring people with food service and military experience for the white-collar work I do is almost always a good move, and the people I know who have successfully elevated themselves are more enjoyable as friends (as a group) than those who haven't.

Another person mentioned (according to JD Vance) that there's no silver bullet to lifting people out of poverty and dysfunction, even at the scale of personal relationships. Offering your hand to the proverbial crabs to lift themselves up is admirable, but your dad and OP should generally be prepared for some of them to fall back in. Regardless of how much you help.

Can I just tell you something about marriage that I heard, and has had a massive positive effect on it?

Something the Catholics get right is that young men are told, basically: you have two options for a job as a man. 1) You can be a priest (a spiritual father), or 2) you can be a husband and a father. Both of these are really difficult, at times you're going to hate them and at times you're going to feel like you fucked up.

But your job is to do them well. You chose the "be a husband and a father" route, and you have to look at this as your life's calling. Your wife, due to her background, will present you with some things that are going to be extremely difficult to endure, but you have to. Your marriage is your "burn the ships" moment, you do not have a choice.

There's an idea that life is suffering, and the only way to endure that suffering is to find a meaning to makes it worthwhile. Your marriage is that meaning.

Your wife, and by extension your family, is your life's work. Be good at it.

Something the Catholics get right is that young men are told, basically: you have two options for a job as a man. 1) You can be a priest (a spiritual father), or 2) you can be a husband and a father.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here, unsuited for one and unable to become the other.

There's an idea that life is suffering, and the only way to endure that suffering is to find a meaning to makes it worthwhile.

Agreed. Now try finding that meaning when you're a 43-year-old unemployed man who's never managed to go on a date and lacks the capacity for religious belief.

lacks the capacity for religious belief.

If you simply edit your /etc/hosts file you can add the following lines:

127.0.0.1 www.reddit.com

127.0.0.1 old.reddit.com

127.0.0.1 reddit.com

And the problem will likely go away after a short time.

Okay but joking aside, what do you mean by this? You don't have the capacity for religious belief? Do you believe that you are the most powerful creature in the universe? Surely not.

Now try finding that meaning when you're a 43-year-old unemployed man who's never managed to go on a date

Your purpose is to fix this. Are you sure there's nothing else you could be doing to improve your standing with regards to these problems? Truly nothing?

Now try finding that meaning when you're a 43-year-old unemployed man who's never managed to go on a date

Your purpose is to fix this. Are you sure there's nothing else you could be doing to improve your standing with regards to these problems? Truly nothing?

Gotta be frank. If he's going to be Catholic, he can't marry divorced women, or any non-Catholic (EDIT: you can get bishop permission), and the lower end of his strike zone is about 32 as of today. It may be joever for the married vocation.

There are plenty of desperate 30 something single women in Catholic circles.

There are plenty of desperate 30 something single women in Catholic circles.

Single, and honest-to-God never married despite being Catholic all that time? Huh. I suppose I'll believe you, but it seems wild. My thoughts were that @Capital_Room's best bet would be to date a secular woman marrying late, then either convert or get special permission. But given he's not actually Catholic I suppose these concerns are moot.

More comments

and the lower end of his strike zone is about 32 as of today.

Yeah, that's a big point I have to keep reiterating and try to get people to understand, whenever they come at me with the "you're a man, you're never biologically too old to become a father the way a woman ends up being" bit.

You don't have the capacity for religious belief?

I am an atheist materialist. There is no God, no "soul," no afterlife; just spacetime, quantum fields, etc. And none of the apologetics I've read, nor religious people I've talked to, have ever convinced me otherwise. I'm saying I'm not capable of perceiving the universe in any other way.

Kind of rules out any religion I've ever heard of, no?

Your purpose is to fix this. Are you sure there's nothing else you could be doing to improve your standing with regards to these problems?

This is something I've gone over in this forum plenty of times, and I'm sure the regulars are all pretty tired of it.

If you want you can try Bostromian Simulation Argument big-tent syncretism: 'your God is a shadow of the Supreme Being, the true creator of our universe'. It's not really a religion, since it has no significant moral teachings. But it does bring a lot of intellectual firepower to the Deist side of things.

If you want you can try Bostromian Simulation Argument big-tent syncretism

Even more ridiculous than classical theism, and more useless than classical Deism, which, IIRC, a number of 18-19th century thinkers pointed out was a sort of "gateway religion" to outright atheism (because a god who doesn't answer prayers might as well not exist).

More comments

Unfortunately, your beliefs are wrong. There's probably nothing I can do to convince you, except to say I have direct experiential evidence that I cannot square with nonexistence of god.

I did get to this point starting from agnostic materialism. Assume there are no souls. Assume there is nothing special about human brains. You're having an experience right now, how does that work? As far as I can tell, something to do with information processing... why would that be unique to human brains? What is it like to be a bat? Why unique to brains at all? What is it like to be a tree? What is it like to be an interconnected global financial system? Connect two or more "conscious" information systems, is the resulting system conscious? What if you connect ALL information systems?

What is it like to be a bat? Why unique to brains at all? What is it like to be a tree?

Impossible to know. We cannot ever know the experience of being any sort of thing other than our particular selves.

Connect two or more "conscious" information systems

The only known "conscious" information systems are human minds, and there's no real way to "connect" them — except imperfect channels like language — such as to form a "resulting system."

And none of this undermines materialism or points to the existence of any kind of higher power, nor any kind of afterlife.

Is there anything stopping you from passably faking a Christian reawakening?

Is there anything stopping you from passably faking a Christian reawakening?

Well, first, it would need to be a "Christian awakening" that I'd need to fake, not a "reawakening."

But more directly, the same thing that kept me from passably faking being left-wing, no matter how much it might have improved various prospects in my life — being too much on the autism spectrum to believably fake feelings and conceal my true beliefs. That and integrity, like @KingOfTheBailey says.

I think my mind runs in similar grooves, and the answer is: integrity. Integrity matters: would you want to date or marry someone who is lying about something so fundamental? Would you want to carry a lie like that for years, knowing what would happen if the secret got out?

Yes, even if someone escapes, reversion to population mean will affect the children. The parentage of your partner is one of the most critical factors in who you marry, since you’re saddling your descendants with their genes, forever (or at least as long as you have any descendants).

Sure, if you believe that behavior is primarily genetic and not taught. But that is an open question, to put it mildly.

It's a bad idea unless you have enough evidence to overcome the Bayesian prior.

I'm currently dating a women who's family is the typical Fishtown resident Murray describes (She herself is a lovely girl). Her family behaves poorly. Her sisters constantly engage in borderline prostitution. They have no work. No money outside of that which they receive from men. One has multiple children, none of them regularly attend school. They are beaten regularly by their frustrated mother. Their fathers are no where to be found or worse, are actively harmful (ie, taking the son to a drug house). Ive been blessed that both my parents are married and educated. (My mother studied nursing, My father actually had a degree in his home country that did not carry over to the US, and began studying real estate instead, he now has a real estate license, and CDL, we were actually upper-middle class until 2008 hit). She is attempting to make it out herself by studying finance, however one interesting data point that I've come across is that people who grew up poor tend to lag behind, even after obtaining the degree. Which is even more frustrating: even if a Fishtown resident somehow makes it out: they will not have as much of the funds as they had hoped. Perhaps this may because of the types of degrees they obtain (ie. someone from the hood obtains a degree in education, hoping to help and educate others who are in her same position.) Given that education correlates pretty highly with income, ive always felt as if fostering values around education and its importance would be a crucial first step and the environment many are in seems to make this highly difficult, even after obtaining such education. She herself has told me how awfully stubborn her mother is with her bad health habits. I want to preference this by saying im no elitist who wants to look down on such people: My heart is quite heavy with sorrow for them.

I can tell you almost exactly why you see the cycles of underperformance despite what the statistics say should happen. Turns out who your family is matters a lot. And if you come from a family of high time preference dirt bags, that will almost always set your default. You'll find yourself making weird, "out of character" high time preference decisions that add up to a serious drag on your potential. Every time you hit a rough patch in your career, your marriage, or your social life, if you make the mistake of opening up to your dirt bag family (and what son or daughter, when the chips are down, won't seek comfort in their father or mother), they'll give you terrible advice. To say nothing of all the family that will see you doing better than them, and constantly come around to leech off you.

I'd also caution you about entering a relationship with someone from that background. I'm sure they do seem like a lovely person. But I can nearly promise you, when the chips are down, you'll see that side of them you thought was different from the rest of their family. Things completely unthinkable to your upper middle class cultural sensibilities are the default option for them. That said, no relationship is without challenges, so you know, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

She doesnt like her family all that much, she constantly complains about them is actively looking to get away. I can certainly see your concern with a potentially darkside of her rearing its ugly head, but i also somewhat feel that this risk exits in dating anyone to begin with. You never truly know who someone is or how they may be until shit hits the fan. This type of faith is typical in relationships, and it in her until she shows me otherwise. My own parents came from a poorer country and pathed there way, if someone has the consistent work ethic regardless of class to do the same, there has to something special about them that would make them differ enough in my book, especially doing so when all the other cards are stacked against you.

I'm sure they do seem like a lovely person

I'm not picking on you in particular, but I see this all the time and genuinely wonder why people do this. The person in question is clearly identified as a "girl," and OP consistently refers to her with the appropriate female pronouns. Why the "they/them?"

To me it feels like people are losing the ability to keep track of a individual's sex in their heads when forming sentences. It's as if 'they' is becoming the universal pronoun for 'person' even when the person in question is explicitly female in the sentence.

Yeah, you see even older people refer to “their partner” rather than wife or husband, even though HR doesn’t care (at least for us) and they’re talking about themselves, not assuming the sex of somebody else’s spouse.

I don't fucking know. When you point it out to me, even though I said it, I do wonder why the fuck I chose to say it like that instead of "She sounds like a lovely girl". I guess the language I hear around me has rubbed off on me.

Oh no! It's contāgious!

Her sisters constantly engage in borderline prostitution.

I am not trying to be salacious here, but can you go into more detail? I'm wondering what you mean exactly.

Why I ask is that I am concerned this behavior pattern will become psuedo-normal across all of society and, to some extent, already is.

Theyll get into temporary relationships with men, and try to get them to pay for their nails, make up, or straight up ask for money from them. They hookup with these men much more then they really date them.

This is not prostitution since that implies a much higher frequency and a more direct means of payment, regardless, I wish them the best and hope they can mend their ways. This behaviour is quite common in all classes, women need providers and sometimes sleep with them so that they continue providing. I do not fault her sisters as much since this screams lack of money. It is not ideal and they would stop if they were to escape their financial hardship.

Pseudo sugar baby behavior ‘dating’ men who provide ‘gifts’.

Tagging @Nerd as well.

Understood, and thanks for the elucidation. But, as @mrvanillasky says, this isn't prostitution not only because of the semantic or technical arguments on frequency, solicitation, clearly stated exchange of services for money etc, but because the way in which these women think about themselves is different and, yes, that does matter.

This behavior is probably anti-social. It is definitely extremely poor mate selection followed by even worse "relationship" management. It's trying to paste over some very real material needs with a cheap concept of a relationship.

But it is categorically different than intentionally selling one's body and sexual services. When this occurs, things get even darker and less likely to be recoverable. In this case, a person has made a commodity of themselves physically (and, some of us would say, spiritually as well. Let's leave that aside for now, however). It's a de-agency-ification of the self and that turns into a permission slip for all sorts of destructive and anti-social behavior. Often, the psychic strain creates deep substance abuse issues. There's an increasingly likelihood of involvement with a grey-market economy and the many sleazy characters who involve themselves with it and, sometimes, even outright integration with organized crime (old school biker gangs still "run girls").

Again, all of this isn't to say that your girlfriend's sisters are "doing just fine." This is bad, anti-social behavior and I hope they change their ways.

Still, I'll fight the fight about the specific use of the word "prostitution" which, in my opinion, needs to be treated very differently and very severely. The "two consenting adults" midwit argument papers over the fact that to the extent current day slavery exists, it's largely sex trafficking for purposes of prostitution.

thanks. providers or beta buxxers are not the same as men paying for prostitutes and all women indulge in this behavior to some capacity, OPs girlfriends sisters are on a very high percentile.

My perspective is more cold approach inspired. Most women can get away with guys paying for their things, they reward them with crumbs of attention, sometimes it can be the pretty girl making the nerd do her homework and smiling at him, other times it is this case or it can even be seeking arrangements, the sugar daddy website. Most guys are not "lovers", they cannot give the girl a good time and if you are strapped for cash, having a guy cough up things for you is not irrational.

Their behaviour is anti-social because they are doing this with multiple guys and not just one which might be because of the sexual revolution allowing women to reduce the consequences of sexual activity. Also, sex is not very frequent in these types of scenarios, most guys barely get to kiss the girl, let alone make love. If you come off as a guy who can be made into a paypig, you will be a paypig. So now you can send time with the lover, commit to the provider when you cant get the lover to commit and the provider willingly accepts the ordeal.

Still, I'll fight the fight about the specific use of the word "prostitution" which, in my opinion, needs to be treated very differently and very severely

yep, same boat as you and appreciate the effortpost @100ProofTollBooth. Prostitution is also far more traumatic for the girl and the guy involved whereas beta buxxing mostly only hurts the guy. I have personally seen girls ditch providers for exciting guys and openly talk about using guys for buying them stuff for free, sometimes they might kiss them and rarely they would have sex with one of the many on her hook.

I don't doubt this phenomena exists, but I've never witnessed it first hand. Maybe people I know don't give off simp vibes?

I'm currently dating a women who's family is the typical Fishtown resident Murray describes (She herself is a lovely girl). Her family behaves poorly. Her sisters constantly engage in borderline prostitution. They have no work.

Why are they unemployed, in your view?

If i had to take an educated guess. They have no positive work ethic that was instilled in them as children. They have also had no motivation from their parents. They dont seem to care about education at all. The fact that they are constantly in an area with drugs and prostitutes doesnt help the matter. But honestly i dont have enough information on them to stipulate anymore beyond that.

Fair enough. I thought you'll make a point about the local job market, or the perverse incentives of welfare policies.

Something I noted when I first read Coming Apart in undergrad for an assignment, and have only continued to see grow over time: it's not just economics, we're Coming Apart everywhere in America. In almost every way, our society is less equal than it was in 1962. Across domains that don't seem like they should be related:

Fitness Hobbyist athletes of today would largely stomp on the professionals of 1962 in fitness metrics. Nobody in 1962 ran marathons as a hobby, now it is common, no PMC office lacks a marathon guy. Lifting weights was weird, and maybe kinda gay. Now it is common. The lifts and PR times of your average Crossfit box would be jaw-dropping at any of the few existing gyms in 1962. The fitness obsessed are stronger, faster, better than their 1962 equivalents. And yet in 1962 the average person was in better shape than the average person in 2024. They weren't overweight or obese, they could walk ten miles if asked to do so. A randomly selected man of 1962 could join a touch football game or help you move furniture in a way that your randomly selected man of 2024 often cannot.

Sex 1962 society was more monogamous, and because of the drive to achieve pair bonding, most people could get one long term partner and marry them and stay together. More men had sex with one woman in the past year compared to today, but more men had sex with anyone. In 2024, it is vastly easier for some men to get laid, your top percentage of men can get vastly more sex with vastly more partners. But there are also vast numbers of men who never have sex, have no long term partners, and few prospects of getting them.

Cooking Imagine I took 100 mothers from my local high school today, and 100 mothers from my local high school in 1962, and Iron-Chef'd them with scratch ingredients and told them to bake me a cake. I posit that the 1962 mothers would all make more or less the same mediocre American cakes, with some ethnic-white flourishes or particular talents, but mostly pretty similar stuff. But virtually all would know how to make a cake given flour, butter, eggs, sugar. The 2024 mothers, a large percentage would simply have no idea how to make a cake from scratch without premade ingredients, only a vague concept of what to do with the ingredients, and we'd get some truly sad attempts. But among the 2024 mothers, there are also some percentage of hobbyists, Great British Baking Show and youtube obsessives, who will make a ridiculously good cake, vastly better than anything that the 1962 mothers would even know how to attempt. All one has to do to figure this out is look at old cookbooks and new cookbooks.

Physical appearance Paul Newman vs Chris Evans. Or just compare Superman to Superman, or even Hugh Jackman in different Wolverine roles. The earlier physiques are easy for a man with good genetics if they don't screw it up or attainable for most men with a bit of effort, the current physiques are impossible without at least two of good genetics, extreme effort, and pharmaceuticals.

Education More Americans than ever have completed college degrees, the value and difficulty of which we can debate but there is no question that completing years of education highly correlates with intelligence. Fewer books are read every year in America. Authors lack the popular celebrity impact they once had. Literary prizes lack the credibility and punch they once did. PhD Theses of 1962 and earlier are often pretty readable, covering a basic or normal topic. PhD theses of 2024 are often whacko, out there, unreadable to anyone without a master's in the topic already, citing obscure theories unknown to anyone outside deep academia.

Gun Ownership Gun ownership has declined from a narrow majority of households in the 70s to a third as of 2014. At the same time, many gun owners today have an absolute arsenal compared to the men of the 60s and 70s. A lot of Old Timer Fudds at my small town gun club think it's insane that the young guys want to own anything other than a shotgun, a deer rifle, a .22, and a revolver. A small percentage of gun owners in America own a vast number of firearms. This simply wasn't a normal middle-class pursuit in the 1960s.

There are other places it feels like there's something there, but I don't know how to parse them with any rigor. Religiosity, racial tolerance, "handyman" skills, foreign travel, military service, automobile driving. It feels intuitive that in the past, a base level of each was expected in every middle class man and variation was rare; and today extremes at both ends are more common while the middle is shrinking.

We live in the age of the Barbell Shaped distribution. There's something deeper there.

With gun ownership, I think the discrepancy can be traced more to the proliferation of hobbies that began in the late 1960s. For my grandfather's generation, if you were an outdoorsy person and wanted a hobby you were pretty much limited to hunting and fishing, as well as day hikes. These days we also have backpacking, mountain biking, whitewater paddling, rock climbing, xc skiing, and other stuff to choose from, which all require a significant investment in time and money. I'd hunt if I had unlimited time, but since I have to work for a living every day I spend hunting would be a day not spent hiking or on the bike, and when you add normal social obligations and chores into the mix that's not a lot of days to begin with.

In the meantime, gun ownership has turned into a hobby of its own. My grandfather owned a lot of guns, but they were all for hunting. I don't even think he owned any pistols. Hell, prior to the 1990s it was difficult to impossible to concealed carry in most places. Now I have friends who own a lot of guns, and whose participation in the hobby seems to end there—they don't hunt and I never hear them talk about going to the range or anything like that. So diversification takes away a large part of the traditional base from gun ownership but adds a new base for whom acquisition is more important than having a specific use. If I'm a hunter in 1965 I probably only need a 12 gauge and a deer rifle and maybe a .22. Now it's de rigeur to own an AR even if the real-world applications are limited.

I think this has a lot to do with the widespread availability of information on the internet and much more efficient markets than people realize. We think about this in the context of trading and arbitrage, but it increasingly applies to everything.

A few hundred years ago, basic information about the market in the next village was enough for a profitable career as a middleman. Today, when I can look up week-over-week sales estimates for Chipotle outlets nationwide derived from a cross validated combination of bluetooth beacon and credit card data on Bloomberg in 20 seconds, a few large hedge funds go to extreme lengths for tiny slivers of additional data to drive alpha.

The same thing happened in employment markets, and is responsible for a lot of the extreme neuroticism of the upper-middle class. 50 years ago, third-world strivers and domestic peasants wouldn’t even have any idea how to guide their children to become doctors and investment bankers, wouldn’t even know how you apply (many barely knew many PMC jobs even existed). Today they can Google it in 5 minutes, which is why medical school and Goldman Sachs application numbers keep going up even as the number of places remain the same, making it ever harder for the established PMC to guarantee their children the same quality of life.

Online dating kind of did the same thing, opened markets, made things more efficient. Instead of being limited to their own circle, people were now in competition with everyone for everyone. A more efficient market creates more losers, not more winners. Inefficiency is what creates a large middle class - in sex, in income, perhaps even in fitness. This was Marx’s big mistake, there is no tendency for the rate of profit to fall toward zero, just for all the profit to become increasingly concentrated among the very most intelligent, as market friction evaporates.

"For freedom and equality are sworn and everlasting enemies, and when one prevails the other dies. Leave men free, and their natural inequalities will multiply almost geometrically"

-Will Durant

We live in the age of the Barbell Shaped distribution.

Don't forget the bimodal distribution of lawyer starting salaries.

As recently as 1991, the median for those was $40k (a bit over $90k in 2024 dollars) and the shape of the distribution was the usual vaguely-lognormal looking thing where the modal lawyer made about 10% less but a fat tail made more to make up for it, with the tail steadily decreasing and then basically vanishing around $90k ($210k inflation-adjusted).

Over the next decade, BigLaw firms had decided to really start bidding up their offers for the top lawyers, and the results look like no distribution you'll find in a stat textbook. The median salary was at $50k, basically the same as it had been in 2024 dollars, but was now the balance of a lower (inflation-adjusted) mode and a big spike at $120k (around $225k adjusted), with fewer salaries in between.

In the two decades since, the median has remained a bit over $90k, and the distribution seems to also have basically fixated when controlled for inflation: there's a wide swath of new lawyers making $75K +/- $25K, and then there's a big narrow spike of the new lawyers who "made it" to $220K +/- $10K, and from $105K to $205K there's relatively nobody.

The gap is even more extreme for experienced lawyers where some of the biglaw partners are pulling in $10+ million a year, while a lot of solos are grinding away still only pocketing that $75k with 10 years of experience, a lot of people stuck in document review seemingly for life, etc. For experienced people there is a middle class usually composed of people who work in government compliance or as in house counsel. From time to time some ex-states attorneys (or similar) will go and form a firm in search of more compensation. Sometimes this is a success, but more often they return to government work because criminal clients dont often make good payors.

What befuddles me is why clients ever agreed to this trend in biglaw. This increased compensation is reflected in increased fees basically at a 1:1 ratio, and I'm not really aware of much data that says biglaw firms are all that good at actually, you know, winning. In most cases I've ever been a part of the lawyers make little difference in the outcome of the case. I can't really think of one civil suit where if side A had John Roberts in his prime, and the other had a 50th percentile graduate from an okay state school like Indiana or Samford. Big lititgation is BIG in that it requires a lot of man-hours. But the expensive firms outsource that anyways!

All of your examples have this pattern: $[skill] used to be not only desirable but also broadly necessary; as $[skill] became generally unnecessary, a large portion of the population has mostly abandoned it, while those who remained devoted to maintaining $[skill] became much more proficient.

E.g.: back in 1962 every home-maker was expected to bake, and a large proportion of women were home-makers. Now, fewer women are home-makers, social norms about desirability of cakes and cookies have largely changed, and there are lots of options for buying baked goods. Thus, most women have mostly abandoned baking (or never developed the skill), while the few that do have vastly improved that skill.

E.g.: back in 1962, the alternatives to books (for entertainment or information) were either expensive (movies or plays in the theater), or inferior in quality or quantity (newspapers), or were on a schedule (TV and radio). Now, the alternatives to books are superior, cheap, and instantly available. So most people mostly abandoned reading books, while a smaller proportion still reads for pleasure. (Though for this example, I don't know of any metrics by which those that read books have become more proficient, except maybe a brief increase in popularity of speed-reading a decade ago in my circle.)

Let's call these the coming-apart pattern examples, and let's consider whether there are any examples with a flipped coming-together pattern: $[skill] used to be desirable but broadly unnecessary; as $[skill] became generally necessary, a large portion of the population has developed at least some competency in it. As a result, if we compare the $[skill]-ed populations now and back-in-the-day, the back-in-the-day group was much more $[skill]-ed.

E.g.: typing. Back in 1962, most professionals didn't type much themselves because they could hire a typist for a fairly low wage (mostly because that was one of the careers for young women that was generally acceptable for decades by then). That is, a professional could, instead of learning the skill himself, use some reasonable portion of his income to outsource the typing tasks. Now, every white-collar worker and many blue-collar workers are expected to do their own typing, and the typing tasks have only increased. As a result, at least 2/3rd of the population has some typing skill, and if we compare the group whose job included typing in 1962 to similar group now, the average 1962 typist would be much faster and make fewer spelling errors.

(The skill of spelling is another coming-apart pattern example, mostly courtesy of ubiquitous spell-checkers.)

Another coming-together pattern example: figuring out how to make a new electronic device work. Back in 1962, besides the small number of professionals who needed to work with bespoke electronic devices--and hobbyists who chose to do so--most people would only need to figure out how to make their TV and their radio work, and those were fairly straightforward. Now, most people regularly get electronic gadgets that either didn't exist a decade ago or whose user interface changed substantially, and they keep having to figure out how they work. (The joke among us olds is that the instructions are so complicated that only a child can do it.) So a broader proportion of the population has acquired the skill of figuring out how to make new electronic device work, but the professionals and hobbyists of yore were much better on average, because they had to understand quite a bit about the underlying electronics. (My husband salvaged many a cheap Chinese-import doo-dad with a multimeter and a soldering iron.)

To summarize:

  • When a desirable skill becomes more broadly necessary, more people acquire some level of proficiency in it, and the average level of the skill (among those that have some proficiency in the skill) drops.

  • When a desirable skill becomes less broadly necessary, fewer people acquire some level of proficiency in it, and the average level of the skill (among those that have some proficiency in the skill) rises.

E.g.: typing. Back in 1962, most professionals didn't type much themselves because they could hire a typist for a fairly low wage (mostly because that was one of the careers for young women that was generally acceptable for decades by then). That is, a professional could, instead of learning the skill himself, use some reasonable portion of his income to outsource the typing tasks. Now, every white-collar worker and many blue-collar workers are expected to do their own typing, and the typing tasks have only increased. As a result, at least 2/3rd of the population has some typing skill, and if we compare the group whose job included typing in 1962 to similar group now, the average 1962 typist would be much faster and make fewer spelling errors.

So dictation fell out of habit completely since then?

Eh, I think the electronics skill example is a wash: yes, the vast majority of people today will have to get to grips with how to work their smartphones and smart watches and smart TVs and Fitbits and so on and so forth, but the actual knowledge of how computers, operating systems, and actual physical electronics in general work has arguably declined. This is because companies like Apple have put in Herculean amounts of effort into dumbing down tech and sanding off as many rough edges as possible, while hiding as much of the working bits as they can. User-servicability declined once consumers didn't really need it as much.

the vast majority of people today will have to get to grips with how to work their smartphones and smart watches and smart TVs and Fitbits and so on and so forth, ...

That fits the coming-together pattern, but with an extra feature: because many more people need to grapple with the situation that requires some of the skill, the market responded by making such situations easier to accomplish.

This is similar to the pattern in education credentialism: because many more people are playing the education credentialism game (e.g., getting a Bachelors degree), the market responded by making it easier to accomplish.

I gotta say though, sometimes it's not just the market. Take set theory. Reading Cantor's original work is challenging for a professional mathematician. But take about a century iterations of people communicating the essentials to ever-broader audience. By the 60's we have "New Math" books for elementary-school kids, which confuse the crap out of most math teachers but which the top 10% grok and love. And a few decades later Venn diagrams become essential components of memes.

... but the actual knowledge of how computers, operating systems, and actual physical electronics in general work has arguably declined.

And that's the coming-apart pattern.

There is a scene in Star Trek IV where Scotty tries to operate an 80's computer by talking into the mouse. After realizing his mistake, he looks at the keyboard, says "How quaint!", and then proceeds to speed-type. It's a funny scene, but it has always rubbed me the wrong way: why would anyone who never needs to type pick up that skill? Or, for that matter, the skill of operating whatever chemistry-model software that company was using? Not even the assumption that Scotty is the-best-of-the-best geeks can patch this hole.

I think the absurd level of skill in a lot of those things do tend to serve as effective barriers to entry as well. I’ll use youth sports as an example. We have a system in youth sports that’s absolutely insane. If you want to play sports, you have to put in an insane amount of time, energy and effort to make the team — and select teams often begin at 8 years old. If you make it to the place where you can expect to play high school sports, you’ve likely been playing on select and traveling teams from second grade onward. And aside from the games, tournaments, and team practices, you’ve likely been taking lessons as well. Which means that you have to have the time and money to put 20 hours a week into that one sport.

But suppose you’re a kid of middling talent. Well, basically, 99% of team sports are closed off to you. Sorry champ, too bad you’re not super talented. And the predictable result of this is… either you’re a stand out superstar player of your chosen sport, or you might as well quit. Did they stop desiring to play baseball, or is it so insanely difficult for kids to make the team that they end up playing baseball on their Xbox One instead of with friends outdoors. And then you end up with the twin crises of obesity (because only the top 10% of kids actually get to play any team sports) and loneliness (because team sports turns out to be an easy way for boys to make friends) and can’t quite understand why.

I think even for other things, participation goes down when people are led to believe that they need to be good at something or do it seriously if you want to participate. You feel pressure to find deeper meanings for the books you read, or the shows you watch. You have to read tge stuff on booktok or some other curated list. If you happen to like a nerd-coded show or movie series, you have to learn the lore and follow fan theories and there are often things to collect or whatever. I think for me I almost don’t want to get into those kinds of series because of the absurd competition to know all the stuff to feel comfortable talking to other fans because they’ll have learned all the lore. It’s almost like all hobbies have become competitive in a sense, you can’t just do the thing you have to do it to a social media friendly level.

I think honestly that the standards of 1962 were better for the country because at some point, good enough is good enough and you gain more social health by letting average people participate in those kinds of activities instead of limiting those social opportunities t9 just the hyper competitive people.

But suppose you’re a kid of middling talent. Well, basically, 99% of team sports are closed off to you. Sorry champ, too bad you’re not super talented. And the predictable result of this is… either you’re a stand out superstar player of your chosen sport, or you might as well quit. Did they stop desiring to play baseball, or is it so insanely difficult for kids to make the team that they end up playing baseball on their Xbox One instead of with friends outdoors. And then you end up with the twin crises of obesity (because only the top 10% of kids actually get to play any team sports) and loneliness (because team sports turns out to be an easy way for boys to make friends) and can’t quite understand why.

I read this paragraph, and immediately the analogy to online dating (which, AIUI, has increasingly taken over dating as a whole) comes to mind.

$[skill] used to be not only desirable but also broadly necessary; as $[skill] became generally unnecessary, a large portion of the population has mostly abandoned it, while those who remained devoted to maintaining $[skill] became much more proficient.

That explains cooking and perhaps fitness but I think it obviously falls short on physical appearance, sex, and gun ownership. Education I think it also falls short on, education is much more generally necessary today now that you almost need a bachelor's degree to stock shelves at Walmart.

For Guns: To own a gun in modern America, you also have to defend your reasoning for having one to friends. You have to go to FFLs, which are staffed exclusively by assholes instead of by mail. Only people who are really into it will deal with the trouble.

Uh, what are you talking about? Is your filter bubble entirely composed of NYT journalists?

Let me second @FiveHourMarathon's "WTF" here. It might just be the local culture, but I've never known anyone* who had to "defend their reasoning for having a gun," to a friend, or anyone else. And I know plenty of gun owners. My dad and middle brother pretty much have an arsenal between them. Until about a year ago, the bulk of said brother's job was selling guns (as the manager of the hunting department at the local outlet of a "big box" sporting goods store chain) — I suppose that makes him an "asshole" in your view?

Though, again, I live in Alaska. We've got grizzlies, we've got moose, and we've got a rather more gun-friendly culture than the more urban, populous states. Anyone who would make a friend justify their reasoning for gun ownership almost certainly doesn't have any Alaskan friends, and would probably be quite unhappy living here.

I've been a gun owner for 15 years and lived in purple areas. It's not everyone, but I get plenty of "you don't seem like the type" and incredulity.

I'm not referring to any sort of legally required reasoning defense. I suppose if you preferred being a closeted gun owner, you could avoid it entirely.

It's not everyone, but I get plenty of "you don't seem like the type" and incredulity.

And I'm saying I've never seen this, ever.

I'm not referring to any sort of legally required reasoning defense.

I didn't think you were. I'm saying that in my experience, there's absolutely no reason you'd ever need to even socially defend your gun ownership to anyone, and there's no need to ever be "a closeted gun owner," because here in Alaska, nobody is going to give you shit for owning a gun.

Yeah man, I'd agree Alaska (and the deep south/Texas) are different from where I live now.

In New Jersey, one must obtain a voucher of one's worthiness to own a gun from 2 unrelated adult citizens before obtaining a permit to purchase a firearm, and again for each handgun one might wish to buy. And 3 such persons for a carry permit, though a carry permit barely allows you to carry (if you try you're almost certain to trip over a forbidden zone and become a felon). I'm not sure if any other states have this onerous requirement which would be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court took the 2nd Amendment seriously instead of just a debating point, but New Jersey does.

Ok, can you seriously think that any functional adult doesn't have three friends? When I got my ccw permit in PA, I had too many friends who wanted to be the reference. And I have trouble thinking of a person who doesn't have three friends who should have a gun.

This is the typical communitarian answer. But even people who aren't socially adept are supposed to have constitutional rights.

More comments

This is more New Jersey and maybe Illinois than anywhere else. Most places you don't need people to vouch for you to buy a gun, and you can buy from private sellers.

Bro what are you talking about.

I've bought a gun once in my life. Outside of my range buddies and the seller three people know about it. The seller was friendly and helpful and frankly cut me a better deal than I expected.

I respectfully disagree.

Physical appearance in the post I responded to refers specifically to physical fitness. Half-a-century ago, general physical fitness was broadly necessary (e.g., many people had to walk or do physical labor), and now is much less so (e.g., much smaller proportion of people have to walk or do physical labor, and for the latter OSHA mandates all kinds of supportive equipment).

Sex in the post I responded to refers primarily to marriage and its dissolution, so "how-to-get-and-stay-married" is the relevant skill here.

Finally, playing-the-game-of-credentialism (a.k.a. "education") is without a doubt a more widely practiced skill now than it was fifty years ago. About 90% graduate high-school; of those, half go to college; of those, about half graduate with a degree. Fifty years ago, much higher percentage of people dropped out of high-school, and less than 10% of those who graduated went on to college. (There stats are approximate but broadly correct.)

The credentialism game has changed to accommodate the large influx of people seeking credentials.

Sex in the post I responded to refers primarily to marriage and its dissolution, so "how-to-get-and-stay-married" is the relevant skill here.

I think your story makes sense for marriage but not for sex (for which as we all know marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient).

Finally, playing-the-game-of-credentialism (a.k.a. "education") is without a doubt a more widely practiced skill now than it was fifty years ago. About 90% graduate high-school; of those, half go to college; of those, about half graduate with a degree. Fifty years ago, much higher percentage of people dropped out of high-school, and less than 10% of those who graduated went on to college. (There stats are approximate but broadly correct.)

The credentialism game has changed to accommodate the large influx of people seeking credentials.

I don't really understand your point here. you seem to be agreeing with me that education is not something generally unnecessary, so it doesn't explain the bimodal distribution mentioned by OP.

I don't really understand your point here. you seem to be agreeing with me that education is not something generally unnecessary, so it doesn't explain the bimodal distribution mentioned by OP.

I think I see: OP conflated (or rather, placed in extreme proximity) education as getting-credentials and education as reading books. The getting-credentials has a coming-together pattern (more people are going for education credentials, so there is more of a continuum of the type of credentials and their quality), but the reading-books has a coming-apart pattern (majority read practically no books, a small minority read lots and lots of books).

Fat shaming was once a way of life in America. Guns usually have some combination of military service, hunting, or ruralness to justify them- all three exhibit the same pattern.

I have noticed this pattern as well and I'm going to apply it to two further areas to explain social phenomena of interest.

Religion. In the past Christianity was one of these "broadly necessary" $[skill]s. To get on in life, form social connections, get jobs and generally be regarded as a trustworthy, upstanding member of society it was necessary to be seen at church every week and be vaguely conversant in Christian concepts, terminology and so forth. I think of it kind of like a general education requirement at University, everybody has to take a math class to graduate. As a result a number of "math classes for humanities majors" arise to fulfill demand from students that hate math but are obligated to take math courses, things like "Mathematics of Shakespearean Sonnets" that sort of thing. If the university were to drop the requirement a lot of the attendance at these classes would crater overnight.

I see a similar phenomenon with religion. In essence our society dropped the "general education requirement" of Christianity, and we discovered that many Christian denominations more or less only existed to fulfill the requirement for people that really were not religion enthusiasts and would drop out given the choice. To bring it back to your point above, now the only people attending church (at least those below a certain age) are those that are essentially the Christianity hobbyists or enthusiasts who do it for the sheer love of the thing and are therefore attracted to more 'intense' denominations like Pentecostalism while the more moderate and boring Protestant denominations like Anglicans die off. We have the phenomenon you described here:

a large portion of the population has mostly abandoned it, while those who remained devoted to maintaining $[skill] became much more proficient.

Another example of the phenomenon I've noticed would be what I've observed with General Trivia Knowledge. Every other week I play trivia games with my coworkers who are all decently well educated people, but many of them 5 years younger than me or so. I'm continuously been surprised by how little general knowledge they have despite being quite intelligent. I mean general trivia knowledge like "What is the Hindenburg Disaster?" "Can you recognize the major European languages when written?" "What was Watergate?" "Who wrote the Canterbury Tales?" "Who said the line 'Dr. Livingston I presume?' and why?", things of that nature.

Of course there are many reasons for this, but I've come to attribute a lot of this to youtube and the internet giving people too much control over what they watch. I feel like I learned a lot of the random trivia I know I learned when flipping through random TV channels as a kid and watching something on PBS or the History Channel or an old movie (often with a historical subject like Lawrence of Arabia or Zulu) on TCM with my dad. Now people have much more freedom to become enthusiasts on any subject they choose. If they want to watch League of Legends content, there is enough of that on YT/Twitch/etc to keep them occupied for their entire lives without ever needing to branch out from sheer boredom and lack of alternatives.

My coworkers are intelligent but their knowledge is silo'd and inaccessible, all spent on some random hobby that I will never talk to them about while the cultural common ground of references, trivia and anecdotes has been completely destroyed and it honestly makes them seem completely retarded when we are doing trivia.

I especially like your Christianity-as-skill idea, because it fits but I haven't thought of it that way before.

Recently, I [an atheist who grew up Eastern Orthodox] came to the conclusion that, if ever shit hit the fan in my life and my personal social network wasn't up for the task, I would head to Church--of whichever denomination is closest to Eastern Orthodox and physically proximal to me. Church first, then check what safety net the government has to offer. Because the Church tends to respond faster to any crucial need and doesn't require paperwork.

(US governments offer a pretty good safety net to anyone who is willing and capable of (a) accurately filling lots of forms, (b) letting go of all of one's earthly possessions, and (c) waiting up to several years if necessary.)

My atheism in particular, and my non-belonging-to-a-church in general, are luxuries indicative of a life lacking in severe shocks. I recognize this. How fortunate for me, then, that so many Christian denominations share the idea of repentance and return-of-the-prodigal.

This is tangential. But I'm Eastern Orthodox, my husband is open to it, and we have not managed to get past the standing quietly for two hours part of being to church with young children. I want the children to have godparents! I keep aspiring to take them. St Nicholas day was last weekend! But I still haven't managed to make it work. I suppose I should embrace church-as family-social-project, vs church as opportunity to sing and pray, as I experienced it before (I was the Christian hobbiest type before, going to vespers and akathists and studies and everything).

I would still go to my church acquaintances first if I needed help, though. Despite failing to attend, they still found me a place to live, free furniture, and let me borrow a car for a week.

and we have not managed to get past the standing quietly for two hours part of being to church with young children.

Huh, the Sunday service is only two hours now! I remember it being three. (I love being old enough to say "back in my day...")

Fortunately church people are very understanding of kid's limitations. I remember the parents taking their toddlers outside (and, discreetly, their tweens as well) once their progeny started fidgeting.

US governments offer a pretty good safety net to anyone who is willing and capable of (a) accurately filling lots of forms, (b) letting go of all of one's earthly possessions, and (c) waiting up to several years if necessary.

As someone on said safety net, can confirm.

My atheism in particular, and my non-belonging-to-a-church in general, are luxuries indicative of a life lacking in severe shocks.

Perhaps, but you are also "fortunate" here in having a church to "return" to. Imagine growing up irreligious, with parents who don't attend a church of any kind. Would "church first, then government safety net" still be your ordering in seeking help?

Imagine growing up irreligious, with parents who don't attend a church of any kind. Would "church first, then government safety net" still be your ordering in seeking help?

If I imagine that I didn't know that a church is more responsive than the government, then indeed I wouldn't have that mental ordering. Then again, I am probably missing ideas about other resources that are more responsive than the government, because I don't have prior experience in them.

If I imagine that I didn't know that a church is more responsive than the government

It would be more responsive for you, as someone returning to a childhood faith. But if you were an atheist who'd grown up atheist, would it still be "more responsive"?

Oh I see. Yes, I think so. Many of the congregations around where I live are very welcoming of newcomers, and seem even more so with people who were never religious. The devout protestants I know seem especially susceptible to simple redemption narratives ("I grew up an atheist, but now..."), and would have fewer questions for someone like that who wants to join their congregation. With someone like me, they'd want to know how I came to grok that the denomination of my youth isn't the right Christian faith while theirs is.

I think part of this is a sign of affluence and disposable income. But it's also worth noting that in 1962 most everyone had either served in the military or had a dad who did. I think World War Two was immensely unifying for the States, both because it saw us struggling against a common foe and also because it involved putting a lot of people through the military, which can also be a pretty unifying experience.

We live in the age of the Barbell Shaped distribution. There's something deeper there.

Tyler Cowen would say that Average is Over.

one interesting data point that I've come across is that people who grew up poor tend to lag behind, even after obtaining the degree

It's worth noting here that years of education completed is a piss-poor measure of human capital. It's better than nothing, but there's tremendous variation in IQ, non-cognitive skills, and even knowledge among people who nominally have the same educational attainment. Since IQ and non-cognitive skills are highly heritable, it's not surprising that people whose parents were weak in those areas and consequently had limited earning power do not, on average, accomplish as much with 17 years of formal education as people whose parents were strong in those areas and consequently had high earning power.

The flip side is that if you actually do have those traits, either because you got lucky with meiosis or because your parents were poor for reasons unrelated to lack of talent, your parents having been poor isn't nearly as much of a handicap as that Brookings white paper suggests.

Its probably more likely she is going to college because she is better off. Education provided her, an outlier in the community, a convenient way to move out of town, but so too would have a job posting asking for a high school graduate with good grades and a can do attitude in a world where universities remained finishing schools for the elite.

My point was not that she's doomed, but that if she actually has the quantitative skills and conscientiousness needed to do well in finance classes, she'll probably be fine and not be magically handicapped by having been poor as a child.

Given that education correlates pretty highly with income, ive always felt as if fostering values around education and its importance would be a crucial first step and the environment many are in seems to make this highly difficult, even after obtaining such education.

Here's where I'm going to push back, by referencing Chris Arnade's book Dignity: Seeking Respect in Back Row America. (Short review here.) He uses the metaphor of "front row" America versus "back row" America, referencing students in the front and back row of the classroom — the former are the smart, conscientious, rule-abiding, attentive people who do well in modern schooling; while the latter are the opposite. Arnade notes (as does Murray, and also Freddie deBoer) that in our current society, success heavily correlates with being "front row." Further, much like Murray, he notes that the divergence between the two continues to grow, to the point that the two groups increasingly cannot even understand each other, and have become increasingly intolerant of each other (see our politics). He also notes, and objects to, the fact that pretty much every proposal to try to 'help' the more "back row" Americans consists of projects attempting to turn them into "front row" Americans.

Arnade's point is that we can't actually do this. Some people just aren't suited for modern education, and no amount of "fostering values around education and its importance" is going to make them any more educable or less incompatible with the "front row" lifestyle. Unlike (what I've read of) deBoer, though, he argues that welfare state redistribution is not the solution, because while it's good at addressing the material inequalities between "front row" and "back row," even more than money, "back row" Americans need an existence that is dignified, that provides respect, and welfare state handouts are counterproductive to that end. Foster "values around education" all you want, you still need to find a way to integrate and provide a living for all those who simply aren't suited for college (or, for that matter, high school).

But you cannot simply redistribute "respect" like you can money, and Arnade's book is his lack of solutions to the problems he raises:

What are the solutions? What are the policies we should put in place? What can we do differently, beyond yell at one another? All I can say is “I don’t know” or the almost equally wishy-washy “We all need to listen to each other more.”

As for other people online — pretty much all "front row" — who I've seen propose various solutions, it's generally not optimistic. Plenty hold that "front row" traits are so intrinsically essential to the current post-industrial economy, and our society heavily g-loaded by necessity, that there's simply no way for "back row" Americans to contribute — that what jobs they still have will be replaced by automation (or cheaper illegal immigrants) any day now. The more optimistic of these are the ones bullish about genetic modification technologies — whether CRISPR-style splicing, or just PGS IVF —becoming cheap and commonplace in the next decade or two, so that if we can just keep things together for that long, our society will be able to afford to engineer the genes of "back row" America's children to become good, productive "front row" Americans (and then just wait a generation or two for the remaining "back row" folks to die off). The more pessimistic look to cheap VR (and improving VR porn), cheap psychiatric drugs, police surveillance and drones, and a welfare state to keep the economically-superfluous "back row" Americans pacified and warehoused (and reproducing less), for however many generations needed until they all die out.

Some propose providing "dignity" by replacing direct welfare payments with make-work schemes. But the only idea they have to keep them from being too transparently so is basically to revive FDR-style massive government infrastructure projects. But this runs up against all the problems that beset trying to build infrastructure in America, and would almost certainly end up ruinously costly.

The only other solution I see bandied about is essentially religious revival — we are all equal in dignity as beings made in God's image; the successful need to count their blessings, recognize we are all sinners, and stop looking down on those who have not received the same good fortune as them; while "back row" americans need to "come to Jesus" and stop letting their poor material conditions provide excuses for wallowing in sin. Not terribly plausible, I'd say.

Still, we do need something besides "just stay in school, just study harder, just sit still in class, just read more, just…"

Hmm. Honestly this is a very good argument i will pick up the book when i get the chance.

I like this front row vs back row metaphor. It matches my experience much better. And school is a great place where most people have seen all types of people. I don't think the situation is hopeless for the back row, and I think there is actually a straight forward and easy solution to making their lives better through government:

Stop having the government do so much shit in people's private lives.

Imagine you have backrow students in an actual school. They are not paying attention. They are not getting worksheets done. The principle comes up with a solution: we will offer tutors to all the students who need additional help. Everyone claps and they go about their day. The vice principle is stick having to implement this policy. He comes up with the idea of just creating a worksheet questionnaire for students to fill out if they need help.

This is the same kind of problem with so many government solutions. "Oh you can't handle the bureaucracy and regimented life of white collar work and corporate America? We will help you out, all you need to do is navigate a white collar bureaucracy that makes corporate America look streamlined."

The normal methods of government can only make this problem worse, not better. The actual solutions are out there, and have been out there. Private charity orgs and mutual aid societies used to handle some of the people falling through the cracks. Apprenticeships where people learn by doing were far more common than schooling. Churches provided help to people.

And this is ultimately a market problem, that I think silicon valley companies have begun solving (when they are allowed to). How do you take some of these people and make them productive? The gig economy is much derided, but its basically been the main lifeline for so many of these people. Rideshare, food delivery, etc. It is pretty friction-less to signup to be a part of these services, they make it as easy as they can. And then you choose when to do them, presumably when you want some more cash. Buying and selling on various online marketplaces is another way I've seen various "back-row" students make money. Running a small business is the other way these people become successful. So the more barriers in the way of small businesses, the harder you make their lives.

This is the same kind of problem with so many government solutions. "Oh you can't handle the bureaucracy and regimented life of white collar work and corporate America? We will help you out, all you need to do is navigate a white collar bureaucracy that makes corporate America look streamlined."

Yes, this is a point Arnade makes in the book as well. (I've had personal experience with, dealing with Social Security, welfare offices, Medicaid, etc, and I find it hard enough as a high-IQ "front row" type myself.) My mother works for our public library, in the branch in the poorest part of town. They get plenty of people coming in to use the computers to get online (because they lack internet access at home), and some portion of those people are doing so to seek various forms of governmental assistance. The library stafd are aware of this because said people often end up coming to them for help with trying to navigate the various application processes, and such (help which the librarians are unable to provide).

The actual solutions are out there, and have been out there. Private charity orgs and mutual aid societies used to handle some of the people falling through the cracks. Apprenticeships where people learn by doing were far more common than schooling. Churches provided help to people.

Unfortunately — and here's where I once again turn back to Weber — it is in the basic nature of modernity to replace organic, human-run institutions like these with bureaucratized ones. And, as you note, the reach of such private organizations is rather less than uniform. Much of the resistance comes from the sorts who rate "equality" high in their priority of values, and who decry the "unfairness" involved. If the primary source of help for, say, the disabled are the local churches, then what about disabled non-Christians? Disabled atheists?

Plus, local charity requires local people able to afford to be charitable. I've been thinking about Alaska's economy quite often, and why it's so terrible. The job market is lousy because few are hiring, because few can afford to hire people, because there's not enough business, because few can afford the goods and services the business provides, because too many are poor and lacking jobs…

"Rideshare, food delivery, etc." all require enough of a customer base able to afford them. It's hard to compete in "online marketplaces" when the shipping costs are higher (as are the raw materials for whatever good you're producing, for the same reason). Plus, you're competing with illegal immigrant labor, or with overseas sweatshops and the like.

I remember asking a question here in one of the Sunday threads about the economic viability of Auron MacIntyre's 'have your state resist federal control (or your county refuse federal and state control) on culture-war issues by refusing federal funds and using local institutions in their place — tell your people "you don't need the welfare state, the churches will provide."' And I recall that most concluded it's simply not economically viable for any but the richest locales (all of which are pretty much on the same side as the federal institutions in the culture war), and especially non-viable for "rust belt" areas (or other, similarly-impoverished areas like Alaska).

I mean, I agree with your sentiments here, I'm just not sure we can make it actually work as things are now.

The normal methods of government can only make this problem worse, not better. The actual solutions are out there, and have been out there. Private charity orgs and mutual aid societies used to handle some of the people falling through the cracks. Apprenticeships where people learn by doing were far more common than schooling. Churches provided help to people

This is a really good point, though i dont agree with it entirely. I cant deny my advantages in my life: my parents are well offish and pay for much of my expenses, they instilled enough work ethic in me and pushed me to go to school. However I also took advantage of the opportunities around me. I choose to go to a cheaper community college to get my degree as opposed to a larger university. I can say scholarships helped me as much as the pell grant did. I got my start in it doing an internship for a small local computer shop, those guys were awesome and were more than willing to help me. I dont think i would have my current job without them. There are certainly things local or market forces can do to help with many of these things. I took advantage of them and i am quite thankful for it, however i think the more nuanced perspective is to insert government where it may be critical (ie the Pell grant) rather than eschew government intervention in our lives entirely.

https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/ab74uz/hillbilly_elegy_the_culture_of_white_american/

Vance argues that there is no solution to hillbilly culture. The best we can do is try to tip the scales to push a few marginal cases in the right direction. … Mentorship is one option. Vance attributes much of his success to the positive influence of a handful of family members, and now he tries to do the same for a few teenagers in similar environments. It’s especially useful to give these kids a jump start on the civilizing process, with simple tips like “wear a suit to a job interview” or “don’t curse in front of your boss.”

You should also embed your gf in your family to unlearn toxic behavior, eg visit with her for Christmas your parents instead of the chaos of her family.

with simple tips like “wear a suit to a job interview” or “don’t curse in front of your boss.”

Sometimes I forget that the tech industry is weird.

I had an interviewer laugh at me when I turned up to my first tech job interview in a suit.

Perhaps one could parlay it into an unique quirk - "I'm the sort of a free thinker that is so detached from norms that I even wear a suit to a tech job!"

If you wear a 3-piece suit and bow tie, it is obvious that you are countersignalling. (Although I'm sure die_workwear would call you out for wearing a bowtie in the daytime).

You wouldn’t wear black tie during the daytime, obviously, but was the rule really that no bow ties were allowed during the day at all? Interesting.

I don't know if it is a rule like "no brown in town" or "dinner suit trousers have a silk stripe", but my social circle includes a lot of people who know how to wear formalwear correctly, and the only people who wear bow ties in the daytime are people performing the social role of "eccentric academic".

I don’t think anyone who isn’t an eccentric academic wears bow ties that aren’t black tie or (once or twice in a lifetime, unless you’re the king) white tie. But I didn’t think it was a formal rule that you couldn’t wear a bow tie during the day.

One sad casualty of progress I’ve noticed is that pinstripes have essentially entirely vanished from the City. They were rare pre-COVID, but are now a legacy product.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats