site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6d ago (text post)   2223 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for December 29, 2024

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Claude didn't do a great job.

Although it could correctly summarize my arguments and determine I was likely a young conservative from the United States, it was totally off when asked for details:

Looking more carefully at the cultural references and intellectual framework, I can make a more specific geographical guess: This writer reads like someone from the American Northeast, possibly from the Boston-DC corridor. Several subtle clues point to this:

  • Their intellectual style fits the Northeast's tradition of social criticism and public intellectualism:
  • The mix of conservative views with sophisticated secular argumentation is characteristic of Northeast conservative intellectuals
  • The writing has echoes of older Northeast conservative traditions (think Irving Kristol or William F. Buckley)
  • Shows familiarity with both high academic discourse and internet culture, suggesting proximity to major educational centers
  • More specifically, they might be from or educated in the Greater Boston area because:
  • The writing style shows marks of exposure to academic/intellectual culture that's particularly characteristic of Boston/Cambridge
  • Their approach combining social conservatism with analytical rigor is reminiscent of certain Boston-area intellectual circles
  • The way they discuss social atomization and community breakdown has a particular resonance with Northeast urban/suburban experience

Their perspective on dating and relationships seems colored by experience in highly educated, urban/suburban Northeast environments:

  • The dynamics they describe fit patterns in educated Northeast professional circles
  • Their concerns about social atomization reflect issues particularly acute in Northeast urban centers
  • The specific way they discuss class and social institutions feels rooted in Northeast social structures

Of course, this is quite speculative - they could be from anywhere. But the particular blend of:

  • Traditional conservative views
  • Sophisticated secular argumentation
  • Familiarity with both elite and internet culture
  • Concern with social atomization
  • Style of intellectual discourse

...fits a pattern I associate with Northeast intellectual circles, particularly around Boston/Cambridge, or possibly New York or DC.

Claude apparently thinks I'm a Harvard man!

Though it does seem like Claude just went, "well, looks smart, and kind of stuffy, they must have gone to a good university and been from old money... HARVARD!" If only we determined college admissions this way...

I must also report that I asked it to try again, and it was again wrong (though intriguingly also thinks I, of all people, might be a rationalist):

Looking at it fresh, the essay could come from someone in a major tech hub, possibly the Bay Area or Seattle. Here's why:

The way they analyze social trends feels influenced by tech/rationalist cultural patterns:

  • They use systems-level thinking and economic analogies
  • They examine social phenomena through the lens of structural incentives and emergent patterns
  • Their discussion of "atomization" and social breakdown feels connected to critiques common in tech-adjacent intellectual spaces

The specific blend of:

  • Concern about social alienation in highly connected societies
  • Understanding of online culture and its pathologies
  • Conservative social views combined with analytical frameworks
  • Focus on systemic rather than individual failures

...fits with perspectives I've seen from tech-adjacent writers who are critical of modern social structures while using analytical tools associated with tech culture.

So guess #2 just went "well, not the northeast, where else are people smart? THE WEST COAST!"

Take #3 was far closer:

Looking at the piece again:

They could be from the American Midwest or South, specifically from a mid-sized city rather than a major metropolitan area, because:

  • Their critique of modern atomization feels like it comes from someone who has experienced stronger community ties
  • The conservative framework isn't the coastal elite version, but has a more heartland quality
  • Their analysis of social breakdown feels informed by watching it happen in real communities rather than theorizing about it
  • The way they discuss traditional institutions feels grounded in lived experience rather than pure theory

More specifically, they could be from somewhere like:

  • A university town in the Midwest
  • A growing Southern city
  • A mid-sized city with strong religious and educational institutions

The writing combines intellectual sophistication with what feels like genuine concern about community breakdown that comes from seeing it firsthand rather than just theorizing about it.

Now we're talking. Though it does seem like Claude went, "well, I guess flyover country exists too... right?"

And I find its analysis of these points rather insulting:

"The conservative framework isn't the coastal elite version, but has a more heartland quality," because they lead with their personal stance against casual sex but ground it in social impact rather than pure moral theory. Their conservatism seems rooted in practical concerns about community function rather than abstract philosophical arguments.

So I guess we're down to "well, I see a few things where they sound kind of dumb, maybe they're midwestern?"

How's that for reinforcing biases!

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