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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I’m actually pretty high in openness. I’m into things like nootropics, psychedelics, woo/spiritual/religious ideas, questioning the system, etc. Being open to weird ideas comes with the framing that we probably aren’t going to reach the exact same conclusions and it is ok to have unresolvable differences. The thing that agitates me is when people I disagree with use social shaming/pressure me into agreeing with their preferred social norm that appears to have logical flaws on the object level.
I think you are getting at something deeper though. I would say I’m very low-trust and suspicious of people. When people resort to peer pressure/shaming to enforce social norms that can’t withstand some light questioning then I feel that I can’t trust their thinking at all. I conclude that there is no reason to associate with them because how they act on the social norms issue will impact their other behavior and they are an unreliable ally.
I perceive that almost all social interactions will eventually test for tribal loyalty at some point (maybe this is just me being suspicious and picking up on something that isn’t actually there). In my model of the world you need to know if other people would make good allies/mates. The way you do that is by testing their reaction to political topics (Examples: Complaining about political policies, implying people that vote a certain way are morally bad). You always need to know if people share your values and then you need to sort yourself into groups that share your values by enforcing social norms. This is how you build trust.
So you are high-openness in all the ways that doesn't involve interacting with people.
What you are describing is a very narrow set of dogmas that are heavily enforced in Anglo academia, and to a lessening degree as you move further away from the Anglo academia. Many educated people in these circles will indeed be quite good at reciting the dogmas and recognizing that blasphemy is being committed when a dogma is directly challenged. However a very select few 1) can actually work out how the dogma applies to their real life and 2) detect acts or words that undermine tenets of the dogma without explicitly challenging it. This is absolutely crucial to understand if you want to socialize with this crowd (i.e. Western PMC, but not literally sociology grad HR lady) without giving in to their class dogma.
Just... don't talk abstractions. It will almost never come up. If you find the opportunity (typically when in small groups of high-T men), you can bring up some specific minor heresy points (crime, Joe Rogan, taxes etc) and you will quickly get a sense of which ones are true believers and which ones are just pretending to avoid any trouble. Even the most true believers usually cannot tie specifics to the dogma on their own and will easily commit heresies. That is why there needs to be HR commissars at every corner. Absolutely avoid discussing abstractions until you create some rapport and understanding over the minor heresies. If you are not very good at figuring out who to trust, just give small signals (i.e. deniable jokes) and let the more confident take the steps. You are hardly the first person who likes politically incorrect jokes. This is a basic but very effective formula.
Overall I suggest you to stop imagining yourself to be the first person to discover Twitter, or a lone-wolf in a debate club.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link