site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   3248 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 30, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Here's everything I read in January 2026, ordered from most to least interesting. I posted this on /r/slatestarcodex earlier, but figured the overlap between here and there is small enough that it would be of some value to post here as well.

CHH argues that we gotta stop upping the ante on gift-giving, else the reasonable people among us will be either forced in or unable to say no because it will make them look like assholes. I agree! What happened to simple gift giving? Why must everything be extravagant? If anything, we should be going the opposite way to save money!

I've been slowly adjusting my family to the expectation that I'm good for one really good gift across the whole family per year, and that the rest are going to be phoned in books or something. One year I'm just like, oh I found a tuxedo for dad, mom you got a book about the guy who inspired Charlie Chan. Next year it's, oh mom you got a Barbour coat, dad you got Andrew Ross Sorkin's new book.

"You're single because... [insert a bunch of reasons in a bulleted list format]".

Steve Stewart-Williams: As shown in the graph below, the sweet spot was two to four past partners; fewer or more reduced attractiveness. In effect, people wanted someone with a bit of a past, but not too much (which was the title of our paper describing the research).

Is there a link to the study he's talking about anywhere? It seems like there's a lot of confounders here, like age. An 18 year old with 10 sexual partners is different from a 32 year old with 10 sexual partners. That said I found it hilarious how angry Zvi was that the study supposedly found:

Intriguingly, we found no evidence for a sexual double standard: none, zilch, nada. Contrary to what’s often claimed, women weren’t judged any more harshly than men for having a high body count. That’s not to say they weren’t judged for it, but only that men were judged too.

Also, I flat out defy the data on there being no double standard? No way. Even if on some abstract 1-9 scale it looks similar, the practical impact is very obviously totally different. Yes, a male body count of 60+ is functionally a negative, but not at the same level.

Man, people just fucking hate their revealed preferences when it comes to dating. I'm not going to argue for the virtue of sluts, {I'll leave that to the Jaime} but I've literally never met a woman who was single because of her bodycount. I don't even really think it happened historically.

Alternative lifestyle choices work great - for alternative people

Aww thanks bae.

From that post:

one would naively expect that successful actors, musicians etc. would be incentivised to discourage others from pursuing careers in their domain, or engage in rent-seeking behaviour like guilds and so on. But there may be an alternative dynamic at play, in which moderately talented actors, musicians etc. are savvy enough to know that flooding the market with talentless hacks will make the legitimately talented stand out all the more — tall poppies look all the taller when surrounded by short ones

Surely they are simply smart enough to know that:

  1. They are already established and can't easily be threatened by people only now beginning a career (similar to those advocating DEI).
  2. They know that their fans will respond much better to "we've all been there, keep plugging," than to "dude, sorry, chances are you can't do what I can do".

I think one would actually naively expect that most of them are not being Machiavellian about it and declare that "we've all been there, keep plugging" as a sincere opinion that is entirely decoupled from any awareness of their advantages and chances of success.

They know that people respond much better to "we've all been there, keep plugging," than to "dude, sorry, chances are you can't do what I can do".

Well, yes, they do. That doesn't mean that filling talentless hacks with false hope is a pro-social way to behave.

Agreed. I'm just saying I think you're overthinking it in that quoted passage. They're just trying to be nice in public even if the long-term effect is anti-social.

How so? It seems like you're just paraphrasing the same point I made.

I read you as saying that the talented encourage the talentless to enter their field as a gambit to emphasise their own relative superiority.

My theory is that they don’t want to generate bad PR by discouraging their fans and emphasising the gap between them.

If I misunderstood your argument I apologise.

No, that was the point I was making alright. I think the whole thing might come down to a Russell conjugation, or Trivers' theory of self-deception: if a strategy is beneficial to us, we unconsciously come up with reasons why it's also the pro-social thing to do. See also "yasslighting": I don't believe that talented actors are consciously thinking "if I encourage a bunch of talentless hacks to pursue careers in acting, it'll make it easier for me to secure roles", any more than attractive women are consciously thinking "if I encourage my friend to get an unflattering haircut and tell her it really suits her, it'll make me look more attractive by comparison". Of course in their own heads they'll tell themselves a story which casts their behaviour in a more favourable light e.g. "it would devastate Bob to be told he's a terrible actor, so instead I'll just give him some pat platitude about never giving up on your dreams"; "I don't want to hurt Alice's feelings, so I'll tell her her new haircut really suits her". But subconsciously, the practical benefit of these decisions to those who make them is obvious. It surely cannot be an accident that actors so rarely encourage their more talented peers not to give up on their dreams.

It surely cannot be an accident that actors so rarely encourage their more talented peers not to give up on their dreams.

How often do actors meet more talented (but not yet successful) peers and speak to them, specifically (as opposed to a general statement to the wide audience, most of them presumably less talented) about their dreams in public, for you to estimate that?

More comments

Thanks, misunderstanding cleared up. Personally I disagree, I think that once you are seriously giving life advice to anyone except that handsome devil in the mirror, you are broadly out of the part of your career where young people are competing with you directly. I think that what you consider the 'cloaking' motivation is broadly the true motivation.

Yasslighting for e.g. writers certainly happens but it happens in the peer group of young losers + young one-day-maybe-not-losers. I guess maybe your talented 20-somethings are still encouraging their less talented friends but this is more to prevent social awkwardness than anything.

Most successful entrepreneurship is unproductive

This one was hilariously ignorant. Literally 9th grade "intro to econ" levels of "akshually, I'm pretty sure Adam Smith was wrong."

You Will Not Have a Flat Floor: You can shim all you want and it still won't be flat.

Are joisted floors still a thing in the US? Here slab floors are much more common, even in wooden frame houses. Paging @ToaKraka

According to the US Census Bureau, of all single-family houses completed in year 2024:

Do you not add a mineral layer over the joists of the second floor in the US?

/images/17699581743749194.webp

For tile, specifically, you'll usually see some waterproof membrane or backing board, leveled with grout of self-leveling concrete, then using thinset to keep the tile attached, and the finally grout to interfere the gaps.

I don't think I've ever seen that used for carpet, hardwood, or linoleum, and at least in my neck of the woods tile is rare outside of restrooms and kitchens. Both my current house, last rental, and several of the other houses I'd looked at when in the market had joisted floors, though I was specifically looking for houses with a basement.

The Architectural Graphic Standards for Residential Construction portray:

  • Joists

  • "Subflooring" of plywood

  • "Underlayment" of plywood, required for some finishes but not for others

  • Finish

A cursory Internet search indicates that the underlayment may alternatively be fiberboard, particleboard, etc.

No cement? I guess since you mostly use air for heating you don't need it.

A cursory search indicates that "self-leveling concrete" can be used as underlayment, but I guess it's much less common than plywood.

Never leave.

Nothing is certain. Maybe I'll become unable to tolerate the moderators. Maybe I'll fly to Australia to fuck a prostitute and get stabbed in an alley by a thug. Maybe my depression will get worse and I'll shoot myself in the head.

I'm just another random fake person on the Internet.

More comments

Well, some of these are a bit interesting. If you don't mind a few off-the-cuff takes--

Dating Roundup #9: Signals and Selection: "You're single because... [insert a bunch of reasons in a bulleted list format]".

These were interesting, obviously mostly well-known.

I do want to comment on the astrology thing though. I think I'd struggle to take a partner who used astrology as a means to talk about personality seriously. My view is that it's ludicrous, but moreso that it forces human personality into very silly boxes instead of using big-boy (girl?) words to actually talk about things in an organic manner. It suggests immaturity in emotional and social communication.

This tweet included in the essay was interesting to me:

Astrology is a vehicle women use to communicate indirectly. Why would it possibly make you annoyed?

That's actually a question that includes the answer -- the problem is that it's a way to communicate indirectly, and as the article says "super flexibly", without actually committing to making a statement. That's one of the worst traits in a partner, from my point of view.

This comment on the article was interesting:

A girl opens with "what's your sign", you tell her, and then you make up a story together about the relation between the two signs. There's no actual predictive power there, the signs are meaningless (she knows this, at least subconsciously), it's just a framework within which you can indirectly talk about how you'd fit together.

I love talking about values and hopes and dreams and goals. It's actually because I like talking about those things that I don't like astrology. I don't believe it's necessary or helpful to try to fit me, or you, into a star-sign box. If you're someone who likes to stay in a lot and is slow to trust someone, you can just say that. Have an adult conversation with me about who you are and who I am. I don't believe in "indirectly" communicating about "how we'd fit together," I believe in directly communicating it. I kind of want to make a joke on the "I don't consent" Jesus meme where the third player is "literally the observable universe." Don't bring galaxies into the bedroom, please!

I think tact is useful. But when I'm looking to share my life with someone, I want to know they can communicate about desires and preferences in a straightforward, clear, and reasonable manner. Astrology as an interest suggests a way of looking at life as a kind of following the wind, at the mercy of (literally) astronomical forces, and that leads me to believe someone is flighty and doesn't fully take responsibility for the outcomes of their own life.

I also disagree with this:

People underestimate how much relationships are built on that ability. To step into someone’s weird side hobby, their micro belief system, their little rituals, even when you do not share them. She might have astrology. Someone else has Dungeons & Dragons lore. Another person has fantasy football statistics. Your uncle has his grill.

"Dungeons and Dragons lore" or "fantasy football statistics" are generally not means by which people aim to understand themselves or their place in the social universe. The closest equivalent is actually if some guy tried asking his date about her DnD moral alignment -- I think most people would find that cringe. I'd be happy to listen to a date talk about her interest in makeup, or fashion, especially if she could forgive my ignorance -- but not astrology. It's just a different kind of a thing.

But what's most interesting to me is that the article ignores the biggest and actual reason you're single: the social people aren't available, and the available people aren't social, because they're on their phones scrolling TikTok because fewer and fewer people participate in voluntary social activity, especially after college. It's almost a meme how many times I've been told "I'm boring, sorry," by women whose hobbies included watching YouTube videos and eating dinner, alone, at home. I don't have any problem with that! But that's not exactly a social calendar that lends itself to meeting interesting people. If my girlfriend and I hadn't met each other at the right time, I'd probably be single too. And so would she.

That said, the main thing I have to say about astrology is I took an astronomy class in college for a natural sciences credit, and at the end of the course two girls had a short discussion in the class group chat, where they said:

This class was so hard [it wasn't], I thought when I signed up it was going to be astrology

BITCH ME TOO

I don't know why we're giving bachelor's degrees to people who can't distinguish between astrology and astronomy, but that's a different issue.

Alternative lifestyle choices work great - for alternative people: Pretty self-explanatory title. Alt lifestyles only really work for people on the fringes, and chances are you're not one of them. Examples include polyamory, drugs, sex-positive feminism, psychotherapy, gender transition, following your dreams, amateur pornography, and being a Linux user.

I'm a Linux user (btw), but I do have to admit I'm fringe.

Well, I guess I just had a couple thoughts as I actually selected what random neuron firings deserved being typed out. Anyway.

I don't know why we're giving bachelor's degrees to people who can't distinguish between astrology and astronomy

Interestingly, this confusion is common enough to seriously pollute survey results. The proportion of people who respond affirmatively to the question "do you believe in horoscopes and star signs?" is dramatically lower than the proportion who responds in the affirmative to "do you believe in astrology?"

It's an inconsistency with almost every other use of the suffix -ology in the everyday use of the English language. Biology, Sociology, Zoology, Geology, Virology. The only other common use of -ology to refer to something other than a science is Scientology, which is kind of a special case. As a child I recall being offended by this, that Astronomy ought to be Astrology, and Astrology ought to be something else entirely.

It's unfortunately unfixable.

Remember a few years ago when the job title for a person who prepared cocktails was "mixologist"? That seems to have fallen out of vogue.

I remember when Subway used to call their employees Sandwich Artists.

The cultural impact of Subway restaurants is massively forgotten and underrated. Without Subway there is no Chipotle, no Cava, no Sweetgreen.

I do want to comment on the astrology thing though. I think I'd struggle to take a partner who used astrology as a means to talk about personality seriously. My view is that it's ludicrous, but moreso that it forces human personality into very silly boxes

People love boxes. I come from a culture with a much more pervasive background astrology radiation, so it might be hard for me to calibrate my assessment of what's going on in the US. What's the level you're talking about?

  • my date asks me for my birth sign or calculates it based on my birthday - a nothingburger, I'm a Sagittarius
  • I buy my GF a pendant with a stone that is compatible with her birth sign - wow, so thoughtful
  • my date calls her boss a typical Aries - as long as it helps her to put people into the right boxes, why not?
  • my date explains that she only trusts the horoscopes printed in The Daily Huntsman - a red flag, but is she hot?
  • my date explains she would never date a Pisces because of their duplicity - smile, nod, ghost
  • my date expresses befuddlement that I've never seen my natal chart and offers to construct me one for free, because she's a certified astrologist - smile, nod, ghost

my date calls her boss a typical Aries - as long as it helps her to put people into the right boxes, why not?

It's interesting that calling her a typical [ethnicity], [sexuality], [gender identity] or [religion] would raise a few eyebrows, but we're meant to think of Birthday Racism as harmless and cute.

"Can you believe that after yesterday's meeting Bob told me to stop acting like such a ****er?"

"Well... were you perhaps being a little moody and sensitive?"

"Okay, I suppose I was indeed acting like a bit of a Cancer."

Imagine if astrological sign became a protected class, and HR departments started up affirmative action and specialized programs to favor Persons of Underrepresented Signs in hiring and promotions for sign Diversity and to compensate for Inequities from the relative age effect.

Funnily enough, I remember hearing that Jennifer Lopez fired one of her backup dancers upon learning her star sign. If that happened in Europe, I imagine the dancer could have sued Lopez for wrongful dismissal and won a tidy settlement. I wonder if we'll see more of these cases until astrology inevitably recedes in popularity again.

Needless to say, I don't want star signs to be a protected class, but I would be happy if birthdates were.

Oh, don't be such a Capricorn about it.

What's wrong with a natal chart, other than that I don't know my exact hour of birth?

smiles, nods, ghosts you

A "certified X" offering to make you a Y for free reeks of someone trying to recruit you into an MLM.

Eh, regarding the practice of astrology in particular it doesn't give off that vibe for me. More like someone who's used to putting people in boxes for a living taking the opportunity to do so.

I could see it this way, if she wasn't certified (or at least wouldn't bring it up without prompting).

What is she gonna do, offer me to pay for another natal chart of me?

No, for your monthly horoscope.

And come to think of it, even if there's no money involved, it sounds like the kind of person that would use astrology to tell you what decisions you should make, and/or win arguments.

I don't know why we're giving bachelor's degrees to people who can't distinguish between astrology and astronomy, but that's a different issue.

Technically "we" (the universities) aren't giving bachelor's degrees to those people, they're selling bachelor's degrees to those people. For what can I gather be up to $20K tuition&fees/year * 4 years, you too might be more flexible regarding what sort of intellectual standards the clientele is expected to uphold...

It's almost a meme how many times I've been told "I'm boring, sorry," by women whose hobbies included watching YouTube videos and eating dinner, alone, at home.

Wait - are they calling you boring, or themselves? I've heard of a stereotype of some single women who badly want to be entertained despite being utterly unengaged themselves, but in the stereotype they're not self-aware about it.

I don't know why we're giving bachelor's degrees to people who can't distinguish between astrology and astronomy

When credentials weren't so important, efficiency made it seem sensible for teaching and student evaluation to be done by the same institution. Once credentials' importance skyrocketed, game theory concerns became paramount, but the mistake is now too ubiquitous to change.

I'm a Linux user (btw), but I do have to admit I'm fringe.

I use Windows and OSX too, but I do everything I can on Linux because I prefer the user interface.

Wait - are they calling you boring, or themselves?

I read it as they were describing themselves as boring. See this delightful article "The Mainstreaming of Loserdom": it's remarkable to think how recently people would be embarrassed to admit that their weekend plans consisted of rotting in bed alone watching their shows all day.

Everybody who has an Android phone is technically a "Linux user". So it's about as much of an alternative lifestyle as driving a Honda Civic.

Desktop Linux (distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo, NixOS) and Android OSes are so fundamentally different that it's not very useful to describe both of those categories as being "Linux". Though I suspect @nomagicpill put "being a Linux user" on the list tongue-in-cheek.

The Linux quip was because of the post’s top comment saying the same thing :)

A long and wild list. You've read a lot, apparently.

I have a very long bookmark list and go through it in lieu of doomscrolling Twitter, Facebook, etc.

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