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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
An article is making the rounds on rat-adjacent twitter entitled "The Nerdy Escorts Cashing In On Silicon Valley’s AI Boom."
I can't bypass the paywall, but someone posted on X:
I know that aella, the famous rationalist whorelord, popularized this niche of pseudo-intellectual prostitutes appealing to rationalists and other tech nerds for extreme amounts of money. It's obvious that aella has become obscenely wealthy and gained a ton of social status from her pursuits, but I'm still somewhat shocked at the sheer amount these women are making.
I work a pretty boring, standard corporate marketing job, and apparently these prostitutes are taking home almost my entire after-tax yearly income in one weekend.
Even regardless of the moral aspect of the situation, the fact that a prostitute can make so much money is a huge slap in the face to people working hard for a living. That, combined with the fact that close to 18% of the economy is now in healthcare, has got me a bit depressed on the economy.
Also, Tyler Cowen had a bit of a viral moment yesterday saying he wouldn't be surprised if 15 to 20% of all jobs in the near future are elder care. This of course sandwiched in a talk where he insists AI is great and making jobs not losing them!
Anyway, all of this recent discourse combined is making me feel more and more like a retarded schmuck for working a 'real job,' as opposed to just leeching off the government, doing some sort of NGO/media grift, or even just getting a random remote job and going to live cheap in Thailand or some other extremely cheap country. And this is someone who has a pretty chill office job where I don't have to work too hard, and get to work from home a few days a week. I can't imagine how people who actually bust their asses in physical labor and make less than me feel!
Either way, the optimism from the pundit class around AI and the economy is feeling more and more hollow to me by the day. If the numbers keep going up but everyone is employed wiping the asses of boomers and sexually pleasuring tech AI millionaires, have we really improved society? How will things go otherwise without some sort of relatively radical disruption? I try not to be a 'doomer' about AI, but I'm increasingly finding it hard to be optimistic on the impact of it on society.
I think this is the exact opposite story that should be disseminated widely in a culture. We want stories of women foregoing money, status, and attention for the sake of a marital pairbond and having children, because that’s what you want high iq Bayarean women doing. This story is unlikely to nudge a reader toward escortdom, but it will nudge them toward valuing money and status even more. Or it will make some think, “if she’s taking advantage of her body for so much money, then it’s definitely okay if I do it on a smaller scale with my boss / manager / investor”. But it’s impossible to get a pro-motherhood + pro-love bio in a newspaper.
If you want that, I think you're in luck. I think that the majority of high IQ Bayarean women are either pursuing or at some point will be pursuing a pair bond, usually marital, that includes children. And I doubt that any amount of news stories would have a significant impact on the changing what fraction of them decides to turn to prostitution instead.
I don’t have an IQ breakdown, but they have the highest rate of delaying birth until their 40s, per LA Times
https://archive.is/LUoTe
This is suboptimal for a variety of reasons. If we’re throwing a portion of our smartest and healthiest women there, we want them to have the lowest age of birth and the highest number of kids, to maximize health and intelligence of future generations.
Stories like this do have an effect, not any one story isolated, but the kind of women that are boosted in popularity and status among women through our cultural stories (news, social media).
It is suboptimal for society but probably optimal for a good amount of women. Let's say you have two life paths to choose from as a young, high-IQ, non-obese woman:
Career focus with upper middle class luxuries and you can be in a dating paradise for 20-30 years where men jockey for your attention. Optionally pop out a geriatric pregnancy or two when you're around 40. Retire in reasonable comfort and wealth.
Raise five kids as a tradwife and hope your husband doesn't leave you for a younger, prettier woman later on.
It's a no brainer when the risks and rewards are this unbalanced. High IQ women logically want a life of luxuries and comfort over the uncertain guarantees of raising a large family, outside of niche religious or cultural pressure to marry young and bear many children.
Aren't there a lot of high IQ women who married wealthy people and had lots of kids? Angelina Jolie had three kids (and adopted 3 more), Melinda Gates had three kids, MacKenzie Bezos (now Scott) had four...the scheme of getting society to idealize women like this has its problems, but I doubt it's due to a lack of examples.
And yes, these aren't great examples, but I suspect that's sampling bias due to notoriety; if you dig a bit you can find hundreds more women who were smart and talented, married smart and talented men, had 2 - 5 children, and didn't end up in front-page-divorce proceedings.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t quite disagree, but that’s why it’s important to promote the civilizational ideal of women through stories, including via news stories like the above. If you proclaim the superiority of women who give up creature comforts in favor of the creation of new life, then that provides social / emotional / spiritual comfort to these women, while restricting it from women who make incorrect life decisions (who don’t get these positive feelings). You are, in essence, increasing the rewards for the right decision. But the prostitute story increases the rewards for the wrong decision. It’s like, why did MacKenzie Scott donate 1 billion dollars to HBCUs? The news taught her that this was socially valuable; it enhanced her honor, status, sense of worth, and thus her comfort with herself. It absolved her from the fear and the shame of not doing what she’s supposed to be doing, which is a common feeling among humans and which we can guide through stories. America’s hyper-striving Bayareans feel guilty or ashamed that they’ve never completed a marathon or sold a startup or gotten into some party, but you can literally just rewire them into feeling this way about prosocial and pro-civilizational things if you own their news and algorithms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link