Tag Archives: Social Theory

Shared Experiences

From the study of ‘intellectualism culture’, which is a branch of ‘social theory’, arises the concept of ‘shared narratives’, discussed on this blog many times already. Shared narratives are beliefs, areas of inquiry, and values held by–and unique to–high-IQ people that bring such individuals together regardless of political or socioeconomic backgrounds.

But then there are also ‘shared experiences’–events and activities that are unique to smart people, that also bring such individuals together regardless of politics. Going to a football game is not a shared experience, because it’s not exclusive to high-IQ people. For example, this ‘meme’ I have a test tomorrow and I’m staring blankly at my book went massively viral on Reddit a couple weeks ago and is an example of a ‘shared experience’, which is why it was so viral–thousands of smart people can relate to the experience of being unchallenged in high school, only to find college coursework work more difficult. The ‘college experience’–whether it’s majoring in a STEM subject, economics, quantitative finance, or philosophy (all of which are high-IQ majors)–is ‘glue’ that holds smart people together regardless of their politics.

One of the benefits of completing college, besides higher wages due to ‘signaling theory’, are the social and bonding aspects the ‘college experience’ among other graduates. That’s one reasons why, despite being on the ‘right’, I no longer ‘bash’ millennials who go into debt to study cognitively-rigorous subjects such as STEM, philosophy, or economics and are unable to find good-paying jobs afterwards, or simply choose not to work, because intellectualism, in and of itself, has value. A decade ago, before the anti-college movement became a ‘thing’, yeah, telling students to not major in liberal arts was considered novel advice, but now it’s become repetitive and hectoring. Nowadays, many students who go into the liberal arts already know the pay and job opportunities are not going to be as good as a computer science degree, but they do so anyway, for reasons besides money. Other shared experiences induce: high school being too easy, dealing with insufferable low-information people and politics, work being boring and tedious, and bosses being inept and clueless.

The idea of work and wages being a virtue is a leftist one based on Protestantism and populism. For communists and socialists, work is always a virtue, regardless of economic value (which is why the far-left supports wasteful stimulus and make-work programs).

For smart people, who may be underappreciated by a less intelligent collective society, playing videos games (playing video games being the shared experience) is a form of escapism, which is why this story by 1843 Magazine (a subsidiary of The Economist) Escape to another world, about how unemployed men are playing video games instead of working, went hugely viral on Reddit, Hacker News, and 4chan. For smart people, video games provide autonomy and fun, in contrast to a boring job where their talents may be ignored. Low-information society wants smart people to conform to consumerism and political correctness, and smart people are responding in silent protest by ‘dropping out’, whether it’s going their own way (MGTOW) to live a life of minimalism, playing videos games, or living with their parents to avoid having to waste money on rent and ‘adult responsibilities’.

Going back to the meme, here are some of the most highly up-voted comments:

For the first comment “thats normal.. whats your topic?” the phrase ‘that’s normal’ connotes familiarity, hence the experience or ‘shock’ of difficult college coursework is ‘shared’ between the commenter and whoever posted the meme and, as well as shared by the thousands of people who up-voted both the meme and the comment.

The second most up-voted comment is both a shared experience and a shared narrative (the experience and narrative of how high school is dumbed-down and how teachers and administrators neglect the smartest students, in favor of trying to bringing the slowest up to speed, in which I agree: Too much taxpayer money is wasted on special ed and other ineffective programs. We need better policy in America that doesn’t neglect its best and brightest. Majoritarianism fails America’s smartest).

The Sweet, Boring Middle

Don’t read Marginal Revolution much anymore-find it kinda boring (too much economics minutiae and trivia)-but that reflects a deficiency of my own attention span and intelligence to appreciate it, not the inability of Tyler Cowen to be interesting. And evidently, his website is very interesting judging by the immense amount of traffic it gets, so my opinion is obviously an outlier. And again and again, as I discussed a month ago regarding Scott (both Scott Adams and Alexander), the greatest growth in the ‘intellectual middle’. The middle is the ‘sweet spot’, by courting both sides without having to have opinions that are ‘too extreme’ as to dissuade too many people from reading or sharing. For those on the ‘extreme’, how many would compromise some principle for a lot of traffic? I imagine many would, as that is the economically rational thing to do. Contrary to Daniel Kahneman and Michael Lewis who insist everyone is irrational, most people become rational decision makers when faced with easily quantifiable choices like choosing more money (or clicks, social status, etc.) versus less.

As part of the post-2008 ‘Cambrian explosion’ of intellectualism, Tyler’s blog is much more popular now (along with other ‘smart’ sites such as Slate Star Codex, Bryan Caplan’s Econ Log, Ribbonfarm, Wait But why, Scott Adams’ Dilbert Blog, and many, many more) than as recently as a few years ago, in agreement with this trend. But it gets even better–by pulling out ‘intellectual passport’, one who is in the ‘intellectual middle’ need not have to ideologically conform or compromise to be accepted, but rather be granted entry and be accepted into various ‘extreme’ but high-IQ groups (such as most of the alt-right) by virtue of being smart and authentic. That goes against much of social theory convention that says one must conform to be accepted. By being authentic, even if such views are counter-narrative, you gain more respect. Dissembling one’s motives and perceived pandering, even if one is ideologically close, has a repulsive effect, which explains why the alt-right has so strongly repudiated a handful of individuals, who despite otherwise agreeing with the alt-right on many things (such as being pro-Trump, pro-immigration control, anti-SJW, etc.) were perceived as only being involved ‘for the money’ and appropriating the alt-right ‘label’ for personal gain.

Regarding Tyler Cowen and Bryan Caplan, both unapologetically support open borders but oddly enough are highly respected by various alt-right and reactionary groups, their articles frequently cited. This has to do with intellectualism (both Tyler and Bryan are very smart) and authenticity (neither of them compromise or pander (and they don’t need to given how popular their sites are), and such steadfastness is respected), as discussed above–but also various shared narratives play a role, specifically a shared dislike of majoritarian systems, as described in Intellectual Solvent, Part 3:

Both smart left-wing and smart right-ring bloggers can relate to be ill-served by majoritarian school systems, that neglect the talented in favor of bringing the slowpokes and troublemakers up to speed. The same also applies to work settings, of the talents of smart employees being underutilized and or unappreciated, and this frustration crosses political lines. Both sides agree that incompetent people seem to be ‘running the show’, not the best and brightest, although in achieving opposite desired goals.

There comes a point where your’re so competent, pandering and compromising is unnecessary, and echoing Heidegger regarding authenticity, I think that’s what everyone should aspire to. George Carlin never had to compromise his angry, nihilist message to be accepted: audiences of all political makes found him funny, because, ultimately, he was a good comedian. When you read Paul Krugman or even Ann Coulter, there is the sense of desperation “I need to be accepted…I need to be edgy, funny, and partisan”, and that histrionic, excitable style of internet writing doesn’t work anymore [1]…better to be competent, even if that means being sightly ‘boring’, like Tyler Cowen.

[1] It works if you already have a huge audience that you built in the 90′s and early 2000′s as in the case of Ann Coulter and Paul Krugman, but not in the post-2013 era.

Identity, IQ, and Incoherence of the Alt-Right

‘Identity’, which not limited to just politics but also includes ‘BLM’ and the ‘big is beautiful’ movement, gives its members a stake in something, as being a part of a bigger ‘system’ or ‘process’, yet at the same time individualism and autonomy are retained. Identity is a way of signalling unity, with varying degrees obviousness. When taken too far, it can appear narcissistic, vulgar, and self-absorbed, as identity gives cover and justification for anti-social behavior. This is what 3-4th wave feminism has become, especially online.

There is also a distinction between individual identity (example: individualism; identifying as belonging to a specific gender, ethnicity, and race) and collective identity (examples: nationalism; gender, ethnicity, and race as group identities and as part of political and social movements).

Neoconservatives and neoliberals tend to eschew collective identity, in favor of pragmatism and ‘concern’ (in contrast to tribalism, where consensus and loyalty, and ‘collective identity’ are more important). When taken too far, this can seem paternalist, meddlesome, and overbearing, but also emotionally detached, amoral, and disloyal. Like, why do neocons and neoliberals alike care so much about third world poverty when there is poverty in America?

1st and 2nd wave feminism has a strong element of ‘collective identity’. It’s very collectivist and activist-minded, with lots of protests, political involvement, and marches. 3-4th wave feminism is much more individualistic in the spirit of Ayn Rand, who advocated self-determination over collectivism. This includes women prostituting themselves on Instagram. Although 3-4th wave is more vulgar, 1-2nd wave is worse because of the deleterious political and social consequences of suffrage.

Jonathan Haidt, Jonathan Chait, Scott Sumner, Nicholas Kristof, Josh Barro, and Matthew Yglesias come to mind as examples of left-wing or neoliberal pundits who use reductionist narratives, but I don’t mean reductionist in the ‘low-information’ sense but rather in trying to reduce ‘social theory’ to something that is science-like, and who often advocate democracies and committees by elites (elitism) to solve problems. Unlike the far-let, it’s often anti-populist, and like neoconservatism, it’s pragmatic and consequentialist.

Among rationalists and pragmatists, these is also a tendency to scorn those in their ‘tribe’ who are ‘too extreme’ and also to argue on behalf of one’s ideological opponents by ascribing the strongest arguments to them (also known as ‘steel-manning’, in contrast to straw-manning). Playing devil’s advocate signals intellect and open-mindedness to other members of the tribe, who also value those traits, and thus the status one who exhibits those traits is boosted among like members of the tribe. There is a tendency among some in the alt-right and especially rationalists to do this – but this is common in most high-IQ communities, where accuracy and correctness is more important than unanimity. It’s almost a ‘game’ of sorts where whoever finds an inaccuracy, counterexample, omission, or logical fallacy in the article first, ‘wins’ and is awarded with status (this seems common in pro-gamergate sub-Reddits, where there is a lot of ‘concerning’ (to show concern, often excessive or unnecessary, used as a verb), but it’s hard to tell if it’s genuine concern or concern trolling). Less intelligent tribes value unanimity, and status is through seniority and strength, not intellect, correctness, or open-mindedness. In less intelligent tribes, there is a definite hierarchy, and the ‘elders’ tell the initiates what to think, and there isn’t much room for interpretation, and dissenters, no matter how correct or smart they are, are ejected, not awarded status.

Related: I Can Tolerate Anything Except Factual Inaccuracies

Steel-manning is both good and bad: it’s good because by anticipating our opponent’s best possible counter-arguments, we can formulate stronger arguments for our own positions; it’s also annoying at times because sometimes enough is enough..there is only so much charity one can ascribe to one’s opponent without turning coat. It can also come across as virtue signaling. Unless the inaccuracy or omission is really egregious, maybe it’s just best to leave it alone, for the sake expediency instead of getting bogged by minutia and hair splitting, which sometimes results in incoherence and division of the tribe. But debate is generally healthy and should be encouraged.

This dicuss comment thread is an example. Back in 2009-2010 when I used to troll Huffington Post, I recall there was a lot of cohesion (everyone was on the same ‘page’ (cons bad, libs good)), which you don’t see as much in the far-right, even before the whole NPI-debacle.

Speaking of division, a month after the whole NPI Roman salute thing, now this: Alt-Right in Civil War After Prominent Leader Disinvited From Pro-Trump ‘DeploraBall’

And from the discuss comments:

Check the comments out. People should be fucking embarrassed of themselves. Barely edgy news site commentators have the correct instincts and actually understand the basis of politics in distinguishing friend from foe. Meanwhile so many people who tout themselves as hardcore right-wingers throw a bitchfit because they were always just liberals.

This is because people who post on mainstream news sites are, in general, less intelligent those who read and post on alt-right websites and blogs, so in the former there is more unity, as I noticed on Huffington Post for the far-left. When Trump was running, the alt-right could cast aside their differences and unify behind him, but with Trump elected, now what?

This incoherence is due to three factors: the ‘right’ generally being smarter and less conformist than the ‘left’ (more willing to challenge authority, more open-minded, better-educated about history, political science, and philosophy); second, the ‘right’ being more diverse, ideologically, than the ‘left’ (Liberalism is analogous to those 8-color Crayola crayon boxes kindergartners use. Conservatism is like the 100-color deluxe box.); and third, ego, which has less to with ideology and more to do with status-seeking.

The ‘right’ is split between the age-old individualism vs. traditionalism schism, whereas the ‘left’ seem to all agree on things like ‘maximizing individual liberty’ (positive liberties) and ‘promoting equality, fairness, and opportunity’(example: John Rawls Theory of Justice, although there is a small schism between classical liberals vs. welfare and socialist liberals. The former seek equal opportunity, and the latter seek equal outcomes). The ‘right’ promotes ‘negative liberties’ and individualism (example: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, by Robert Nozick), but traditionalism says that man is part of a ‘collective’ – state, family, creed, lineage, nation, religion, etc., so it gets messy in choosing the optimal balance between the two (just compare neoconservatism with paloeconservatism with right-nationalism with libertarianism). ‘Mainstream conservatism’ balances the two, as described by Russell Kirk’s six “canons” of conservatism (which heavily influenced post-WW2 American conservatism):

A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;

An affection for the “variety and mystery” of human existence;

A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize “natural” distinctions;

A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;

A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and

A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence.

Krik also opposed the separation of church and state…”that Christianity and Western Civilization are “unimaginable apart from one another”[13] and that “all culture arises out of religion. When religious faith decays, culture must decline, though often seeming to flourish for a space after the religion which has nourished it has sunk into disbelief.”[14]”

Kirk was inspired by Edmund Burke, considered to be the forefather of conservatism. Burke’s views are kinda scattershot, opposing the ‘social contract’ theory but also opposing the ‘divine right of kings’. He opposed democracy, natural law, and the French Revolution but also supported the America Revolution and believed private property as being essential to maintaining ‘social order’.

Liberalism is inherently materialistic (although it does embrace some idealism in its rejection of certain aspects of HBD), but conservatism can be both materialistic and idealistic. Part of the reason why NRx departs from Kirk is because conservatism tends to embrace natural law and puts too much emphasis on individual rights. Conservatism doesn’t hold the monarchy supreme, although Burke was sympathetic to it despite being a Whig and not a Jacobite. Materialistic-variants of conservatism put too much emphasis on economics over the divine. For the ‘right’, man should maximize his economic share through self-determination; for the far-left, the state should assume that role; in either case, it’s still through the lens of economics (Economic determinism).

Both liberalism and conservatism seeks to find a balance between individualism (and individual identity) and collectivism (and collectivist identity), which is what the study of political science and political philosophy is about. The cohesion of the alt-right before Trump’s victory and the small splintering of the alt-right afterward, is evidence political movements and ideologies need a specific ‘thing’ to rally behind (such as a person or specific tasks assigned to members), for cohesion to be possible. Just rallying ‘against liberalism’ or ‘for conservatism’ is not specific enough, because, as shown above, these terms are so broad and hard to define that cohesion is impossible for ‘smart’ ideologies like the alt-right (although it works for mainstream political parties, that have mostly average-IQ voters and supporters).

Social Theory and Economics Questions

In recent years, online, there has also been an intense interest in ‘social theory’, with articles that try to explain group psychology as it relates to society and culture, an example being the study of ingroup/outgroup dynamics, in the hope of trying to find a ‘unified theory’, in much the same way physics has the ‘standard model’, to explain political and ideological divisions, interactions, and human behavior.

This also ties into the post-2008 ‘great economics debate’ that is raging online right now, because economics and social theory are closely related. After the economy imploded in 2008, thousands of people in search of explanations took to the internet to try to explain, debate what had happened. Because economics is a social science, anyone who particpates in the economy (which is nearly everyone), from students to job seekers to the laid off, is a part of the process and lend his or her own knowledge and anecdotal evidence to the debate, with questions and topics such as:

-why jobs have not recovered as quickly as stock prices and earnings

-how much of a role the government should play in the economy

-who has a better economic plan? Trump or Hillary?

-why many college graduates cannot find good jobs

-is post-scarcity and a basic income possible

-will automation make most existing jobs obsolete, and if so how should policy makers respond

-is the ‘middle class’ dead

-does not having a high enough IQ prevent people from succeeding in an increasingly competitive economy

-is college necessary

-is retirement possible

-are immigrants ‘stealing’ jobs

-how climate change will affect the economy

-is China’s economy a bubble

-why textbooks are so expensive

-home ownership vs. renting

-why millennials are delaying adulthood

-how should the student loan debt problem be fixed, if it ever can be

This is also related to ‘shared narratives’ again, as these are problems and questions that affect everyone, regardless of their politics.

Both NRx and ‘rationalists’ converge in their inquiry of social theory, the former from a ‘right-wing’ perspective and the latter from a more centrist or neutral view. Between 2014-2015 Scott brought topics such as ingroup/outgroup dynamics, toxoplasma and rage, and blue/red/grey tribes to the fore. Up until 2013 or so, Moldbug, and to a lesser extent Land, wrote volumes about counter-enlightenment thought as an alternative to democracy, which of course is now called ‘neoreaction’, and through articles on Vox.com and other mainstream publications, has gained widespread notice, in addition to the meteoric rise of the alt-right, which is somewhat related. Then there is Gamergate, which is still ongoing, but its focus has shifted from video and computer games to fighting censorship, in general, by SJWs, such as censorship on social media, and was invaluable in sparking the post-2013 SJW-backlash.

Intellect: The Universal Solvent

In late December 2015, Scott Alexander’s How Bad Are Things article went massivly viral, with accolades from both right-wing and left-wing communities and forums, which got me (and others) thinking about how Scott is consistently able to transcend the left/right bulwark. Normally, people write articles for a specific audience or clique in mind, and spillovers [1] are uncommon. For the right, it’s National Review and Brietbart articles, for example, which are read and written by conservatives. For the left, it’s Mother Jones and Salon, both read and written predominately by liberals. But Scott’s articles seem to appeal to everyone, with audiences as diverse as NRx on the far-right, to socialist and Marxist communities on the far-left. It’s especially impressive, however, how Scott was ingratiated into the NRx community/movement [2], almost becoming an ‘honorary reactionary’, despite being somewhat critical of NRx and holding political and social views that could be antithetical to NRx.

So how did he do it. It boils down to four reasons, which I will expound on:

1. He’s competent and authentic, which helps him forge bonds with other smart people irrespective of ideology.
2. As well as a good writer, he’s a good ‘listener’, entertaining both sides of an argument instead of bludgeoning readers with only his beliefs.
3. The post-2013 centrism ‘boom’ and the rise of the ‘rational middle‘ and the ‘contrarian mainstream’, in rejecting ‘low information’ partisanship, demagoguery, sentimentalism, and sensationalism from both the left and the right.
4. Related to number 3, a recent demand for more evolved, in-depth discourse.

Consider the L. Ron Hubbard quote above, but replace ‘communication’ with ‘intellect’ or ‘competence’, which are almost interchangeable. NRX, unlike the ‘mainstream/Fox News’ right, is more intellectual, with themes of theology, philosophy, epistemology, existentialism, sociology, futurism, economics, and history imbued in NRx writings, rather than just petulant ‘libs bad/cons good’ screeds. But NRx is obviously right-wing, yet Scott and the ‘rational left?’ are able to forge some middle ground with NRx and the ‘alt right’, with intellectualism as the solvent allows these two groups that are otherwise in many ways ideologically dissimilar to commingle. Ideologically and intellectually, Scott is neither a phony nor a poseur, and he exudes authenticity. Being a mental health worker, Scott bears witness to the ‘human condition’ on a daily basis, lending his firsthand account to issues that are otherwise obfuscated by academia or trivialized, editorialized, or sensationalized by the pageview-powered digital media. It doesn’t get anymore authentic than that. In writing about mental disorders or ingroup/outgroup dynamics, many people – both on the left and the right – can relate, having either experienced ostracization or mental illness themselves or knowing someone who has. Scott is knowledgeable (specifically, in his domain of human psychology and internet subcultures), and that’s how you reach across the aisle – through competence, and being forthright and open-minded, which I discuss in more detail in Why Dale Carnegie is Wrong. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, in our post-2013 centrism boom, arrogant, low-information [3] zealotry is generally frowned upon, especially by other smart people and online. For example, Scott, being a psychologist, has the intellectual credentials to support his opinions, while also being charitable towards his intellectual opponents, and that makes him respected by all sides. [4] It’s virtually impossible to create an argument that is so strong as to be impervious to criticism from the other side, and trying will only make you seem arrogant and unintelligent, not worldly and persuasive.

Scott’s success is also symptomatic or emblematic of a tectonic shift in online media and journalism from sensationalism and partisanship that was characteristic the pre-2013 era, to post-2013 era of centrism, ‘long form’ journalism, and rationalism, filling an insatiable demand by millions of smart, young people, especially since 2013, for the unvarnished, unmolested truth instead of pleasantries wrapped in a pretty bow of political correctness. But at the same time, millennials have also become impervious to sales pitches, hype, and demagoguery. The smartest generation not only detests phoniness and insincerity, but are masters at detecting it. In an era of fact checking and defensive writing, skepticism is the new earnestness. If you think you are going to impress the smartest, most empirically minded generation ever with your bold proclamations, over-generalizations, and partisanship, you will be put in your place (as Malcom Gladwell learned the hard way in an AMA where astute Redditors poked holes in his pseudoscience flim-flam). The purist of truth – the good, the bad and the ugly – is paramount, and this is evidenced by how taboos are being smashed, with the rise of the ‘contrarian mainstream’ – stories and websites such as Slate, Thought Catalog, Wait But Why, Vice, Daily Elite, Quillette, and Scott’s blog, Slate Star Codex, that introduce potentially controversial ideas (such as that parenting may be ineffective, why IQ matters, etc) that may have been samizdat just as recently as a decade ago, but are disseminated to a much larger audience and with much approval instead of offence. Smart people on both the left and the right choose Truth, even if feelings aren’t spared, over being spoon-fed pablum. Taking offence too easily and holding ideological grudges (even if it’s against Hitler) impedes the free flow of knowledge, is un-intellectual (too provincial), and is seen as inauthentic.

Centrism neither new nor original; it’s a device Bill Maher has used for comedic effect, for years, poking fun at demagogues on both sides, but it seems to have taken the internet by storm since 2013 or so, probably as part of the post-2013 SJW backlash, and with the rise of ‘rationalist culture’ which rejects emotive demagoguery. In the years following the election of Obama, the pendulum swung too far to the left and now it’s returning to the middle (or at least online it is). This reversion to the middle is not only observed on popular social news site like 4chan, HackerNews, and Reddit, but in even academia; for example, the liberal bias in the social sciences, which for years went undetected or ignored, is finally getting much needed coverage. This ‘reversion to the middle’ could explain is why there is a backlash by ‘normal’ liberals against SJW-liberals. People see that the ‘rational middle’ is about empiricism and facts rather than being wed to a flimsy ideology. That’s why in recent years ‘social news’ sites like Reddit, 4chan, and HackerNews have become so popular – going so far as threatening the turf of the dumbed-down mainstream media – and even though these sites have different subcultures (some of them possibly quite offensive to the uninitiated), they all converge in rejecting partisanship, sentimentalism, and sensationalism in favor of nuance and intellectualism – specifically, truth and understanding.

Between 2008-2012, both the right and the left were duking it out over Obama, Obamacare, and OWS, but with Obamacare not going anywhere, OWS a failure, and with the economy and nation in autopilot mode, perhaps a pervasive, almost cynical, centrism has dawned, almost a resignation that change is impossible. From 2008-2012, both the right and the left had high hopes, but now empty handed, with gridlock, the status quo, and ‘politics as usual’ winning. As a result, ‘Preaching to the choir’ seems to be going out of fashion, whereas in the pre-2008 era people were more inclined to obediently rally behind causes. With the back-to-back disappointments of Obama and Bush, the choirs have disbanded, and people are disaffected and tired of the shallowness and pandering that constitutes much of modern American politics. Instead of dumbing it down, you have to smarten things up. There is a budding demand for more evolved political discourage, and people, particularly smart, well-informed people online on either side of the political spectrum, are tired of the stale, insincere platitudes, factual inaccuracies, and pandering from politicians. [5] But, interestingly, they are tired of low-information pundits distorting or oversimplifying the views of politicians, which is why some on the ‘left’ are defending Donald Trump, arguing that Trump is more than just a hairpiece, but rather a brilliant tactician who is playing the media rather than the media playing him. Scott Adams, another major figure of the ‘contrarian mainstream’, also argues this point.

From The Archdruid Report, Donald Trump and the Politics of Resentment:

The centerpiece of most of these insults, when they’re not simply petulant schoolboy taunts aimed at Trump’s physical appearance, is the claim that he’s stupid. This is hardly surprising, as a lot of people on the leftward end of American culture love to use the kind of demeaning language that attributes idiocy to those who disagree with them.

This agrees with how smart people, on both the left and right, are tired of puerile, immature discourse in the media’s coverage of politics and politicians, even if such language is directed at politicians they [these smart people] don’t personally endorse. In the post-2013 era of centrism and intellectualism, ‘truth’ and ‘understanding’ transcends political ties. Being childish is the antithesis of being smart.

Despite the empty rhetoric about hope and change that surrounded his 2008 campaign, after all, Obama continued the policies of his predecessor George W. Bush so unswervingly that we may as well call those policies—the conventional wisdom or, rather, the conventional folly of early 21st-century American politics—the Dubyobama consensus.

And this second passage shows the failure of both the left and right, paving the way for centrism.

This bipartisan dissatisfaction is echoed in a column America the Unfair, by Nicholas Kristoff, and in a Forbes article Why ‘The System’ Is Rigged And The US Electorate Is Angry:

“A common thread,” writes columnist Nicholas Kristoff, “is that this country is no longer working for many ordinary citizens.” The anger is bipartisan, although the lists of suspected villains differ.

This rise of centrism is exemplified in a blog post on Medium, The “Other Side” Is Not Dumb, which went viral, about how understanding your opponent is as important, if not more, than understanding your own views, and how merely understanding is perhaps better than trying to change minds.

As any debate club veteran knows, if you can’t make your opponent’s point for them, you don’t truly grasp the issue. We can bemoan political gridlock and a divisive media all we want. But we won’t truly progress as individuals until we make an honest effort to understand those that are not like us. And you won’t convince anyone to feel the way you do if you don’t respect their position and opinions.

A dare for the next time you’re in discussion with someone you disagree with: Don’t try to “win.” Don’t try to “convince” anyone of your viewpoint. Don’t score points by mocking them to your peers. Instead try to “lose.” Hear them out. Ask them to convince you and mean it. No one is going to tell your environmentalist friends that you merely asked follow up questions after your brother made his pro-fracking case.

For example, Scott doesn’t pigeonhole either side, instead considering the merits and faults of both, with perhaps a small bias of his own, but otherwise letting the reader decide and not making his bias so obvious that it draws too much attention to itself. In a 2015 article LOOKING A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH, one of Scott’s most popular articles ever, he weighs both the merit and the faults of anti-SJW moment, and how the anti-SJW movement may have overplayed its hand by crossing the line into extremism at the cost of credibility.

First, he considers the merits of the anti-SJW argument – how the SJWs are behaving like bullies by going after innocent administrators and teachers:

Or to be even more cynical: social justice was supposed to be Yale’s weapon against Caltech and Podunk. But now Yale students are using it against Yale professors and administrators, and now it’s a problem. It’s like the police beating up city council members with the truncheons they usually reserve for poor ghetto-dwellers; you can bet there will be a newfound concern about police brutality at city council meetings.

But then he criticizes anti-SJW extremism, arguing how extremism backfires by becoming the medium instead of the message:

I think that is the problem. When creepy white supremacists criticize social justice, they’re at no risk of taking over the wider SJ-critical movement. As the old saying goes, white supremacists are the best argument against white supremacy, and most of them couldn’t take over a blanket fort with a flamethrower. But rhetorically-gifted Yale professors who get thinkpieces published in The Atlantic are exactly the sort of people who would take over the wider SJ-critical movement, become its most important voice, and define what it means both to the rest of the world and to its own members.

He doesn’t even call it anti-SJW, but rather ‘SJ-critical’ which, perhaps, is less politically polarizing. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that Scott’s articles are thoroughly researched and well-written – pretty much on par with professional journalists, whose job is it to write articles that have broad enough appeal to sustain a large readership, but still edgy or contrarian enough to keep people curious and coming back, and yet not so partisan or judgmental as to alienate too many potential readers. Professional writers have a knack for creating content that appeals to a lot of people – almost by anticipating the reader, tapping into the reader’s thoughts, fears and desires, while composing the message in such a way as to cross political and economic barriers, almost like walking an ideological tightrope. With subtlety and tact, playing the ‘middle ground’ or ‘splitting the difference’, can help spur discussion on issues or perspectives that are overlooked, or to introduce new, potentially controversial ideas to an audience that is not yet inculcated. Using this incrementalist approach, Scott has been effective at nudging the Overton window on certain issues, particularity in raising valid criticisms of SJWs.

But also, Scott and his blog can be likened to the hub of a giant bicycle wheel with each spoke representing a viewpoint or ideology that he links out to, similar to Marc Andreessen on Twitter:

….Mr. Andreessen is like the hub of a wheel with each spoke representing a differing view/perspective that links back to him, creating a symbiosis of sorts between the hub (Andreessen) and all the people (spokes) he interacts with. But also, Mr. Andreessen cannot be pigeonholed as either being resolutely ‘left’ or ‘right’, as his views encompass the full-range of the political spectrum…

Instead of being insular, by constantly linking out, you become the source or the hub. People come the the ‘hub’ to see whats trendy, what’s important. Another example of a successful hub is Peter Woit’s immensely popular physics blog, Not Even Wrong, which everyday is visited by leading physicists and mathematicians, as well as thousands of science enthusiasts the world over, because Mr. Woit has positioned himself as a ‘go-to’ source for the latest happenings in physics, by constantly linking out, even to things he doesn’t agree with. Personally, he’s skeptical of string theory, but he links to eminent string theorists all the time, demonstrating not only open-mindedness on his part, but how intellectual bonds are stronger than ideological ones. Two physicists who disagree about the structure of the universe can find common ground in their high intelligence, their appreciation of science, and their quest for truth and understanding.

[1] There is perhaps a bigger spillover for left-leaning content than right-wing content. Conservatives like iSteve, for example, share Salon, Slate, and New York Times articles a lot, but liberals seldom share National Review, Breitbart, or iSteve articles. Conservatives may be more likely to entertain opposing views than liberals.

[2] Some argue NRx is not a movement, because a ‘movement’ implies revolution, and NRx is supposed to be counterrevolutionary.

[3] Although one could consider the likes of Vox Day and Moldbug to be zealots, they are very well-informed of the issues and competent, which make them authentic and intelligent, and not ‘low information’. As I explain below, people, especially online, are tired of low-information zealotry. Also, many on the ‘alt right’, as opposed to the ‘mainstream right’, do a pretty good job entertaining opposing viewpoints. The ‘rationalist left’ also does a good job in this regard, too, compared to the ‘mainstream left’.

Take, for example, the Frankfurt School, which many on the right dismiss as simply ‘Cultural Marxism’, and this is largely correct, but there is a small upwelling among the ‘alt right’ to re-examine it, as Frankfurt School, despite being ‘leftist’, is critical of both mainstream liberal and conservative critiques. Low-information, mainstream liberals just blindly assume democracy and freedom will fix everything, and the Frankfurt School is critical of this reductionist view.

[4] How about Paul Krugman? Isn’t he competent and an expert? He’s not a hub, only entertaining views he agrees with, with a tendency of turning his ideological opponents into straw men. Also, he’s too liberal, too indoctrinated to a preexisting orthodoxy to appeal to rationalists.

[5]That’s why Hillary’s recent ‘Hispandering‘ was met with so much derision, even from the left, whereas if this occurred in 1996 there probably would not have been much of a backlash. Nowadays, people see right through it.