theres some fascinating inverse correlation for how the pop caricature of liberals and conservatives relate to individuals vs groups that i can almost articulate but cant. ie liberals are supposed to be worried about “offending” but this only applies to groups of people. [...]
in practice whenever im around them they invariably assume aspects of your own worldview are actually extremely offensive without even pausing for a second to consider it. likewise the pop caricature about conservatives is that they dont care about helping others. [...]
but to whatever extent this is true, this also only relates to groups and likewise has an inverse correlation with their relationship to individuals. if i had a flat tire i could probably wait on the side of the road where im from (liberal) for days and no one would stop to help.
in fact i would bet a fairly large amount of money on that and the person that would stop would be an outlier conservative person. whereas when i am now, in a conservative place, i would be surprised if you waited a few hours. this inverse correlation seems to apply in totality.
for example the same group insisting that we (as a group, right, get it) only take advice from certified medical doctors is also the same group of people constantly giving me unsolicited medical advice or commenting on medical things to me, despite not being doctors.
i cant exactly pin it down at this moment but it really seems like (perhaps obvious) that the more you relate to humanity in terms of abstract groups, the less you can relate to people as individual persons and consider how your actions are directly affecting them as real people.
i feel like i knew something like this was true on an abstract level (for groups, lol) but now that ive really noticed its hands on IRL, being in a position to interact with both groups regularly, i cant really unsee it. of course its not a perfect binary but it works perfectly.
if i go to someones house, + if we had to fit them into this binary, they would be liberal, i can basically bank on them plowing full speed into something like “yeah man, those baptists are insane” without knowing if im baptist (im not, but they dont know that) or if my family is
i can bank on them doing this several times, i actually kind of steele myself for it at this point, ironically it actually is offensive, yet a massive part of their worldview- according to conservatives- revolves around being inclusive and not offending people to a comical extent
now i look for this inverse correlation and its always there. for example people just say stuff about my wifes pregnancy or my babys weight (hes literally fine bro looking super epic hes not even fat not that that would be a problem but his jawline is already chiseled we’re fine)
and it really bothers my wife. it happens a lot. now whenever it happens i look for the inverse correlation: what does this persons worldview say about taking medical advice from “not experts”? bam. its always there. its the same people. every time. theyre also [very] about that.
maybe its obvious. ive been noticing it so much recently + i cant put it down. it feels significant. when someone relates to me as a individual in a way that flags something in my mind, its always not only discongruous with the pop conception of their worldview: its the opposite.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
if u dont know already, if u see a footnote or background historical note for something unless u actually go check + prove to urself that its real you should not believe it. once i started following footnotes and looking into it people literally just make things up all the time.
before the internet + searchable texts, i mean they probably still do it now, people apparently just made up church father quotes and stuff quite often. most times i have attempted to source a strange augustine quote for example the only thing that comes up is the book im reading
i have often wondered the concrete mechanism at play here like, if some guy 200 pages into a book before control+F searchable type existed just said “eh no ones actually going to check this” and started winging it, or if many fake quotes and documents were circulating, or what.
hello my friends. how you you. still half on half off for the holidays but i thought it would be cool to do a [RECAP] thread for what we got done this year, as we are gearing up for the craziest year at the studio yet (next year). lets do it. flashback. montage. roll the tape:
will probably just slowly continue this thread until the new year.
i think this was the first thing i dropped this year: the inverted soviet propaganda series. honestly this took forever, but im really happy with how it ultimately turned out. heres the thread:
the weird thing that happens when you have something cooking for months is that you always want more of a response, but people were really into it. i thought they turned out really well:
one of my favorite closed loop / back door thought implications that is never discussed is that telling someone they dont have the credentials to fully understand or analyze something cuts both ways. its used to dismiss doubt but it also consequently dismisses certainty.
said more simply, if someone doesnt have the background knowledge or degree or credentials to question something, that also means they dont have the means to accept it - intelligently anyway. “you’re not equipped to analyze this” goes way farther than the way its normally used.
ie if im questioning something about the geological record, and i say, does this really make sense? and someone says, well, youre not a geologist, what do you know- thats actually an admission that you’re asking me to take what you perceive to be true on faith, to just believe it
now that the first day of christmas is over i feel pretty good weighing in on the “what do you tell your kids about santa” situation. im going to tell owen jr “i dont know” and use it as a learning experience for figuring out something society wide and mythological for yourself.
a big part of our theory of children here comes from steiner, so, on one hand the magic of childhood thing and kids living in a somewhat imaginary world and experiencing things on those terms is relatively central, yet i also am not comfortable “straight up lying”, to be harsh.
therefore i am extremely confident in this approach. told my wife to do whatever she wants. for the record i used to work around kids and this was the approach i took if they asked about certain ancient stories or mythology, in certain situations, if it was prudent to do that.
new age never really went away it just became the default spiritual system. explicitly identifying with crystals and people channeling entities from the pleiades then leading seminars in holiday inn conference rooms just became tacky but its the same continuum and heritage
when that tony robins doc came out a while ago i almost wrote something about it because at his seminars, he uses the term God sometimes. this is actually very interesting because no one would describe it as religious, but it fits and works because of the larger spiritual system
- pathologizes everyone (everyone needs it)
- no null hypothesis (it never [doesnt work], you just need a different one or didnt do something correctly)
- personal eternal eschatological endpoint that relieves any further responsibility (yes, im working on it, im in therapy)
if everyone needs to be in therapy (not saying no one needs it), then that means that every single person simply by virtue of existing requires a institutional + accredited trained merit badge holding experts just to function
thats why. if thats true then that changes everything
in that way its obviously a type of parallel priesthood. i mean its basically confession right, ur just confessing to someone with a degree or special training instead of someone you view as an officer of God