I don't think this is an accurate description of the American situation, the evolution of our educational system and cultural priorities, or our traditional strengths. (1/X)
American society and youth culture have become *much* friendlier to nerds and valedictorians since the 1990s (trust me on this one), and the American educational system expects and demands more extracurriculars and math tutoring and weekend science competitions than ever before.
Nobody hangs out at the mall anymore (because they're all on their phones); the gospel of STEM is preached from every major pulpit; it's the humanities that are hemorrhaging students not computer science or related fields.
It's true that our system could always theoretically become even more intense, along the lines of South Korea -- but so far the cultures that go much deeper into digital meritocracy appear more miserabilist and anti-natalist without being appreciably more growth-oriented.
Are there enemies of excellence in the American system and culture, preventing all this effort from having optimal effects? Certainly, including forces of bureaucratic inertia, political correctness and increasingly a kind of dropping-out encouraged by drugs and very-online life.
But extracurriculars and math olympiads are not necessarily answers to these challenges, especially insofar as the hyper-competitive spirit itself, unleavened by humanism, seems to yield a kind of deadening busywork that makes dropping out (or "getting woke") attractive.
Finally the jock-and-homecoming-queen archetype is just not a major cultural impediment to nerdery and meritocracy; to the contrary, jock culture is itself a traditional source of American excellence and ambition and business acumen and dynamism.
The American Way is a complex jock-nerd dialectic (see e.g. our way of war or the Apollo Project) not some sort of drama of the diligent and gifted nerd simply overcoming jockish ignorance and sloth.
So whatever has gone wrong can't simply be a matter of insufficient application to meritocratic or technical excellence. The nerd's ambition has coexist with and be informed by virtues found in the humanist, the jock -- and even in certain kind of teenage "hanging out." /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Interesting thread on contemporary versus older fantasy from @Scholars_Stage, but if you divide fantasists between myth-makers and systematizers it's a mistake to place Tolkien fully on the myth-maker side; the reason he looms so large is that he's both:
Indeed a big part of the challenge for Tolkien's contemporary heirs is that some of his systematizing cannot possibly be equaled - no one is likely to match the philological substrate he builds for Middle-Earth.
So the most successful non-Tolkien fantasists, including some that @Scholars_Stage lists, often succeed by refusing the challenge, relying more on the style he calls "mythic" or "vibes based" so as not to compete with Tolkien's hard-to-equal depth of world-building.
Speaking as someone who's been a pro-natalist since I was assigned an "overpopulation" project in high school in 1997 and realized where we were actually heading, a problem for pro-natalism is that it is inherently quite weird.
It is quite weird that we seem to need some kind of ... movement? ... policy revolution? ... cultural revolution? ... to sustain something that seems natural to the human species, so natural in fact that it's conventionally associated with efforts at "control."
For that reason the population control movement, while at best hubristic and at worse brutal and cruel, never seemed WEIRD; the idea that there could be a crisis driven by people having too many babies just fit naturally with typical assumptions about human nature.
On the implications of the Vatican document on blessings for same-sex couples, a brief thread. 1/X
In the pontificate's 1st stage I worried about Francis pushing the church over a "precipice" w/attempts at doctrinal change. But in the 2nd stage, after the family synods, there was a retreat to a strategy of ambiguous liberalization that avoided sharp doctrinal confrontation.
This still seemed to me to inevitably exacerbate tensions in the long run, widening gaps between liberal and conservative practice, encouraging liberals to always push further - a "slow road" to schism. nytimes.com/2019/09/14/opi…
Pretty strong stuff in there: Not just alien crafts in US government hands, but alien bodies, malevolent aliens, private-contractor research, a coverup dating back to an alleged UFO recovery in Mussolini's Italy, and more.
To pick up the argument I made here, it's not just a cultural accident that current-era progressivism tends toward a catastrophizing, depressive mood; some of that unhappiness was baked in by the triumph of social liberalism that preceded the current era: nytimes.com/2023/02/18/opi…
Social liberalism favors self-invention and damns "normativity"; it's not formally against religion but in practice it's a secularizing force. "Create yourself in an uncreated world" is the message; that's a big lift for anyone but esp for teens set loose in a virtual reality:
e.g., these two case studies in how A.I. could "perfect" an existing process (holiday shopping, writing an advertising script or thinkpiece) sound like recipes for "perfection" at the expense of weirdness, randomness, serendipity, real creativity: