I think that elites believe they deserve their status because they’re smart, moral, creative, etc. I think they believe the system is unjust but not that all success is undeserved. A lot of people aren’t self critical though and might not have a totally different worldview. It is kind of like blank statism where people are selectively blank statist and don’t think about it and iron out the inconsistencies in their worldview or even critically look at them.
This is probably correct, but then they run into a problem: If they are smart and thus deserve their status, do they not inhabit a meritocracy? Is it a kind of meritocratic solipsism--"I deserve my prestige, but nobody else does!"? That is possible of course. --Bo W
It is a kind of meritocratic solipsism. Elite whites mainly compete against other elite whites, but, as committed blank statists (when it comes to race), the absence of POC is due to “institutional racism”, “legacy of slavery” (blah blah blah). This way they can explain racial disparities without pointing the finger at themselves as racist given that they are sometimes the gatekeepers. The real question is why they believe this egalitarian mush. My theory is that liberals tend to be more neurotic, so they are more inclined towards a “there but for the grace of God, go I” outlook and, therefore, favor government as a fail safe. Coalition politics is essential for that.
Also, many elites don't think they're really elites. (See the latest outrage about Matthew Goodwin's new book.) So they think that their lowly position as a mere tenured professor etc is a sign that society is unjust because they are not a stock market millionaire.
hopefully i can contribute to your comments section as well. i started getting into the psychology of whats going on and not just posting stupid shit :) check out my open letter to steve kirsch if you want.
I'm not sure why you invent a torturously logical explanation for this insane situation, when there is a much simpler explanation ready to hand. How did these elites attain their position BEFORE the woke madness took over?
That's right - they fought for it, pulled strings and stabbed backs on the way to the top. These are driven, agressive and focussed people. They know that their colleagues are waiting to upend them, and an accusation of racism/sexism/anyism is enough to collapse their career.
So they signal their agreement with ANY woke concept - no matter how ludicrous. Did you see the Anthropology professor claiming that there was no difference between a man's and a woman's skeletons? That is not claiming victimisation - that's wriggling away from ANY possibility that someone will have him cancelled.
For the elites, this is the Reign of Terror from the 1790s. And no one wants to go to the guillotine...
This reminds me of the book, "The person and the situation" that describes how the environmental context often explains peoples behavior more than their internal traits. The environment of university professors denying IQ is strange until you realize that they are not defending their success at increasing IQ of their students but they are instead reacting to their failure to do so as evidenced by the persistent racial IQ gaps. To protect their jobs and self-image the problem must not be their failure as teachers but instead some external "systemic racism" that they are leading a valiant fight against.
History repeats (as a farce?): Girolamo Savonarola did not make any gople, he was summoned to Florence by Lorenzo De Medici himself, since Savonarola was indeed seen as a moral authority. In a few years, he tried to destroy all the Renaissance jewels produced by the elite that had called him.
I think that elites believe they deserve their status because they’re smart, moral, creative, etc. I think they believe the system is unjust but not that all success is undeserved. A lot of people aren’t self critical though and might not have a totally different worldview. It is kind of like blank statism where people are selectively blank statist and don’t think about it and iron out the inconsistencies in their worldview or even critically look at them.
This is probably correct, but then they run into a problem: If they are smart and thus deserve their status, do they not inhabit a meritocracy? Is it a kind of meritocratic solipsism--"I deserve my prestige, but nobody else does!"? That is possible of course. --Bo W
It is a kind of meritocratic solipsism. Elite whites mainly compete against other elite whites, but, as committed blank statists (when it comes to race), the absence of POC is due to “institutional racism”, “legacy of slavery” (blah blah blah). This way they can explain racial disparities without pointing the finger at themselves as racist given that they are sometimes the gatekeepers. The real question is why they believe this egalitarian mush. My theory is that liberals tend to be more neurotic, so they are more inclined towards a “there but for the grace of God, go I” outlook and, therefore, favor government as a fail safe. Coalition politics is essential for that.
Also, many elites don't think they're really elites. (See the latest outrage about Matthew Goodwin's new book.) So they think that their lowly position as a mere tenured professor etc is a sign that society is unjust because they are not a stock market millionaire.
I just listened to you YT with Dutton. Very good. I spent most of my life confused and bewildered. This IQ stuff explains a lot.
I am writing here not on topic as your SS doesn't seem to show up in my feed nor can I find you in my subscribed channels. Something is wrong?
Not sure about that. Probably a problem on your end.
Thank you for the kind comment. I hope you find lots of similarly engaging stuff!
Matt
hopefully i can contribute to your comments section as well. i started getting into the psychology of whats going on and not just posting stupid shit :) check out my open letter to steve kirsch if you want.
I'm not sure why you invent a torturously logical explanation for this insane situation, when there is a much simpler explanation ready to hand. How did these elites attain their position BEFORE the woke madness took over?
That's right - they fought for it, pulled strings and stabbed backs on the way to the top. These are driven, agressive and focussed people. They know that their colleagues are waiting to upend them, and an accusation of racism/sexism/anyism is enough to collapse their career.
So they signal their agreement with ANY woke concept - no matter how ludicrous. Did you see the Anthropology professor claiming that there was no difference between a man's and a woman's skeletons? That is not claiming victimisation - that's wriggling away from ANY possibility that someone will have him cancelled.
For the elites, this is the Reign of Terror from the 1790s. And no one wants to go to the guillotine...
I agree many cowards are falling in line but why did woke start in the first place? Also, PC goes back to at least the end of WWII.
This reminds me of the book, "The person and the situation" that describes how the environmental context often explains peoples behavior more than their internal traits. The environment of university professors denying IQ is strange until you realize that they are not defending their success at increasing IQ of their students but they are instead reacting to their failure to do so as evidenced by the persistent racial IQ gaps. To protect their jobs and self-image the problem must not be their failure as teachers but instead some external "systemic racism" that they are leading a valiant fight against.
Right on.
Have you read Turchin on elite over-production? Your eventual conclusion is entirely consistent with how he describes one part of the process.
History repeats (as a farce?): Girolamo Savonarola did not make any gople, he was summoned to Florence by Lorenzo De Medici himself, since Savonarola was indeed seen as a moral authority. In a few years, he tried to destroy all the Renaissance jewels produced by the elite that had called him.