That's a crazy thought. It's also a crazy thought to extrapolate that process all the way to how current first world countries operate. You can kind of start to bridge the gap between the two and see that our society is just an extreme manifestation of that whole scenario you described. We know that in fact there was a direct set of events that got us here, but it's also easy to separate the way humans lived and how we live now, as if they are detached but you can see a lot of those early behaviors still operating in our industrialized society.
For sure, this is a prime example of Goodhart's law in action. Before Amazon came along, I rarely depended on reading reviews before buying a product. Yes, there were definitely sites where reviews helped persuade a purchase, for example Newegg.com, but at that time it wasn't required that I scour a list of reviews before buying a product, it was more of a scavenger hunt around the internet for personal reviews/blogs, or just not at all. Then Amazon came along, and it transformed the way I buy products.
But now, you're right. It has gotten so difficult to trust any review and I often find myself ping-ponging around competing products trying to intuit what reviews are the least fake. Good reviews have simply become a target that don't necessarily signal a good product.
You're super hopeful if you think people don't idolize Patrick Bateman, but they do. People don't see the story, they see a young, good-looking Christian Bale with a powerful suit on walking the streets of NYC with headphones on. People want that image, and the message is lost or separated entirely.
You answered your own question right away. Apparently, these people hate working more than they like being less frugal. I've had to be frugal to get by and it does become sort of like a game, where you are always trying to optimize your savings and
tradeoffs. However, the stress involved with making these decisions and worrying about money made me appreciate working and making a good income, and I prefer this balance for now.
There's definitely a big difference between being frugal to get by (stressful) and doing it to hit a 60% savings rate (ie, it's arbitrary). When you have the choice, frugal is much easier - or put differenty, it's expensive to be poor. You're spot on about balance being key.
People post fewer photos, but that shouldn't be confused with having less of an influence on social culture.
Now each post carries much more weight, and therefor is more heavily curated to show that person's perfect life.
It goes further than that though. I know people who wait for a specific hour on Sunday to post their weekly photo because they know that most people check their instagram then and therefor will get them the most likes.
In fact people are going on more adventures and trying more restaurants, which we can argue is a net positive, but it really taints the experience and makes it hard for me to support when so much of the motivation for doing so revolves around taking that perfect picture to share on instagram.
I try not to be a counter-culture cynical critic, but dang.
> I've worked at a couple very high-profile companies in the Valley and have never felt this prestige primarily because I don't hang out with complete douchebags.
> If people get all starry-eyed when you announce the company you work for; run in the opposite direction.
Get over yourself and out of your bubble. American culture constantly pushes the value of prestige and the way of obtaining that being going to good schools and working at popular companies. If you are a person who didn't go to an ivy league or work at Facebook, it's easy to believe that the person who did is better than you in some way. It is more rare to attain that status, so therefor many people both in and outside of the industry look starry-eyed at them.
I don't work at one of the big tech firms and nor do I want to, but I know for a fact most people in my family would think highly of me if I told them I worked at Google, because it is prestigious whether you like it or not. Does that make them douchebags?
It’s one thing for friends or family to think where you working at is cool and another thing for random people to be inflating your ego. Or you may start to think you’re better than other people because of where you work.
I’ve seen this phenomenon in San Francisco quite a bit. That is where the person and their entire social circles become cliques that serve simply to reinforce their ego.
I think many people ask that “So... where do you work?” or “What do you do for a living?” question as a polite way to figure out where to stack you on their social status totem pole. At least in the Bay Area and likely other places, you kind of have to go out of your way to find people who dont do this. Usually I just say I’m an exotic dancer, which often gets a chuckle, breaks the ice and subtly sends the message that I’m not interested in being silently judged based on where I work.
> “Wait,” I said, “Listen, it’s music. Your product is music. The reason I know that is because if we went out into the street right now and asked a thousand people what Starbucks’ ‘product’ is, they’d all say coffee. Not a single person would say ‘Starbucks’ product is Starbucks.’ Right?”
I whole-heartedly disagree with this. Sure, people might say coffee, but Starbucks' product is really the whole package. The store design, atmosphere, music, employees, drink names, drink combos.. these were all essential in Starbucks' rise. You aren't just buying coffee at Starbucks, you are buying the experience of Starbucks, therefore, that is the product.
I agree with your last sentence. Furthering that point, I'm inspired to get into something because I've seen someone be really good at it. I would think most people who want to learn guitar do so not because they've never played a guitar, but because they've listened to someone like Jimi Hendrix and immediately want to perform like that.
The relatives of Jimi Hendrix have mentioned how l’il James would “spend hours playing scales”. People want to play like Jimi, but forget (or don’t know) how he went from James to Jimi. “He was talented”, thereby excusing themselves of the hard work it takes not to suck. Jimi might have been born with a little of it, but I’ll bet hard work made up the majority of his “talent”.
Point is, of the things I’m good at, none of them was something I was just born doing well at. Some things come easier than others, but none come naturally. I’ve worked hard at everything I’m good at (even if it was so much fun it didn’t seem like work) , and I just assume the next thing I try will take just as much work. So don’t get frustrated, just assume if it’s worth learning then it will take effort. Otherwise everyone would do it. :-)
I think i'm going to have to disagree. For every Jimi Hendrix, there are hundreds if not thousands of people who put in the work and end up as uncredited studio musicians or releasing albums on bandcamp that only get bought as ratio buffer for someone on a private tracker.
No disagreement, as you’re looking at the business end, upon which talent and hard work often have little bearing. I think that people who buy a guitar want to play like Hendrix, not headline stadium tours. And that’s what I’m talking about: if you want get good on an instrument, you’re going to have to pick it up and do the grunt work.
If you want to get good at the music business, as you imply, well that’s another discussion entirely.
Oh of course, I exactly agree with this, but I think the gap between beginner and Hendrix being filled by deliberate practice is extremely paralyzing for people. I have learned to have confidence in the process. Once you spend years learning a skill and notice that over time you do actually get better because of that persistence, it's kind of a magic realization. Armed with that mindset, you can start learning a skill like guitar knowing that, no, you probably won't be good in a month, but if I stick with it for a few years I'll probably sound pretty decent.
(Sorry for the delay, I’ve commented so much in the past day, this got buried.)
but if I stick with it for a few years I'll probably sound pretty decent.
Thats the frustrating thing with music, both as a beginner and one helping the beginner get started. I’ve been playing mandolin for about two years, almost every day, and i’m just now starting to get to be what I’d call “kinda good”. Meaning I can sit in just about jam, and if they stay in major keys I can keep up even on songs I don’t know, might even improv a decent solo. So on the one hand, I’d say to the beginner, “if you sit down six days a week for thirty minutes of deliberate practice, you can’t help but get decent after a year or two. I’d argue that it’s almost unavoidable.”
But what the beginner hears is, “I’ve gotta do scales for two years before I have any fun.” Which isn’t true, but if your standard is Hendrix I guess that’s what you hear.
Agreed. When I discovered the world of healthy living, I started reading and applying a lot of nutrition advice to my life. It was natural that I would come across research defending both sides of the coin for certain foods (eggs, for example), but I felt I generally became healthier and more aware of what I put into my body. However, over time I felt I read enough to come to the conclusion that we don't really know much at all and so I don't really read about nutrition research anymore. I tend to stick to simple principles now like eat more vegetables and as little sugar as possible. Beyond that, it seems too nebulous.
