Completely agree and if you look at our metropolitan areas it’s very apparent at the openings of the hip new “fusion” or food truck pop ups who’s going.
And after reading Rob’s post I ask, “What can I do to fix the underlying problems?” The problem here isn’t simply that our tax dollars are subsidizing the Ivy League—it’s that our tax dollars are funding education in general. In my latest post at Trim to Truth I write: “Is government funding of education just? I say no, and I point to the First Amendment as my justification. I argue that religion and education are siblings; and as we’ll explore in this essay—synonyms. I believe the First Amendment should make clear that religion is synonymous with education; both are means by which we learn, and from which we gain our beliefs, habits and skills—forming our identity and individuality.” https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/religion-education-and-identity?”r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The difference between the faux "elites" and normal people is they are snobs. Put any shade of lipstick on that pig you prefer, they are still snobs. That is no better at this place and time than it has ever been. It is.not because of race, class, religion, gender or sexual identity that normal people disapprove of anyone who brands themselves elite. It is because anyone who thinks that way has a flawed character. Please stop playing their silly game by referring to yourself in their terms - "provincial", etc.. You are proof their values are wrong - you came from.outside their cocoon and excelled. You are their kryptonite. Take the mantle and run with it. Stop caring what they think of you. That is their kryptonite.
Rob writes: "If thousands of people with bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees from, say, China and India, were unlawfully entering the U.S. each day, my guess is current elite attitudes around border security would be very different." This gels with reality: Limits on H1B visas, but open borders for the unwashed economic migrants.
Curious would the family in Fresh Prince be considered an elite under your definition? I would guess no, because both Aunt Bev and Uncle Phil knew where they came from. They would know how to order from a Wendy's menu.
Also it is interesting to consider this information along with your other insights that when elites want a policy it is more likely to be implemented than when common folk desire it.
It's also neat to combine your work with Turchin's theories of over production of elites. (His definition of elite is slightly different, in his framework it's defined as people who have any kind of power, be it social, financial, military, political). He says there are too many elites, and their infighting over a small set of leadership roles is leading to dissension amongst all society. I wonder if the fact that elites are so out of touch compared to regular people is a function of this overproduction, or an independent variable?
It would be so interesting to hear a conversation between Henderson and Turchin. I discovered Turchin when he published a chart showing the historical relationship between cooperation (ie collaboration) and economic prosperity.
after the WWII, when I was just born in Socialism, there was a new elite that was self-built from the people who, put the old elite in the prisons or gulags to be demised a.s.a.p. At the beginning, the new elite got the legal system under the belt, and the families of the old elite had hours to leave the houses with just some suitcases. It is all about not if but when, and how fast, the new elite will rise in this country...
I know this might sound like the devil's advocate, especially as I support the luxury beliefs theory, but...
It's clear, that there is a divide between the elites and common people. An elitist view could assume that in such case, the elites are right since, due to their high status and cultural & intellectual capital they are wiser in some way. This heuristic would obviously be considered flawed here. But I think it's equally important to note that the democratic or folkist view that the majority/common people are always right is equally flawed. As a conservative (or maybe just a middle class representative) I do agree with most if not all of the points that the common people agree with which are listed here, but I also understand that there may be some issues where the elites are right and the common people are wrong.
The most significant barrier to collaboration is when people don’t feel free to share a perspective that’s different from everyone else in the room.
Freedom to be who you are - and I don’t mean binary identifiers like gender, race, sexual preferences, income, educational level - doesn’t happen when you think you have to agree with everyone else in your social class.
True. And the situation in higher education is especially disconcerting right now. My post, “How to Choose a College: Reliable Metrics for Predicting Campus Discourse and Making Friends in College” is an attempt to help prospective college students in the short-term.
Here’s how it begins: “For the past several months I’ve been studying the situation in higher education, trying to answer the question, ‘Where would I go to college?’ I’d like to share my findings with you in a series of posts.”
“You cannot possibly have missed the Financial Times story on the young gender divide. Alice Evans is on it. So is Aaron Renn, who writes,
From the FT:
In the US, Gallup data shows that after decades where the sexes were each spread roughly equally across liberal and conservative world views, women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than their male contemporaries. That gap took just six years to open up.
Germany also now shows a 30-point gap between increasingly conservative young men and progressive female contemporaries, and in the UK the gap is 25 points. In Poland last year, almost half of men aged 18-21 backed the hard-right Confederation party, compared to just a sixth of young women of the same age.
Outside the west, there are even more stark divisions. In South Korea there is now a yawning chasm between young men and women, and it’s a similar situation in China. In Africa, Tunisia shows the same pattern. Notably, in every country this dramatic split is either exclusive to the younger generation or far more pronounced there than among men and women in their thirties and upwards.”
I do think that some of the change is overstated because previous generations of women were not open about their beliefs, especially when they weren’t the same as their fathers, husbands, etc.
However, I agree that, now that it is “cool” to be more vocal, many women only say what they think will be “cool” to say.
Probably true regarding the conformity and self-censorship of past generations of women. The cool factor is certainly present too, but I wonder how firm that really is. Something tells me it’s actually a neutral position that seeks perception of hip and edgy.
Yes. Men are warriors by nature. They sense an approaching enemy - government and progressive ideology. This enemy has activated men’s innate response to learn about the enemy and kill them. Men are actively reading, strategizing, and engaging. Their response it to fight back. Their survival and more importantly the survival of their genes depends on winning this war. A consequence of this engagement is to become more libertarian and conservative. Women are by nature worriers; they seek to protect their bodies so they can stay alive to care for children. They are pursuing a strategy of neutrality, as the enemy may win and become their friend. See Joyce Benenson’s book Warriors and Worriers.
This weekends Honestly podcast hosted by Bari Weiss starts with her quoting her wife Nelli Bowles who said that the elite used to be motivated to benefit the common good by “noblesse oblige” but todays elite have lost the “oblige” and are only motivated to benefit themselves by their “noblesse”. (She said it much more simply than that)
I wish the reader had a chance to look under the hood of the 2024 "Committee to Unleash Prosperity" 2024 survey. The non-elite sample is 1000 voters out of well over 150 million Americans. How were these voters chosen? We also do not know how the elite sample was curated.
I'm not saying the survey is inaccurate, I'm just saying that when the survey comes from an advocacy organization with an axe to grind, it is good practice to look under the hood. The Stephen Moore organization's website does not permit this scrutiny, so we must take it on faith.
Having said that, I'm not surprised at the results; I just wish that the data were more robust.
When I did my Ph.D. in engineering 40+ years ago, most of my fellow graduate students were foreign born. It is my understanding that the situation is even more lopsided now. And it is very clear that high skilled immigration is significantly reducing salaries and increasing competition in the tech space. It has been that way for decades. When my younger kids were in high school their advanced classes were predominantly the children of highly educated immigrants, and when they were in college, the situation was much the same with the addition of foreign born students. My son learned an excellent Bangalore accent in high school, and has quite a good Chinglish from college/grad school. Mind you, I am not opposed to the high skill immigration - as the only other option for the companies is opening more facilities abroad and we would loose far more. I would note that not enough American students are willing to enter and master these demanding disciplines.
It seems to me that a lot of the discussion of the 'elite' lumps multiple populations that are not all the same. There seems to be a big difference between the STEM group and the liberal arts / cultural group.
Insightful as ever , however there are a couple of things I have really noticed which maybe contributing to this chasm, the fact that a lot of the so called elites come from generations of wealth and power a lot of them really don't know how the world truly works for the common man without their privilege, hence the disconnect.
Their value system is different and to an extent hypocritical the "luxury belief class" as you call them that have been born into this generational wealth , will practice nepotism, cronyism will not reciprocate if someone they deem of a lower social status helps them , they will openly harbour racist views behind closed doors , yet they will preach hard work , how you should be accepting of other cultures welcome them into your neighbourhood and your family and how unchecked immigration without background checks as "no human is illegal" (as a cheap source of labour) , how you should be helpful to everybody and be content with minimalism and aspire to a toxic hustle culture and shut up about ill treatment and be "resilient."
The worst part is that they have cognitive dissonance and think they hold the right view (could be an extreme form of narcissism here , will let you make that call) , in the UK there were some comments about conscription as there might be a war against Russia and there was a major backlash from working and middle class people as the war in Ukraine and sanctions has put energy bills through the roof , creating a cost of living crisis , this is just one example. This attitude is probably the reason we have seen a rise in populism.
The scope of your luxury beliefs framework has the potential for expansion, I have recently come across a philosopher who has written about this extensively Byung Chul Han who has stated the positive psychology, hustle culture and well let's include luxury beliefs are nothing but psychological control mechanisms to keep us in servitude to the neoliberal system that is controlled by these elites.
You write "my views were shaped by my upbringing more so than my education". So true. I was raised in a fly over state by a father who grew up poor in the heart of the depression. My attitude towards money reflects his example no matter how many advanced degrees or how much money I have.
The survey’s wording around freedom cues ‘political freedom’ in a classic sense. This is very different than cultural autonomy for ordinary decision making…readers should take note…My recent research doesn’t suggest class variation on the latter…although, I don’t know of any other survey that has 1,000 members of the 1%…
The answer to your question is the Cathedral, as per the inimitable Curtis Yarvin. His theory states that “ the selective advantage of dominant ideas, and the inability of recessive ideas to compete”, is the engine of all human collective endeavour, every human polity from the family unit to the whole system of nations. It is a profound observation and once understood changes everything: everything!
If you were serious about that question you need Curtis.
Thanks for the link. I was focused on the originators of ideas like Freud. Before a theory/ideology can become dominant, it is spread to the wider culture by various gatekeepers who must first be impressed with the various novel theories/ideologies; in other words, these ideas are not initially adopted as luxury beliefs, they’re adopted because they are believed to be true. Freud, Marx, etc. might have remained nobodies had others (often elites) not been impressed with their ideas and spread them to other suckers. However, the point that I was making is that if you lack expertise and use a heuristic of “smart people believe X; therefore, as a smart non-expert, I will provisionally accept X as true”, it may be less of a luxury belief than just pure ignorance, as most people don’t look too deeply into ideas, especially when they have little incentive to seek out criticism due to conformity.
A warning about Curtis, he doesn’t give a shit if you understand what he’s writing about. I find it very funny. I think other people find it offputting.
Well done, that largely comports with Curtis’s theory. You call it “just pure ignorance” the adoption of ideas one does not really understand. I think Curtis would 100% agree with that. But the engine of the phenomenon is more than ignorance. It is the intersection of practical considerations and ambition. Your mother taught you this lesson: “boy, you gotta get along to get ahead”. We are obliged to be stupid when it comes to collective action. The Catholic notion of “this fallen world.”
I’m not ruling out conformity and going along to get along (as my last sentence indicates). However, most people just don’t think too deeply about stuff or avoid contact with criticism. It requires mavericks among the elites to push back against intellectual conformity. Luxury beliefs exist but they are the result mainly of ignorance, not conformity. Imagine if millions of leftists really believed the opposite of what they profess. How long could these beliefs be bottled up? It’s more likely they believe what they profess and are ignorant of the truth.
“It’s nice for the educated class when immigrants provide cheap hired help and open interesting restaurants.” Hahaha
Completely agree and if you look at our metropolitan areas it’s very apparent at the openings of the hip new “fusion” or food truck pop ups who’s going.
Makes sense. It’s almost always good food.
Henderson's essay is worth reading and re-reading. So much of what we observe in politics and culture today reflects this chasm.
Always reveals data and insight I haven’t seen anywhere else. Reminds me that today’s news isn’t really news at all - just an echo chamber.
And after reading Rob’s post I ask, “What can I do to fix the underlying problems?” The problem here isn’t simply that our tax dollars are subsidizing the Ivy League—it’s that our tax dollars are funding education in general. In my latest post at Trim to Truth I write: “Is government funding of education just? I say no, and I point to the First Amendment as my justification. I argue that religion and education are siblings; and as we’ll explore in this essay—synonyms. I believe the First Amendment should make clear that religion is synonymous with education; both are means by which we learn, and from which we gain our beliefs, habits and skills—forming our identity and individuality.” https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/religion-education-and-identity?”r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
The difference between the faux "elites" and normal people is they are snobs. Put any shade of lipstick on that pig you prefer, they are still snobs. That is no better at this place and time than it has ever been. It is.not because of race, class, religion, gender or sexual identity that normal people disapprove of anyone who brands themselves elite. It is because anyone who thinks that way has a flawed character. Please stop playing their silly game by referring to yourself in their terms - "provincial", etc.. You are proof their values are wrong - you came from.outside their cocoon and excelled. You are their kryptonite. Take the mantle and run with it. Stop caring what they think of you. That is their kryptonite.
Rob writes: "If thousands of people with bachelor’s and postgraduate degrees from, say, China and India, were unlawfully entering the U.S. each day, my guess is current elite attitudes around border security would be very different." This gels with reality: Limits on H1B visas, but open borders for the unwashed economic migrants.
Curious would the family in Fresh Prince be considered an elite under your definition? I would guess no, because both Aunt Bev and Uncle Phil knew where they came from. They would know how to order from a Wendy's menu.
Also it is interesting to consider this information along with your other insights that when elites want a policy it is more likely to be implemented than when common folk desire it.
It's also neat to combine your work with Turchin's theories of over production of elites. (His definition of elite is slightly different, in his framework it's defined as people who have any kind of power, be it social, financial, military, political). He says there are too many elites, and their infighting over a small set of leadership roles is leading to dissension amongst all society. I wonder if the fact that elites are so out of touch compared to regular people is a function of this overproduction, or an independent variable?
It would be so interesting to hear a conversation between Henderson and Turchin. I discovered Turchin when he published a chart showing the historical relationship between cooperation (ie collaboration) and economic prosperity.
after the WWII, when I was just born in Socialism, there was a new elite that was self-built from the people who, put the old elite in the prisons or gulags to be demised a.s.a.p. At the beginning, the new elite got the legal system under the belt, and the families of the old elite had hours to leave the houses with just some suitcases. It is all about not if but when, and how fast, the new elite will rise in this country...
I know this might sound like the devil's advocate, especially as I support the luxury beliefs theory, but...
It's clear, that there is a divide between the elites and common people. An elitist view could assume that in such case, the elites are right since, due to their high status and cultural & intellectual capital they are wiser in some way. This heuristic would obviously be considered flawed here. But I think it's equally important to note that the democratic or folkist view that the majority/common people are always right is equally flawed. As a conservative (or maybe just a middle class representative) I do agree with most if not all of the points that the common people agree with which are listed here, but I also understand that there may be some issues where the elites are right and the common people are wrong.
The most significant barrier to collaboration is when people don’t feel free to share a perspective that’s different from everyone else in the room.
Freedom to be who you are - and I don’t mean binary identifiers like gender, race, sexual preferences, income, educational level - doesn’t happen when you think you have to agree with everyone else in your social class.
But that’s where we are.
True. And the situation in higher education is especially disconcerting right now. My post, “How to Choose a College: Reliable Metrics for Predicting Campus Discourse and Making Friends in College” is an attempt to help prospective college students in the short-term.
Here’s how it begins: “For the past several months I’ve been studying the situation in higher education, trying to answer the question, ‘Where would I go to college?’ I’d like to share my findings with you in a series of posts.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottgibb/p/how-to-choose-a-college?r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Is there similar data for decades past? I'd be interested to see if the divide was as big in previous generations/decades...
Have you seen this data? Link below.
“You cannot possibly have missed the Financial Times story on the young gender divide. Alice Evans is on it. So is Aaron Renn, who writes,
From the FT:
In the US, Gallup data shows that after decades where the sexes were each spread roughly equally across liberal and conservative world views, women aged 18 to 30 are now 30 percentage points more liberal than their male contemporaries. That gap took just six years to open up.
Germany also now shows a 30-point gap between increasingly conservative young men and progressive female contemporaries, and in the UK the gap is 25 points. In Poland last year, almost half of men aged 18-21 backed the hard-right Confederation party, compared to just a sixth of young women of the same age.
Outside the west, there are even more stark divisions. In South Korea there is now a yawning chasm between young men and women, and it’s a similar situation in China. In Africa, Tunisia shows the same pattern. Notably, in every country this dramatic split is either exclusive to the younger generation or far more pronounced there than among men and women in their thirties and upwards.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/arnoldkling/p/links-to-consider-130-707?r=nb3bl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I do think that some of the change is overstated because previous generations of women were not open about their beliefs, especially when they weren’t the same as their fathers, husbands, etc.
However, I agree that, now that it is “cool” to be more vocal, many women only say what they think will be “cool” to say.
Probably true regarding the conformity and self-censorship of past generations of women. The cool factor is certainly present too, but I wonder how firm that really is. Something tells me it’s actually a neutral position that seeks perception of hip and edgy.
The bigger story is what’s going on with men.
You mean that they are getting more conservative while women are getting more liberal? What do you attribute that to?
Yes. Men are warriors by nature. They sense an approaching enemy - government and progressive ideology. This enemy has activated men’s innate response to learn about the enemy and kill them. Men are actively reading, strategizing, and engaging. Their response it to fight back. Their survival and more importantly the survival of their genes depends on winning this war. A consequence of this engagement is to become more libertarian and conservative. Women are by nature worriers; they seek to protect their bodies so they can stay alive to care for children. They are pursuing a strategy of neutrality, as the enemy may win and become their friend. See Joyce Benenson’s book Warriors and Worriers.
This weekends Honestly podcast hosted by Bari Weiss starts with her quoting her wife Nelli Bowles who said that the elite used to be motivated to benefit the common good by “noblesse oblige” but todays elite have lost the “oblige” and are only motivated to benefit themselves by their “noblesse”. (She said it much more simply than that)
That was just bygone virtue signaling. Which NB is adept at. But thanks for the info. I don't do podcasts.
I would have flipped the subtitle with the title.
Yes, correct!
I wish the reader had a chance to look under the hood of the 2024 "Committee to Unleash Prosperity" 2024 survey. The non-elite sample is 1000 voters out of well over 150 million Americans. How were these voters chosen? We also do not know how the elite sample was curated.
I'm not saying the survey is inaccurate, I'm just saying that when the survey comes from an advocacy organization with an axe to grind, it is good practice to look under the hood. The Stephen Moore organization's website does not permit this scrutiny, so we must take it on faith.
Having said that, I'm not surprised at the results; I just wish that the data were more robust.
“91% of Ivy graduates, 78% of elites overall, and just 49% of ordinary voters have a favorable view of lawyers.” Fascinating.
When I did my Ph.D. in engineering 40+ years ago, most of my fellow graduate students were foreign born. It is my understanding that the situation is even more lopsided now. And it is very clear that high skilled immigration is significantly reducing salaries and increasing competition in the tech space. It has been that way for decades. When my younger kids were in high school their advanced classes were predominantly the children of highly educated immigrants, and when they were in college, the situation was much the same with the addition of foreign born students. My son learned an excellent Bangalore accent in high school, and has quite a good Chinglish from college/grad school. Mind you, I am not opposed to the high skill immigration - as the only other option for the companies is opening more facilities abroad and we would loose far more. I would note that not enough American students are willing to enter and master these demanding disciplines.
It seems to me that a lot of the discussion of the 'elite' lumps multiple populations that are not all the same. There seems to be a big difference between the STEM group and the liberal arts / cultural group.
Insightful as ever , however there are a couple of things I have really noticed which maybe contributing to this chasm, the fact that a lot of the so called elites come from generations of wealth and power a lot of them really don't know how the world truly works for the common man without their privilege, hence the disconnect.
Their value system is different and to an extent hypocritical the "luxury belief class" as you call them that have been born into this generational wealth , will practice nepotism, cronyism will not reciprocate if someone they deem of a lower social status helps them , they will openly harbour racist views behind closed doors , yet they will preach hard work , how you should be accepting of other cultures welcome them into your neighbourhood and your family and how unchecked immigration without background checks as "no human is illegal" (as a cheap source of labour) , how you should be helpful to everybody and be content with minimalism and aspire to a toxic hustle culture and shut up about ill treatment and be "resilient."
The worst part is that they have cognitive dissonance and think they hold the right view (could be an extreme form of narcissism here , will let you make that call) , in the UK there were some comments about conscription as there might be a war against Russia and there was a major backlash from working and middle class people as the war in Ukraine and sanctions has put energy bills through the roof , creating a cost of living crisis , this is just one example. This attitude is probably the reason we have seen a rise in populism.
The scope of your luxury beliefs framework has the potential for expansion, I have recently come across a philosopher who has written about this extensively Byung Chul Han who has stated the positive psychology, hustle culture and well let's include luxury beliefs are nothing but psychological control mechanisms to keep us in servitude to the neoliberal system that is controlled by these elites.
You write "my views were shaped by my upbringing more so than my education". So true. I was raised in a fly over state by a father who grew up poor in the heart of the depression. My attitude towards money reflects his example no matter how many advanced degrees or how much money I have.
The survey’s wording around freedom cues ‘political freedom’ in a classic sense. This is very different than cultural autonomy for ordinary decision making…readers should take note…My recent research doesn’t suggest class variation on the latter…although, I don’t know of any other survey that has 1,000 members of the 1%…
The answer to your question is the Cathedral, as per the inimitable Curtis Yarvin. His theory states that “ the selective advantage of dominant ideas, and the inability of recessive ideas to compete”, is the engine of all human collective endeavour, every human polity from the family unit to the whole system of nations. It is a profound observation and once understood changes everything: everything!
If you were serious about that question you need Curtis.
Thanks for the link. I was focused on the originators of ideas like Freud. Before a theory/ideology can become dominant, it is spread to the wider culture by various gatekeepers who must first be impressed with the various novel theories/ideologies; in other words, these ideas are not initially adopted as luxury beliefs, they’re adopted because they are believed to be true. Freud, Marx, etc. might have remained nobodies had others (often elites) not been impressed with their ideas and spread them to other suckers. However, the point that I was making is that if you lack expertise and use a heuristic of “smart people believe X; therefore, as a smart non-expert, I will provisionally accept X as true”, it may be less of a luxury belief than just pure ignorance, as most people don’t look too deeply into ideas, especially when they have little incentive to seek out criticism due to conformity.
Or that the "smart people" really aren't.
There are plenty that are if we’re talking raw IQ power.
At this juncture I question all of it including how we define raw IQ.
A warning about Curtis, he doesn’t give a shit if you understand what he’s writing about. I find it very funny. I think other people find it offputting.
Well done, that largely comports with Curtis’s theory. You call it “just pure ignorance” the adoption of ideas one does not really understand. I think Curtis would 100% agree with that. But the engine of the phenomenon is more than ignorance. It is the intersection of practical considerations and ambition. Your mother taught you this lesson: “boy, you gotta get along to get ahead”. We are obliged to be stupid when it comes to collective action. The Catholic notion of “this fallen world.”
The cathedral concept changes everything.
I’m not ruling out conformity and going along to get along (as my last sentence indicates). However, most people just don’t think too deeply about stuff or avoid contact with criticism. It requires mavericks among the elites to push back against intellectual conformity. Luxury beliefs exist but they are the result mainly of ignorance, not conformity. Imagine if millions of leftists really believed the opposite of what they profess. How long could these beliefs be bottled up? It’s more likely they believe what they profess and are ignorant of the truth.
That was supposed to be for Spencer