Excellent article, Kyla. Thank you for the reminder to go back and re-read Eco. The education piece is of particular interest. As an English major in the late "aughts" the lack of employability, and words of caution from friends and family members, was evident, but an undergrad, up here in Canada anyway, was relatively cheap to access. I eventually became an English/history teacher and have witnessed the change in students over the past decade.
Compliance, on the education side anyway, could mean answering to a rubric, but, especially more recently, compliance is passivity. The copy/paste generation, as they have been called, regurgitate the latest trends on TikTok and in their work. They default to the first Google result that pops up or to ChatGPT, and struggle most when asked to "inquire" or to design their own project based on their areas of curiosity. Perhaps more alarmingly, parents, often determined to perfect parenting, are waiting in the wings to ensure that their kids never experience failure or adversity, essential ingredients for innovation and growth.
So, the kids don't want to risk failing, the parents ensure that won't ever happen, and teachers, who don't want to risk the firing squad of students/parents/admin/gov., gradually submit to the "small surrenders" of inflated grades, reduced expectations/rigor, etc.
History major here feeling compelled to share some on the ground reporting. I salute your argument, though I suppose I hadn’t thought about through the lens of optimization but more of a blind focus on individual or selfish outcomes.
And as a parent I am constantly let down by the predominant philosophy of American parents which seems to be do whatever the hell you can put your child in the best position no matter the financial cost or the cost to your community. It’s all private schools, tutors, and academy clubs sports. Our focus is on the success of one individual as opposed to our participation in a system that provides more access and better outcomes for more of us. We are deluded into thinking we can solve societal problems with individual solutions. We don’t participate in imperfect systems and work to make them better, we pay our way* into a “better” system that often times will not put our children in a good position to succeed in “the real world” — even if succeeding in this case just means living a sustainable life and being capable of dealing with all the challenges life inevitably brings.
It’s the same story with parents refusing to vaccinate their children. They grift off herd immunity without considering the safety of their community. I’m afraid we are only at the beginning of reaping the consequences of these maladjusted shortsighted American choices.
Thank fuck for writing this. Ever since I was in elementary school, NOTHING about school felt right. I watched in high school as everyone sleep-walked right into oblivion, and it was terrifying. I always withheld my thoughts or opinions, especially the ones I felt most fiery about, because they defied normal convention or were, at surface level, incendiary and I didn't know how to work with that in this culture as a kid. I was scared, so I wrote it down for myself instead like some sacriligious belief system that could burn me at some stake, but you elucidated some of the same points here perfectly and it feels as plain as day. You're not taught to think here. You're not meant to think here. Not since I've been alive, anyway. Thanks for writing.
You don't need to major in computer science to be a programmer. The great American novelist, Richard Powers, entered University of Illinois as a Physics major and then switched to English Literature. Upon graduation he worked as a computer programmer in Boston before turning to writing full time. His books have covered a number of issues, many in the sciences. I chose 'Galatea 2.2' as one of the three books to read in my most recent Substack. Semi-autobiographical and published in 1995, it covers an AI experiment gone awry.
Reading, writing and thinking are skills. It's up to the individual to develop and make the most of them.
As an aside, what will happen to all the CS and data science majors do when AI takes over their jobs?
Excellent article-interesting that you quote Lawrence Wong, PM of Singapore-as a Western born naturalised Singaporean living in Asia for 35 years-my greatest achievement was "to understand that I didn't understand" - I fear that the US administration really has little idea of the Asian mindset-everything is likened to a card game and China "not holding the cards" - as another great Singaporean once said "Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him, or give it up. This is not a game of cards. This is your life and mine."- Lee Kuan Yew (1980). China will not cave...(in my humble opinion!) - Thank you for the articles-really good
Thank you for this perspective - super valuable! The US is very well known for unfortunately paying very little attention to how other countries think.
Yes, I wasn’t a fan of the use of “Congress” as a monolith. Yes, Congress has the power to stop this, and is not doing it. But the Republican Party controls both chambers of congress. They are the ones refusing to take action. I’m sure many Democratic lawmakers would love to reign in Trump’s power (or maybe not, don’t stop the man from hanging himself, but I digress).
It really reminds me of people on the internet screaming for the Democratic lawmakers to “do something!!” What do you want them to do? The Democrats do not have power in Congress.
Great article. The point about education compliance/optimization is interesting and a little difficult for me, because as an older millennial we were encouraged to go to college for humanities degrees and "figure out career things later." This didn't work out very well especially due to the recession, and my not-so-hard-earned english major has been collecting dust ever since. But I do agree that we've gone way too far in the other direction now.
I get the lens of conformity and cowardice applying to Congress, but the erosion of Congressional authority has been a half century in the making. FDR accelerated the trend of Congress creating broad-based ideas and having those implemented by agencies, and the trend has only sharpened since then. Congress doesn't even declare war anymore.
Trump is really an accelerationist of the existing trend of a powerful executive branch.
I think that's a function of media and technology. Back then, and up until about 2012, a congressman or senator was kept in line by the leader via access to campaign funds and other resources. It's much easier for a hard partisan to build their own operation now. Kevin McCarthy was controlled by Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene because of their high profiles despite doing nothing in Congress.
Amazing article Kyla and congratulations on the NYT Opinion piece! Very thought provoking as we have made compliance into the central pillar of our society but often forget who sets these standards we have to comply with.
Very well put. It will be interesting to see how the long term impacts of strategies you list above will fare in the face of extreme short term uncertainty. As always, an excellent read. Thanks!
The US has had no greater ally than Australia. Our friends and acquaintances here are telling us they are now cancelling planned trips to the USA for recreation, conferences, business. They have stopped buying American made products. I am certain this will be replicated throughout the free world. The Trump administration is scoring the greatest own goals ever.
I have some thoughts and questions on your piece. Hopefully this is a better place to ask questions and maybe give push back without being attacked. Your articles are interesting, thought provoking, and well written. Even though we don't see eye to eye on everything I still very much value your opinion.
College & Curiosity:
-College is a (potentially) important endeavor for any individual to undertake. However, it is quite expensive, so it does seem to be more of a gamble to spend tens of thousands of dollars for an arts or humanities degree. Degrees in STEM or other more "utilitarian" fields seem safer long term for success/wealth. The boom of content creation through social media, YouTube, and the internet make more creative focused careers seem less requiring of college. I'm a huge comedy fan and I've only heard negative things from comedians talking about going to school for comedy. Granted that's a specific thing, and having professional guidance from someone in art or what have you can definitely be a great thing. The jobs people attend college often have safer "floors" for economic and professional success. They're not inherently creative, but I would have to disagree and say the STEM or anyone can be creative and inventive. It comes across a little short sighted to say those other fields are not creative, or as much, because I'm sure there are a lot of examples of people leaving jobs they weren't happy with because they found success with a hobby or passion that was in the arts or humanities area.
-I believe college is at its most effective and efficient when it is a more focused endeavor, such as a trade or arts school. If I am paying thousands of dollars (which will mostly become long term debt that will hinder me for years to come) I do not want part of my four year degree to require electives with no overlap to my field of study. The argument is that it broadens horizons, understandably, but my four year degree in strength and conditioning from Penn State was not benefited from me needing to fulfill elective requirements with a Greek history, Japanese literature studies, or even a required fitness class (I was already taking them as part of my major, why would I need to take extra ones outside of major classes in order to satisfy credit requirements?)
-The goal of having school be more of a creative or abstract problem solving endeavor is an important and noble one. However, I do not think college should be the focus of the impact. College is not a right, it's a privilege in this country regardless of how you think about it. Not everyone even wants to attend college. The majority of people do attend K-12 school, although that number is changing and people still do not necessarily need to attend it. I believe in giving states and local communities more power over what they teach and how they teach it. I am libertarian, but I am not a radical one or something of the sort. The federal government should play less of a role in education and funding I believe, and the states and local school boards and communities should be much more empowered to develop curriculum how they feel is best. Hopefully it goes without saying, but I do still believe there should be a set national standard to which all high school grads/GED holders need to meet. There should just be a lot more flexibility to achieve it.
Congress & The Paralysis of Political Survival:
-When I read things like this about Trump or Biden or whomever you love or hate, I do not understand why there is not a larger libertarian movement in the country. A decreased federal government with less power, but a more empowered state and local government seems much more logical. It's much easier to notice changes or affects in your community compared to living in rural Pennsylvania and knowing how federal policies impact urban California. Even if you do know, they are two totally opposite places with different wants and needs based on their communities and shouldn't necessarily be lumped in together on everything (at least at a federal level). It makes more sense to me for each state to have more of a say over their economic, health, social, etc policies rather than DC. Your voice and concerns seem much more able to heard and manageable at that level rather than federal.
China & Trade Wars:
-Was the status quo prior to the current administration the path to long term economic (or whatever measure) success for the US?
-Are there any industries that changing their current strategies in the US in order to maybe shift more of their business here or find work arounds or what have you? I don't mean like Tim Cook doing what he did, I mean more of a business that operates here, but uses foreign means/entities and are actually bolstering their efforts in the US rather than shutting down or downsizing operations?
-Could part of the issue be a more philosophical debate about the country such a consumer based economy that we have back ourselves into an unsustainable lifestyle? Is naive to think that if we slid back a bit to a time where products were maybe more expensive upfront, but had longer lifespans rather than countless updates or need to buy the new thing? I'm asking would a time where calling a TV repairmen (for example) was the first thought if your TV broke rather than just tossing it and getting a new one be impossible and foolish to get back to?
-It seems like the US will blink first (or break) because of the society and culture we live in compared China. They are if I'm correct a more authoritarian/communist style government and can operate without much say from the public. Granted I've never been there and I don't really know, but it seems like a more "state run" country than ours currently is.
Eco/Beyond Compliance:
-You addressed some of my push back or questions here in these sections. Thank you.
-I believe the main reason Trump is back in the White House, similar to most high level elected officials, is because of charisma. Most leaders, whether in politics or sports or whatever, are charismatic above all else. The logical, rational, thoughtful, think first talk second individuals unfortunately do not get those roles. Also, anyone who believes they can run the country are probably crazy and narcissistic which typically takes out the better choice most times on a big stage.
*Finally and not to belabor the point, but everyday when reading the news I find it harder and harder to believe that most people prefer the big two parties over the independents like the libertarian party. As stated earlier, I'm not a radical burn it all down libertarian, but surely people have to be feeling uneasy about having such a strong and powerful federal government right?
If you took the time to read this, and especially reply, thanks I appreciate it! I unfortunately worded a question to you on Instagram in an "inflammatory" manner (I knew what I was doing and no other way before had I gotten a response, so I figured I might as well try) and I wanted to again apologize. I did end up deleting my Instagram because of it, I had been thinking about it for a while, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Social media is largely a mess and not a good place to spend too much time. I'm hoping this place is. I feel compelled to interact with your content, especially lately, because I feel like I am a lot of your demographics you discuss. I'm from a rural area, but live in a city now. I grew up working a trade, went to college for strength and conditioning (a passion at the time), managed a couple gyms, left and became self-employed working my construction trade, and now I'm in the military. Just in my adult life I've somehow been through different parts of life that do not seem real sometimes, but have given me experience and perspective in multiple different things. Also, given my job in the military I believe your content is very important to read because unfortunately the world revolves around money even though it's all made up and the points don't matter! Thanks and have a nice day
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and generous comment. I really appreciate how you pushed back while also being open to the ideas in the piece bc that’s what makes any of this worthwhile!
To just hit on one of your many excellent points - I totally agree that STEM fields can be deeply creative (and I tried to highlight that nuance in the piece by explicitly saying that I know many creative engineers but perhaps should have been more explicit!) My critique wasn’t of the fields themselves, but of the structures that make students feel like those are the only viable options. That creativity is often still there - it’s just being funneled into very specific containers, and curiosity that doesn’t lead to immediate ROI feels harder to justify. Which is understandable… but still kind of heartbreaking.
Your point about charisma in politics hit too. It is frustrating how often competence and curiosity are overshadowed by confidence and volume.
The experiences you've had give you such a unique lens. I hope you keep sharing it.
This article was both incredibly sobering and motivating as I have began thinking deeply about how important curiosity is for career success but it seems for the world at large. It’s interesting to me that a lot of people are really good memorization but not so much at application. I was in the international baccalaureate program in my high school which taught me a lot of about critical thinking and the world at large. Some of my classmates have gone on to be incredible thinkers and advocates in their fields. And some of them probably used it to help them check the next box on achievement. It does pain me to think that the higher thinking and more Socratic method of learning I was given was only available to the “really smart” kids and I think that’s hurting us as a society. But some of the really smart kids can recite a fact in great detail but fail to connect it to broader themes or understand how it can have implications on many things. Lots to think about. And it feels nice to know that thinking and thinking critically is a form of resistance.
I don't think you read the article about Zuckerberg and the FTC lawsuit. He did not get the fine moved to $450 million. That is what he asked for instead of the $30 billion the FTC offered. The FTC rejected Zuckerberg's offered and told Trump not to agree to it. Zuckerberg then offered $1 billion and that didn't work. The point of the article is that nothing Zuckerberg did to donate to Trump or talk to him helped and now the trial has started. It's the exact opposite of what you're implying the WSJ wrote about. The WSJ's point was nothing Zuckerberg did helped gain favor with the Trump administration.
As others have written, I think this article is illuminating and well-argued. One bit of color I would like to add, while I agree with many of the examples you've provided, I think there is a contrary movement within the country in which we've learned to take on too much risk. As much as our culture rewards compliance, we are also seeing the proliferation of habits like crypto, meme stock trading, buy now pay later and simply gambling in general. It seems that a large portion of our country, in particular young men, have gotten terrible at assessing risk and are investing themselves into these fairly insecure practices. If I am to guess as to why attitudes towards these examples don't match up to those provided in the articles, it's that they are framed as get rich quick schemes, thus viewed as a shortcut to the goal we are told we will achieve through compliance in more traditional institutions.
Excellent article, Kyla. Thank you for the reminder to go back and re-read Eco. The education piece is of particular interest. As an English major in the late "aughts" the lack of employability, and words of caution from friends and family members, was evident, but an undergrad, up here in Canada anyway, was relatively cheap to access. I eventually became an English/history teacher and have witnessed the change in students over the past decade.
Compliance, on the education side anyway, could mean answering to a rubric, but, especially more recently, compliance is passivity. The copy/paste generation, as they have been called, regurgitate the latest trends on TikTok and in their work. They default to the first Google result that pops up or to ChatGPT, and struggle most when asked to "inquire" or to design their own project based on their areas of curiosity. Perhaps more alarmingly, parents, often determined to perfect parenting, are waiting in the wings to ensure that their kids never experience failure or adversity, essential ingredients for innovation and growth.
So, the kids don't want to risk failing, the parents ensure that won't ever happen, and teachers, who don't want to risk the firing squad of students/parents/admin/gov., gradually submit to the "small surrenders" of inflated grades, reduced expectations/rigor, etc.
This point on passivity is spot on - there is a lack of intent and so much fear.
History major here feeling compelled to share some on the ground reporting. I salute your argument, though I suppose I hadn’t thought about through the lens of optimization but more of a blind focus on individual or selfish outcomes.
And as a parent I am constantly let down by the predominant philosophy of American parents which seems to be do whatever the hell you can put your child in the best position no matter the financial cost or the cost to your community. It’s all private schools, tutors, and academy clubs sports. Our focus is on the success of one individual as opposed to our participation in a system that provides more access and better outcomes for more of us. We are deluded into thinking we can solve societal problems with individual solutions. We don’t participate in imperfect systems and work to make them better, we pay our way* into a “better” system that often times will not put our children in a good position to succeed in “the real world” — even if succeeding in this case just means living a sustainable life and being capable of dealing with all the challenges life inevitably brings.
It’s the same story with parents refusing to vaccinate their children. They grift off herd immunity without considering the safety of their community. I’m afraid we are only at the beginning of reaping the consequences of these maladjusted shortsighted American choices.
*on a credit card
thank you - appreciate this!
"short-sighted and maladjusted" is absolutely right!
Thank fuck for writing this. Ever since I was in elementary school, NOTHING about school felt right. I watched in high school as everyone sleep-walked right into oblivion, and it was terrifying. I always withheld my thoughts or opinions, especially the ones I felt most fiery about, because they defied normal convention or were, at surface level, incendiary and I didn't know how to work with that in this culture as a kid. I was scared, so I wrote it down for myself instead like some sacriligious belief system that could burn me at some stake, but you elucidated some of the same points here perfectly and it feels as plain as day. You're not taught to think here. You're not meant to think here. Not since I've been alive, anyway. Thanks for writing.
You don't need to major in computer science to be a programmer. The great American novelist, Richard Powers, entered University of Illinois as a Physics major and then switched to English Literature. Upon graduation he worked as a computer programmer in Boston before turning to writing full time. His books have covered a number of issues, many in the sciences. I chose 'Galatea 2.2' as one of the three books to read in my most recent Substack. Semi-autobiographical and published in 1995, it covers an AI experiment gone awry.
Reading, writing and thinking are skills. It's up to the individual to develop and make the most of them.
As an aside, what will happen to all the CS and data science majors do when AI takes over their jobs?
Excellent article-interesting that you quote Lawrence Wong, PM of Singapore-as a Western born naturalised Singaporean living in Asia for 35 years-my greatest achievement was "to understand that I didn't understand" - I fear that the US administration really has little idea of the Asian mindset-everything is likened to a card game and China "not holding the cards" - as another great Singaporean once said "Whoever governs Singapore must have that iron in him, or give it up. This is not a game of cards. This is your life and mine."- Lee Kuan Yew (1980). China will not cave...(in my humble opinion!) - Thank you for the articles-really good
Thank you for this perspective - super valuable! The US is very well known for unfortunately paying very little attention to how other countries think.
An odd characteristic of hegemons, while Singapore is a country filled with bureaucrats that are trained to anticipate how every country thinks.
Congrats on today's NYT piece!
Honestly, it’s Republicans who are compliant. They could reign in Trump but some/many of them might lose their very cushy government jobs
100%
Yes, I wasn’t a fan of the use of “Congress” as a monolith. Yes, Congress has the power to stop this, and is not doing it. But the Republican Party controls both chambers of congress. They are the ones refusing to take action. I’m sure many Democratic lawmakers would love to reign in Trump’s power (or maybe not, don’t stop the man from hanging himself, but I digress).
It really reminds me of people on the internet screaming for the Democratic lawmakers to “do something!!” What do you want them to do? The Democrats do not have power in Congress.
Great article. The point about education compliance/optimization is interesting and a little difficult for me, because as an older millennial we were encouraged to go to college for humanities degrees and "figure out career things later." This didn't work out very well especially due to the recession, and my not-so-hard-earned english major has been collecting dust ever since. But I do agree that we've gone way too far in the other direction now.
yes, its hard to decide what the right answer is! but employers are expressing dissatisfaction for how things are right now
I get the lens of conformity and cowardice applying to Congress, but the erosion of Congressional authority has been a half century in the making. FDR accelerated the trend of Congress creating broad-based ideas and having those implemented by agencies, and the trend has only sharpened since then. Congress doesn't even declare war anymore.
Trump is really an accelerationist of the existing trend of a powerful executive branch.
Yes, he is a catalyst for many things. But I would argue that Congress had a backbone during the 1990s in a way they just don't have now.
I think that's a function of media and technology. Back then, and up until about 2012, a congressman or senator was kept in line by the leader via access to campaign funds and other resources. It's much easier for a hard partisan to build their own operation now. Kevin McCarthy was controlled by Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene because of their high profiles despite doing nothing in Congress.
I dig it, sure. And something like the Church Committee seems like it happened on another planet.
Amazing article Kyla and congratulations on the NYT Opinion piece! Very thought provoking as we have made compliance into the central pillar of our society but often forget who sets these standards we have to comply with.
Very well put. It will be interesting to see how the long term impacts of strategies you list above will fare in the face of extreme short term uncertainty. As always, an excellent read. Thanks!
The US has had no greater ally than Australia. Our friends and acquaintances here are telling us they are now cancelling planned trips to the USA for recreation, conferences, business. They have stopped buying American made products. I am certain this will be replicated throughout the free world. The Trump administration is scoring the greatest own goals ever.
Destroying tourism and cross-border shopping by Canadians and Mexicans. Nobody wants to visit or invest, which is a bizarre twist.
I have some thoughts and questions on your piece. Hopefully this is a better place to ask questions and maybe give push back without being attacked. Your articles are interesting, thought provoking, and well written. Even though we don't see eye to eye on everything I still very much value your opinion.
College & Curiosity:
-College is a (potentially) important endeavor for any individual to undertake. However, it is quite expensive, so it does seem to be more of a gamble to spend tens of thousands of dollars for an arts or humanities degree. Degrees in STEM or other more "utilitarian" fields seem safer long term for success/wealth. The boom of content creation through social media, YouTube, and the internet make more creative focused careers seem less requiring of college. I'm a huge comedy fan and I've only heard negative things from comedians talking about going to school for comedy. Granted that's a specific thing, and having professional guidance from someone in art or what have you can definitely be a great thing. The jobs people attend college often have safer "floors" for economic and professional success. They're not inherently creative, but I would have to disagree and say the STEM or anyone can be creative and inventive. It comes across a little short sighted to say those other fields are not creative, or as much, because I'm sure there are a lot of examples of people leaving jobs they weren't happy with because they found success with a hobby or passion that was in the arts or humanities area.
-I believe college is at its most effective and efficient when it is a more focused endeavor, such as a trade or arts school. If I am paying thousands of dollars (which will mostly become long term debt that will hinder me for years to come) I do not want part of my four year degree to require electives with no overlap to my field of study. The argument is that it broadens horizons, understandably, but my four year degree in strength and conditioning from Penn State was not benefited from me needing to fulfill elective requirements with a Greek history, Japanese literature studies, or even a required fitness class (I was already taking them as part of my major, why would I need to take extra ones outside of major classes in order to satisfy credit requirements?)
-The goal of having school be more of a creative or abstract problem solving endeavor is an important and noble one. However, I do not think college should be the focus of the impact. College is not a right, it's a privilege in this country regardless of how you think about it. Not everyone even wants to attend college. The majority of people do attend K-12 school, although that number is changing and people still do not necessarily need to attend it. I believe in giving states and local communities more power over what they teach and how they teach it. I am libertarian, but I am not a radical one or something of the sort. The federal government should play less of a role in education and funding I believe, and the states and local school boards and communities should be much more empowered to develop curriculum how they feel is best. Hopefully it goes without saying, but I do still believe there should be a set national standard to which all high school grads/GED holders need to meet. There should just be a lot more flexibility to achieve it.
Congress & The Paralysis of Political Survival:
-When I read things like this about Trump or Biden or whomever you love or hate, I do not understand why there is not a larger libertarian movement in the country. A decreased federal government with less power, but a more empowered state and local government seems much more logical. It's much easier to notice changes or affects in your community compared to living in rural Pennsylvania and knowing how federal policies impact urban California. Even if you do know, they are two totally opposite places with different wants and needs based on their communities and shouldn't necessarily be lumped in together on everything (at least at a federal level). It makes more sense to me for each state to have more of a say over their economic, health, social, etc policies rather than DC. Your voice and concerns seem much more able to heard and manageable at that level rather than federal.
China & Trade Wars:
-Was the status quo prior to the current administration the path to long term economic (or whatever measure) success for the US?
-Are there any industries that changing their current strategies in the US in order to maybe shift more of their business here or find work arounds or what have you? I don't mean like Tim Cook doing what he did, I mean more of a business that operates here, but uses foreign means/entities and are actually bolstering their efforts in the US rather than shutting down or downsizing operations?
-Could part of the issue be a more philosophical debate about the country such a consumer based economy that we have back ourselves into an unsustainable lifestyle? Is naive to think that if we slid back a bit to a time where products were maybe more expensive upfront, but had longer lifespans rather than countless updates or need to buy the new thing? I'm asking would a time where calling a TV repairmen (for example) was the first thought if your TV broke rather than just tossing it and getting a new one be impossible and foolish to get back to?
-It seems like the US will blink first (or break) because of the society and culture we live in compared China. They are if I'm correct a more authoritarian/communist style government and can operate without much say from the public. Granted I've never been there and I don't really know, but it seems like a more "state run" country than ours currently is.
Eco/Beyond Compliance:
-You addressed some of my push back or questions here in these sections. Thank you.
-I believe the main reason Trump is back in the White House, similar to most high level elected officials, is because of charisma. Most leaders, whether in politics or sports or whatever, are charismatic above all else. The logical, rational, thoughtful, think first talk second individuals unfortunately do not get those roles. Also, anyone who believes they can run the country are probably crazy and narcissistic which typically takes out the better choice most times on a big stage.
*Finally and not to belabor the point, but everyday when reading the news I find it harder and harder to believe that most people prefer the big two parties over the independents like the libertarian party. As stated earlier, I'm not a radical burn it all down libertarian, but surely people have to be feeling uneasy about having such a strong and powerful federal government right?
If you took the time to read this, and especially reply, thanks I appreciate it! I unfortunately worded a question to you on Instagram in an "inflammatory" manner (I knew what I was doing and no other way before had I gotten a response, so I figured I might as well try) and I wanted to again apologize. I did end up deleting my Instagram because of it, I had been thinking about it for a while, but that was the straw that broke the camel's back. Social media is largely a mess and not a good place to spend too much time. I'm hoping this place is. I feel compelled to interact with your content, especially lately, because I feel like I am a lot of your demographics you discuss. I'm from a rural area, but live in a city now. I grew up working a trade, went to college for strength and conditioning (a passion at the time), managed a couple gyms, left and became self-employed working my construction trade, and now I'm in the military. Just in my adult life I've somehow been through different parts of life that do not seem real sometimes, but have given me experience and perspective in multiple different things. Also, given my job in the military I believe your content is very important to read because unfortunately the world revolves around money even though it's all made up and the points don't matter! Thanks and have a nice day
Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and generous comment. I really appreciate how you pushed back while also being open to the ideas in the piece bc that’s what makes any of this worthwhile!
To just hit on one of your many excellent points - I totally agree that STEM fields can be deeply creative (and I tried to highlight that nuance in the piece by explicitly saying that I know many creative engineers but perhaps should have been more explicit!) My critique wasn’t of the fields themselves, but of the structures that make students feel like those are the only viable options. That creativity is often still there - it’s just being funneled into very specific containers, and curiosity that doesn’t lead to immediate ROI feels harder to justify. Which is understandable… but still kind of heartbreaking.
Your point about charisma in politics hit too. It is frustrating how often competence and curiosity are overshadowed by confidence and volume.
The experiences you've had give you such a unique lens. I hope you keep sharing it.
Thanks for reading and replying!
This article was both incredibly sobering and motivating as I have began thinking deeply about how important curiosity is for career success but it seems for the world at large. It’s interesting to me that a lot of people are really good memorization but not so much at application. I was in the international baccalaureate program in my high school which taught me a lot of about critical thinking and the world at large. Some of my classmates have gone on to be incredible thinkers and advocates in their fields. And some of them probably used it to help them check the next box on achievement. It does pain me to think that the higher thinking and more Socratic method of learning I was given was only available to the “really smart” kids and I think that’s hurting us as a society. But some of the really smart kids can recite a fact in great detail but fail to connect it to broader themes or understand how it can have implications on many things. Lots to think about. And it feels nice to know that thinking and thinking critically is a form of resistance.
I don't think you read the article about Zuckerberg and the FTC lawsuit. He did not get the fine moved to $450 million. That is what he asked for instead of the $30 billion the FTC offered. The FTC rejected Zuckerberg's offered and told Trump not to agree to it. Zuckerberg then offered $1 billion and that didn't work. The point of the article is that nothing Zuckerberg did to donate to Trump or talk to him helped and now the trial has started. It's the exact opposite of what you're implying the WSJ wrote about. The WSJ's point was nothing Zuckerberg did helped gain favor with the Trump administration.
That was my mistake! I did read it, but far too quickly. I have edited the piece to address that error, with a note saying so. Thank you.
As others have written, I think this article is illuminating and well-argued. One bit of color I would like to add, while I agree with many of the examples you've provided, I think there is a contrary movement within the country in which we've learned to take on too much risk. As much as our culture rewards compliance, we are also seeing the proliferation of habits like crypto, meme stock trading, buy now pay later and simply gambling in general. It seems that a large portion of our country, in particular young men, have gotten terrible at assessing risk and are investing themselves into these fairly insecure practices. If I am to guess as to why attitudes towards these examples don't match up to those provided in the articles, it's that they are framed as get rich quick schemes, thus viewed as a shortcut to the goal we are told we will achieve through compliance in more traditional institutions.