Vale Wikipedia

This is a post in response to a kind of mental chafing, where a thought gets lodged in my brain and gets me irritated, so I'm purging it here.

I've never had no money, I've never struggled so much financially that I've failed to donate to the wikimedia foundation. Wikipedia is so fucking great.

I also remember how it was treated:

'Tis but a sketch, from Collegehumor no-less, published some time in 2009-10. But this was a popular meme that went around when Wikipedia emerged as one of the internet's most visited sites.

In some ways, when wikipedia was a story, it was just archetypal. Like it's essentially the same thing as this low-rent Conan sketch about Google's attempt at a self-driving car. Similarly, I can recall going to Sustainability events around the same time, and people would talk about creating a global wiki-government through grassroots citizen participation to address climate-change and other utopian optimism much like some people talk about "AI" now curing cancer and solving climate change etc now.

What was different though, and what is so irritating, is that people disparaged wikipedia as unreliable, and wikipedia was great and cheap and free and ad-free, and while just about every other contemporary platform has gotten worse from Google-search to Amazon to Facebook etc. Wikipedia remains terrific.

ChatGPT puts wikipedia, and reddit and newsmedia and whatever else into a blender, then uses an incredible amount of resources, something like 10x or 100x the energy of doing a google search and then just clicking on the wikipedia link. Gemini produces for you, a worse and less reliable result than the wikipedia article, and yet...

For me a literally unfathomable amount of money has been poured into promoting just this application of generative LLMs. That's the big difference, using a little hyperbole license, it's fairish to say nobody invested in wikipedia in any financial sense. A community produced a social good, which was great because it updates constantly, but is also checked constantly to enforce community standards. ChatGPT 4.whatever now has a crappy little message at the bottom to disclaim that the content may not be acurate. If you go to a wikipedia page on a subject that few people are interested in, there will be a big box up the top warning you that the article has numerous problems with it. Claims will be followed by "[citation needed]" there's a talk page where you can see conspiracy fiction fans demanding answers as to why the subject of a page has to be introduced as a "pseudo-scientist" and "conspiracy theorist".

I can only speak for myself, but my direct experience of the ease of adoption of Wikipedia into my life vs. the friction it was given by the media and contrasting that to the continual attempts to force me to adopt "AI" features from companies burning money to try and fuel this revolution and with literally pretty much every business exec in the world desperate to believe it will soon help them reduce headcount and hyperscale their output.

It's ridiculous. It's a ridiculous time to be alive. I don't think generative LLMs have no use cases, I don't think it will, nor needs to be "uninvented". I think the returns on investment just aren't there and it vies with Private Credit as a herald of the next GFC-like market collapse when we have enough data now, that we are really just waiting for silicon valley to admit the "AI revolution" is just the latest in a 12~13 year series of dud investments, but now interest rates aren't 0% they need returns.

Hail to Wikipedia. The Queen ain't dead yet, the rest of the internet just about is though.

The Problem of Small Folk

 Relax, this will have nothing to do with genocide or eugenics I promise.

A Salute to the Ordinary

Congratulations, you are an ordinary, or modal (most frequently occuring) person. One of them at least, of the many many ways to be modal, you like me, are probably most. Neglected by "The Great Man" theory of history, "successologist" podcast hosts, but celebrated by brutal dictators and wannabe totalitarians as a pretext for crushing their "elite" political rivals and the subject of "slice of life" comics, indie movies and zines where ordinary people learn to grow by leading ordinary lives, gathering the necessary personal growth to successful get a life, largely not worth paying attention to, back on track.

This is a pleb:

Distributing Bread to the Plebians By Marie-Lan Nguyen (2011), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16958883

These are ordinary people, trying to live fulfilling and largely unassuming lives. They probably had dreams, dreams of a bread buffet or something, and maybe an entirely paved or cobbled road to walk to their field on so they didn't get flecks of mud sticking to their calves. 

Good decent folk, not the great men and women of history, but the modal people whose collective economy likely defined the course of history more so than the decisions of leadership, but both equally being largely products of their environments.

And in the spirit of inclusivity, although in some broad sense members of the LBGTQIA+ community could never be called modal, along with people in the disability space; with respect to the singular dimension of honesty, minorities too are likely to have this in common with the mode.

Most people are pretty honest. Not necessarily informed or competent, but honest. Decent. If they say they will do something, we can pretty safely assume they reasonably expected themselves to do it, and failures to do so can mostly be attributed to a failure in competence of either the situational analysis or communication. (Like when they would do the dishes.)

I'm going to examine now, but one problem - and let me be deliberate with my wording - we face in the emergent property of society. That is one of dishonesty.

I'm going to start tossing out some premises.

Premise 1: Most people are mostly honest.

Size equals relative population

There appears to be some research that supports this, though how cross-cultural it is I don't know. It is consistent with Pareto distributions though where we can expect something like 15% of the lies are told by 85% of the population. This premise of course implies a second premise.

Premise 2: A few people lie a lot.

This then would be the roughly 15% of the people, who tell about 85% of the lies. (the little red guy in the image above)

Hopefully so far, not only are their studies to kind of suggest these premises hold up to empirical observation, but with the high likelihood that you are in many ways a modal person, with an unassuming life, it also conforms to your experience - that most people are basically honest, and a few people stand out for being unusually deceptive, in a way that isn't just fraught, but also kind of weird.

Their being two-faced is noteworthy to you, know what I'm saying. You see them behave dishonestly, and it leaves you with a kind of greasy remorse for a while, wondering if you should have said or done something.

Premise 3: Projection is a very common psychological phenomena.

Now, I'm an odd duck that is of the opinion that when most people talk about 'empathy' they are most likely referring to 'projection' and that this premise is not to suggest most people lie about their empathic ability, but rather most people don't think too much about empathy or projection, would not know what empathy feels like as distinct from what projection feels like; and routinely confuse the two just through sheer incompetence.

No the relevance is, that if you are basically honest, you are also likely to project that honesty onto others. This would result in behaviour like taking people at their word. A behaviour that is adaptive, because most people are honest, and so they basically say what they do for most ordinary claims. So they say they'll brush their teeth, then they brush their teeth. There's no need, or at least no benefit, to scrutinizing if they do indeed do what they say.

In the above image, the "big guy" is projecting their own blue honesty onto others, for the most part (4 of the little guys) this projection is as good as empathy, they are projecting honest behaviour onto people who behave honestly, but the one little red guy also has honesty projected onto him. This likely is the what is happening when we come across someone who doesn't just lie chronically, but also isn't even very good at lying, and once we wise up and ask "how do they get away with it?" it is likely because most people don't even look for deceptive behaviour.

But the same is true of liars, they also project, and as a result they tend to not take people at their word which in their case, has little benefit, it is mostly cost as they scrutinize the actions of people, too ready to jump on the slightest deviation from their stated claims, but most of this time and energy is wasted. 

In this shitty image, from the perspective of the big red guy, the liar, dude projects his own deceptiveness onto both the honest majority, and his fellow lying minority. This somewhat protects him from other's deception, but may also explain rationalizations from manipulative people like "everyone does it, don't be so naive." 'n' shit.

Premise 4: Manipulators use rationalization as a psychological defense.

Straight from the last part of the last premise, someone who lies, needs to feel in some way okay with their behaviour of lying. There are many means by which to get there, but the one I shall focus on is a form of self-deception where those few liars, lie to themselves with the rationalization "everybody lies" you know, the motto of Dr House M.D. who was himself a chronic liar to facilitate his abuse of pain medication. He even lies in one season about having brain cancer in order to get a cool drug injected directly into his brain.

There is likely to be other determinants to this premise - like selection bias, confirmation bias and survivorship bias. Basically, the liar justifies this self serving world view of seeing liars everywhere in order to justify their own deception as tit-for-tat, by ignoring the abundant data suggesting that people are basically honest and decent.

Indeed, since the truth tends to out, they likely naturally migrate into silos we might describe as "cesspools" where their estimation "everybody lies" comes to ring true, though should be properly read as "everybody I associate with lies."

Conclusion: That's How Plebs get Got.

They project basic decency onto predators, who due to their low numbers can sustain extracting large prices for this naivete - in the form of scams that ruin their marks financially and what not, or setting them up to take the fall for the cumulative damages of their persistent lying.

If you think about, for example, how many people hold jobs for a number of years. Their jobs wind up having little resemblance to their position descriptions for which they were hired, and their job titles. Much of the arrangement they depend on to house, feed and clothe themselves are informal. They don't consult lawyers or get advice, they are given a great deal of autonomy etc. 

These situations arise, because most people are ordinary, ordinary and decent. The sheer abundance of ordinary decent people, mean in most cases a police state is too costly, so bad actors can often just walk right in, unquestioned.

I'll go out on a limb, and assert that most of what we do is informal. For example, my immigration status is rarely checked, if ever. Even when I've been an illegal immigrant. My tertiary qualifications can be obtained with 50% passing grades, so which half of my qualification do I know? Then apply the half life of knowledge, and we are looking at a situation where most of most working professional's education and training comes informally from learning on the job etc.

Now, the above is likely an unsound and invalid soliloquy, let's get to the problem of the small folk in respect to deception.

First Problem - There's Good Information, but it's Useless

An ordinary person, can be well equipped to spot lies, flattery and bullshit and know what appropriate course of action to take, with excellent resources we already have and have had for a long time.

We have Josef Pieper's "Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power" an essay, really, an ordinary person could read it in an afternoon, and of particular note and worth, is Pieper's take on flattery, psuedo-reality, manipulation and the costs it imposes.

Then there is "On Bullshit" the 1985 essay still holds up. With a particularly valuable contribution to the subject by pointing out the difference between a lie, and bullshit. The difference between lying to someone, and bullshitting someone.

Then there is Sam Harris' booklet, on lying, where he attempts to reproduce the value he got, from a single philosophy subject and where he argues about how lying pretty much never produces the best outcome. Even in extremis, where a lie might save someone's life, he points out that this merely kicks the can up the road, and the life-threatener will have to be dealt with, at some point, by someone. He extends it to lying about medical diagnoses, and about lying to kids about Santa.

But these all reek of solutions, not a problem, so what is the first problem? Well it's some combination of the fact that most ordinary people, just aren't going to read that shit, they don't see it as an investment of time when there is me-time - self soothing through consumption and diversion. There are urgent things to do, and there are incentivised things to do like school and work. But even if we leveraged institutions like school and work to make learning about lying mandatory through simple and accessible texts like the three I've mentioned, people wouldn't apply these learnings, in the same way that telling people hamburgers and soft-drinks aren't good for them, nor dignified, they know it, it doesn't stop them. I can't stop.

People don't get exposed to information, update their beliefs and translate that into action with anywhere near the efficiency a naive belief in strong-media effects assumes. And ordinary people in my experience tend to massively overestimate the effects of media, confusing their feeling bad because they don't conform to beauty or other esteem ideals, with the world where such effects were powerful where they would feel worse relentlessly pursuing those ideals because the media effected them so.

The number of people who really descend into body dysmorphia because of media, I suspect would in the wash, turn out to be similar in proportion to the number of people who improve their lives in some way, by putting into effect good advice they read in a book: as in like 1~2% of the population who change up their habits without an imposition by the external environment. It's just one group is acting on bad media, the other on good media.

Second Problem - The Machiavelli Constraint

The Prince may be, one of the most valuable books still in print. People don't read "Mein Kampf" so the closest we have is "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli.

However, I can't claim and wouldn't assert that "The Prince" is misunderstood. I'm not sure if it can be understood. The author's intent appears to be the loser Machiavelli a deposed and exiled statesman making a sales pitch to Lorenzo di Medici to say he'd make a really good consultant and can he please come back from the countryside now. 

Centuries later, this brown-nosing letter purporting to be expert advice from a statesman to the statesman that defeated and deposed him, is considered mandatory reading for Europe's ruling elite. A youngish "Old Fritz" being Prince Frederick II of Prussia, an awesome homosexual, writes a pamphlet critiquing "The Prince" from the perspective of an actual statesman, who will go on to be more successful at running a state than either Niccolo Machiavelli or Lorenzo di Medici. His buddy, Voltaire, decides to publish this pamphlet as "Antimachiavelli" and it makes a valuable text even more valuable, by pointing out how stupid some of Niccolo's suggestions are, and rejecting the overall thesis that it is in anyway necessary to be an asshole.

Leaving us with a text that I still think is valuable.

What I feel is most valuable, is that Machiavelli is doing some of the earliest work that will later be expanded upon by Bonhoeffer and Cipolla - he is whether he intends it or not, saying, look assholes exist, we cannot operate a state successfully that doesn't take into account assholes.

Poo-poo Alain de Botton's School of Life all you like and its $75 calming candle merch, his video "Machiavelli's Advice for Nice Guys" is the best approach in terms of extracting value from The Prince. Basically it is saying "when they go low, don't go high." I've read the Prince a bunch of times, there's no explicit advice that can be interpreted as "when they go low, you go lower" it is rather most explicit in "keep an eye on all these shenanigans."

Now the bind for nice guys, and modal people, when it comes to deception, is to go looking for evidence of deception, is likely to show up the same in your behaviour as deceptive people's projection of deceptiveness onto the population as large.

You will come across as untrusting, and this in turn, is behaviour from which you and others may infer, that you are unlikely to be trustworthy.

Unforch, this is one of those situations that I think is like insurance.

Insurance Companies

Insurance companies are pretty solid businesses. They tend to be profitable. They are profitable because they are charging more in premiums than they pay out in claims. They figure the chance of you being hung, drawn and quartered is pretty low, so for $1000 a month they will insure you against the event of being hanged drawn and quartered for $10,000,000.

They do the same with the chances of you being stuck in an MRI machine in the US, or having your home and contents burn down. Most people, never experience their house burning to the ground in their lifetimes (apologies California, but it's not like you can get insurance anymore...) but they pay home and contents insurance.

Why? Well because having your house burn down or being rushed to a US hospital can ruin you for life. Wipe you out in one hit, game over man, game over. You dead as Bill Paxton.

I'm asserting this is the same situation ordinary people face with deceptive people - their lies can wipe you out in one hit. So you just have to maintain all the costs on an ongoing basis to mitigate that threat. This is reading contracts, not signing them before you have asked yourself if you should run them by a lawyer, insisting that suss directions be communicated in writing, documenting who said what and who is to do what by when. 

Basically, investing in making life as costly and difficult as possible for liars to operate in. Because if their lies get them in trouble, they will tell another to make their trouble, your trouble. Aka scapegoating.

So that's the rub, that's the bind, but the bigger picture is - ordinary modal people have virtually no chance. This is just one thing, and I don't fancy the chances of say, this post going viral, most people reading up on some accessible and insightful texts on lying, and migrating their cognitive behaviour from "that's weird, something doesn't feel right" to "nope, unacceptable. Let's not see where this goes."

All of this is unlikely and it is comparative chicken feed to the problems ordinary people face as a result of their economic literacy.

Hoo mama.

Beyond Left and Right the future of discourse in a post-intelligible world "by" Judith Butler, Josef Peiper et al.

 Now what do I mean by "by" well that depends on what YOU mean by "mean"? [looks smug]

But practically speaking, I mean in plain English "not by" when I put the word "by" in scare quotes for the purpose of signalling my personal disdain for sophistry.

I want to write about the usefullness of "left-right" distinctions. 

For example if you watch media content that is critical of Elon Musk, the state of Israel and its prosecution of it's counteroffensive in the Gaza strip, Boris Johnson's prime-minister ship, and American government responses to school shootings OR you watch media content that is principally in support of Elon Musk's DOGE agenda, defends Israel's right and necessity to defend itself against Hamas, expresses sceptical views as to Labours' ability to address the problems created by the long tenure of the Conservative party in the UK, and expresses concern about taxing the rich due to capital flight, you have probably heard a sponsorship for "Ground News" where regardless of their own political bias, your podcast host be it Adam Conover or Coleman Hughes has talked about how much they love Ground News' "Blindspot" feature, and you have been impressed by how effective Ground News is at overcoming media bias and allowing its users get to the truth by the observable convergance of both left and right biased commentators converging on a neutral editorial stance of reporting objective facts that describe reality.

Again, I'm being facetious. There is an even simpler and more cost effective way to avoid being misinformed by media - and that is to consumer less media. Especially under conditions of an attention economy, which is our present media reality. If this is not clear enough to you, I am attempting to make the simple observation that given the probability that any piece of data is in fact misinformation the simplest way to reduce misinformation is to take in less data. 

By analogy, if 8 out of 10 apples were poisoned by the evil queen, you could buy a cheap "apple poison testing kit" or even cheaper, you just stop eating apples, much as is most people's policy towards eating puffer fish.

I do want to point you to Australian comedian and ALP shill "Friendly Jordies" video about Ground News, and in particular where he makes an argument that if Ground News scrapped the Left-Right analysis of news sources and replaced it with Astrology, it may be a more valuable service for its subscribers.

The Catch-22

Obviously, Left v Right has predictive power. Eg. if you know where someone stands on gun control, you generally know where they stand on abortion. People do cluster their beliefs into baskets largely driven by habit and sensitivity. 

"Left" and "Right" likely don't mean much in coherent intelligible terms, and of course they remain relative, such that it's possible for someone to be the right-wing faction of the anarchist collective, and another person to be a left-wing pope.

But though these terms may remain approximately right where "Left" can conjure pictures of a grey and drainbow haired Coburg lesbian in birkenstocks with an "Always was always will be" embroidery patch ironed on to her tweed jacket using her e-bike with dual kid-seats to ride the Upfield line shared bike-pedestrian path to deliver her kids to Steiner school, and "Right" can conjure a Toorak boomer driving their Porsche Toureg SUV to the opposite corner of their Townhouse block to meet at the new AFL player owned wine-bar to complain with their friends about the outlandish 1% capital improved value land tax on their $13M property being outrageous; they prevent discussing all the ways in which the members of these two market segments are alike, and simply causing an intractable power struggle that doesn't solve anything while a clock is ticking.

The Dependence on Not Understanding

Australia's recent elections were dramatic enough for me to pay attention. While the polling generally accurately forecast the "coalition" being the Liberal party, The National party and Queensland's Hapsburgian Liberal National Party losing, they lost quickly and the Liberal component of the coalition in particular could be described without hyperbole as being annihilated. 

However, since the election, News mastheads have proffered post-hoc explanations for just what went wrong that I believe are a concise and practical example of Upton Sinclair's pithy observation:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ~ Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked

I assert that while Sinclair's assessment has broad applications it applies specifically to Australian newsmedia's post election coverage, particularly in the analysis of where the ALP went right, and the Liberal Party went wrong. Articles like, but not limited to: "This election result shows Labor learned a lesson that the Coalition did not" by Laura Tingle for the ABC, "Australia rejected the Dutton-Murdoch agenda, now we’ll see if Labor does the same" by Amy Remeikis for the New Daily, "‘Far worse than Morrison’: where did the Coalition lose the election?" by Krishani Dhanji and Nick Evershed for the Guardian etc. and I should point out that news media with paywalls like Australian broadsheet The Age/Sydney Morning Herald are no better, but I can't be bothered linking to examples that are just paywalls and given their value can remain safely behind paywalls.

I'm not suggesting you seriously invest your time reading and understanding the above examples, though you are obviously free to. 

The conceit however, is this idea that in for example, an election the candidates put proposed policy or "election promises" out into the public domain, and then journalists employing specific areas of expertise analyse this data, processing it into valuable information that is then purchased by their consumer base who value it in terms of making informed predictions and projections useful to their decision making process as to how to cast their vote or some bullfuck.

In practice, it seems likely to me, as reflected in the polls that the election result while having multiple determinants is most easily explained by the US Trump administration's media event "Liberation Day" on April 2, (April 3 in Australia which is located in the future) and the subsequent destruction of wealth following market reactions - net-present-revaluations of assets given the probability of the announced Tariffs being implemented.

By Canley – get the code and data - Own work. Data is from the polling tables at w:Opinion polling for the 2025 Australian federal election., CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=130997458

Now the scale of the above image is a little small, but what we can see above is that for some reason on the two-party preferred basis, the coalition (in blue) were leading the polls up until January 2025, then coincidently as 2025 progressed and the RBA cut interest rates, which informed news consumers should understand has nothing to do with the Federal government as the RBA's monetary policy is based on target inflation and target employment and operates independently to the government, polls seem to indicate that coincidently for some reason, voters in aggregate grow less disgruntled with the incumbent ALP and less enchanted with the challening Coalition. 

Then on April 2nd, coincidently after the Trump administration announces wealth destroying Tariffs on uninhabited islands and China alike, the polls begin to diverge wildly into a massive landslide victory for the ALP.

Journalist George Monbiot sat down with comedian Richard Herring for a bookclub-style podcast and explains a folklore of how politics work, particularly how "the great majority of voters have no useful information whatsoever" now he cites an example of an election outcome effected by shark attacks that are dubious, and his qualifications render this interview opinion but I feel the opinion is broadly right and I like depictions of the reality of voters in Netflix series "The Politician" that even in a high-school context indicates the complete mutual disengagement between voters and campaigning politicians, and adman Bob Hoffman when discussing the three-word-ad-brief talking about how fame is the greatest predictor of political campaign success, not content.

So I better conclude this point rather than continue to overdetermine it. The news has this conceit that their income depends on, that all their reporting on the content of proposed policy in political campaigns is somehow useful and as such valuable and hence their salaries are justified. And so, it is almost impossible that something like the news, regardless of left-wing or right-wing bias, can come to understand itself the subjects on which they write about - like how an election was won or lost, or what is causing the housing affordability crisis, because if the news media understood how little value they actually offer, they could not in good conscious continue to operate.

It is very similar to Noam Chomsky's description of Post-modernist academia whom, cannot make a career out of stating simple truisms like "women are underrepresented in STEM disciplines" that are as obvious to a tenured professor as they are to the janitor that empties their wastepaper basket, you wind up having to write these painfully obvious truisms in an abusive style of language exemplified by Judith Butler.

Ideology

I am not going to claim I share an understanding of what "ideology" is that is shared by experts on the subject, and I leave it to you to do at least a cursory reading of it's wikipedia page and assess what I'm asserting.

What I'm asserting though, is based on describing observed behaviours of what I'm calling ideologues, being people who behave as though they possess an ideology. 

These people tend to approach the world as though some persistent wicked problem society faces (eg. inequality, violence, stupidity, environmental degradation, economic mismanagement and existential angst) are solved problems, which is to say, we have the answers, widely known answers.

This further presents as behaviour consistent with a held belief that the only reason these problems are not resolved is simply lack of commitment. 

What I personally think of as "the infinite recourse to lack of commitment" renders the beliefs of ideology unfalsifiable, which is to say, ideologues struggle to entertain the possibility that they are wrong, and that perhaps we collectively endure ongoing problems because we collectively do not as yet understand the true nature of the problem. This is what makes them so annoying, regardless of the content of their beliefs, but not just annoying, dangerous too.

Authoritarianism

I will now assert that ever holding the hand of any "infinite recourse to lack of commitment" is authoritarianism, it is a natural pairing like pork and fennel, lamb and rosemary, beef and pepper and chicken and bacon. I'd hesitate, but I'd be open to somebody smarter than I suggesting that more than a pairing, they are basically synonyms, like knowledge and wisdom.

This framework allows us to compare, for example 21st Century Wahhabism to Byzantine Iconoclasm as authoritarian ideologies despite being competing Abrahamic religions and movements separated by a millennia. 

But we can also use this framework to make useful analogies between radical feminism and Wahhabism despite the seeming vast left-right gulf between them. 

Copping to any potential allegations of shit-stirring but I've had this story open on my browser now for quite some time that I think is useful in talking about authoritarianism:

She Matters memorial to women who allegedly died by violence defaced in Melbourne's Hosier Lane

On the surface, looking at this news story in sheer practical terms, it is a pretty open-and-shut, one-sided affair. The memorial was defaced by a crude throw-up piece of graffiti reading "war on men" for which the obvious and reasonable inference is that some dickhead who feels angry and persecuted defaced an expression of a popular cause with a highly unpopular one, with any charitable interpretation of a "war" on men a very weak one.

But the real characteristic of authoritarianism, is that because ideologues believe in "solved" problems, and that these problems persist simply due to a lack of commitment, discussion cannot be tolerated because discussion is the real problem a symptom of a lack of commitment, that can spread like a contagion. The time to act is assumed to be now, and the time for discussion is assumed to be somewhere in the past.

Now, had the defacer not been some sexist dickhead, I want you to entertain the following shit-stirring scenario. That instead of hastily throwing up pitiful victimology, they had papered over the memorial of women victims of mortal violence, with infants who had died from diseases.

I put it to you, this this would not be a cut-and-dry news story to cover. I would estimate, that an argument that covering one memorial with another was actually disingenuous would win out, but it would be much much harder to cover and finesse than a story about something popular being defaced with something shit.

While I am capable of thinking like Niccolo Machiavelli, I am rarely if ever Machiavellian in my practices. I rarely visit Hosier Lane, I don't give much of a shit about Hosier lane, I am not interested in graffiti turf wars, nor graffiti terf wars, and I am not encouraging anyone to wage war with MRA stupidity nor Machiavellian cunning.

Indeed, if you had not gathered already, what I am opposed to is authoritarianism. I am not pro-it. As such, what I want, what motivates me to use this shit-stirring hypothetical, is discussion, for example:

"[Ms Moody] said graffiti-protection paint would be used to try to stop it from being damaged in the future, and she was considering hiring a security guard to watch over the mural until the protective layer dried."

Kudos points to you, if you can identify the irony in using graffiti-protection paint in Hosier Lane, to prevent graffiti being used in Melbourne, possibly Australia's most famous graffiti destination.

When I was in Rome circa 2007 I took a guided tour of the Colosseum, and my tour guide, so keep in mind the appeal to authority fallacy here, stated that the Vatican appropriated marble from the Colosseum to build St Peter's Basilica on the pretext that Christians had been persecuted in the Colosseum so the marble was taken as part reparations for pre-Holy Roman Empire's persecution of Christians. Now how true this claim is, I don't know, but hopefully an engaged mind presented with some Renaissance Pope's alleged argument can instantly start picking holes in it.

Similarly, I've lived in Mexico for 4 years, a country where roughly 1% of its population has disappeared since 2007. I ran the streets at night in my provocative outfits, and though I'm using an availability heuristic here, more ubiquitous than sculptural renderings of place names in downtowns, are "She Matters" style memorials of disappeared people of the sun made of their actual "have you seen..." pro forma missing persons posters pasted up on buildings, but most prominently recreated in larger poster/banner form and used to cover prominent "glorietas" or what English speakers would call roundabouts. In Guadalajara where I lived, the "Glorieta de los Ninos Heros" had been popularly appropriated to become "Glorieta de las y los desapericidos"

And for those of you who habla espanol at least as bad as I do, you may notice and infer from "las y los" a political bias that I would emphasize is not what I am interested in here, and much more interested in moving beyond, because the left-right analysis has in my arrogant opinion, been successfully used by authoritarians to divide and conquer the anti-authoritarian.

Because I can segue, just watch me, from the Glorieta de los Ninos Heros to Parque Rojo in Guadalajara that got appropriated by capatilism. The herald of this capatilist conquest, was feminist capatilism, some feminists cordoned off a corner of this public park, I can no longer recall if it is every Saturday or Sunday, with a market that was "women only" a safe space for women to browse macramé, crystals, jewellery, second hand clothes and books etc. They went as far with the cordon as to have security consisting of angry young women, not necessarily intimidating, but as effective as black-shirts, brown-shirts or the red guard, for the majority of non-confrontation seeking members of the general public.

Within a year, I would guess, this public park, once a multi-use space where people gathered to catch up, eat, rollerblade, skate, practice yoga, hold yoga classes, teach circus skills like juggling and tightrope walking etc. became edge-to-edge market stalls of which the women only section was a tiny sliver. It was a good market, popular even, but at what cost? This was a popular capitalist privatisation of a communal good - a public park.

Just as I can't fault the enterprising capitalists on strategic grounds for turning the commons into a thriving economic enterprise, I can't fault on strategic grounds Sherele Moody for appropriating a significant portion of one of Melbourne's most popular and promoted tourist attractions for a cause she and others believe in, for, I will charitably assume, as long as the problem of femicides persists (aka, realistically in perpetuity, but ideologically until sufficient awareness is raised to generate sufficient commitment to the ideology's assumed known solution.)

What I am critical of, is the status quo that accepts the actions of ideologues and forfeits discussion actively. Here we can return to objectively assess the usefulness of Ground News, with a search on "Hosier Lane" producing 5 news sources that covered the defacing of the "She Matters" memorial. Ground News' functionality tells me in this case study, that the coverage leaned 67% left, as in two of the three of the five sources that Ground News tracks for bias, lean left. I do not need to unlock extra features to assume that the right-biased source likely stuck to the facts. Because of a paywall, the only thing I can't see, but feel again I can safely assume, is that none of the coverage gave any significant consideration to the "war on men" position, by perhaps citing any statistics on how male violence effects men compared to women, and then perhaps pointing out that while generally men are far more directly affected by male violence, women suffer more psychologically - as in men go to the pub and wind up dead because they spilt another man's beer, but had up until that fateful confrontation not lived their lives in dread anticipation of their likely death at another man's hands, whereas women grip their keys in their hands as an improvised defensive weapon, and make obligatory phone calls while walking the streets at night, in the expectation that even while taking precautions a man is likely to kill them. 

Now certainly, an interesting discussion is to be had about capitalisms seizure of Parque Rojo, and even Christian capitalism's seizure of Parque Refugio for 3 straight months to sell Christmas ornaments, Nativity ceramics and Christmas trees, and I would be far less vulnerable to the authoritarian rhetorical strategy of questioning my motives in choosing the "She Matters" mural as my case study.

The reason I am drawn to it, and flag my own choice as shit-stirring, is because of the rhetorical power of "surely everyone agrees femicide is bad" because most everyone, including me, does. Where the difference lies, and the power of the case studies, is that we have ideologues who think that there is simply nothing to discuss about the She Matters memorial, and then there's fuckwits like me, who from the perspective of authoritarian ideologues stir up shit, not just unnecessarily, but antagonistically by wanting to know more about the manners of graffiti and street art, like among the graffiti subculture on what grounds does somebody claim wall space? how long can they reasonably ask of the community to occupy that space with their art? at what opportunity cost is the "She matters" mural installed in Hosier Lane with respect to other worthwhile causes? how are we to arrive at a consistent position with the defacing of "She matters" in Hosier Lane, and the defacing/destruction of the Banksy piece(s) in Tattersalls/ACDC lane? how does it compare to the Catholic Church's seizure of Orsanmichele grain market in Florence? (Again as explained to me by a tour guide, someone painted a picture of the Virgin Mary graffiti style, then later someone attributed a miracle to the painting and the Church used it as pretext to seize the premises. There seems to be some truth to this telling, though Ground News' non-existent "Catholic bias" feature can't tell me whether the authors gloss over the questionable behaviour of their own ideological institutions...)

Like I could go on, and because I can go on, my motivations can be questioned as to whether my intent is to filibuster progress perhaps via concern trolling consistent with the strategies of general sabotage outlined by the OSS (precursor to the CIA) which of course to ideologues, has to be the case because the time for discussion is over, femicide is a public health emergency, for which to use George W Bush terminology we have been on amber-alert for roughly all of human history, but was solved, presumably, by the social scientists, sometime in the late 20th-early 21st century and simply lacks commitment.

But to reject one extreme is not by necessity to endorse another, I am not saying no action can be taken by anyone on anything until all concerns have been addressed, I am saying that some discussion would be nice, if for no cause higher than it being diverting, as stated I don't particularly care about Hosier Lane, I think the de facto seizure of public space in a prime tourist location for a permanent installation without due process or public discussion is a triumph for an activist like Ms Moody. 

And then, what if at the opposite end of the lane, someone installs a memorial for those killed by Russia's invasion of Ukraine? 

My stated motivation, is that I see a problem with how we even begin to discuss such a development, due to the precedents established by righteous-idealogues.

Simples

By which I mean, useful distinctions are actually fairly simple in terms of separating out ideologues from the rest of the spectrum. Solving the problem is hard, because I would guesstimate, most people are authoritarian ideologues, it is a naive intuition, a default state. 

I tend to think of the dichotomy of single vs double. Single what? Double what? Why standards of course.

It's just that easy.

A few people believe in single standards, for example that everyone who makes an assertion is obliged to expose their assertions to questions, and defend their assertions against questions with arguments.

Ideologues tend to operate a double-standard where they are fucking Socrates when it comes to people they disagree with, but defending the detail of their own ideology is beneath their dignity, and can be freely dismissed.

That is but one example, but the pattern of toxic behaviour is the double-standard, that ties woke activists into the same bundle as christian nationalists. Wahhabis with Marxists, because we aren't wrong, we just haven't achieved the necessary level of commitment.

But in my experience, free speech, is for most people, simply too complicated and counterintuitive a concept to understand. Another example, most people through word and deed, cannot demonstrate to me that they even understand what was bad about the Nazis. They appear to think it was the whiteness, the swastikas, the toothbrush moustache (even though they are aware of Charlie Chaplin, and even "The Great Dictator") the salute, but curiously not the Germanicness.

And on this front, I am not myself, an ideologue. I suspect double-standards are a wicked problem, and moral progress/regress will forever be on amber-alert. I have a personal resolution to move away from left-right tribalism, but I am open to discussion as to why this may not be a sound strategy, at this point I am still gathering data.

I suspect a large obstacle is the robustness of Hanlon's Razor, I recently stumbled across a perfect example where in a New York times Podcast on "Modern Love" interviewed marriage therapist Terry Real where at one point, I infer incompetence rather than malice the interviewer asks on behalf of I guess, the audience, why Terry would dedicate resources to men, given their privilege.

This is just a specific example of ideologue behaviour, particularly in its tribal manifestations of us-them. I can only guess, but the journalist probably believes in doctrinal ideas like sins-of-the-father, and is using group identities as the prism of their understanding, they express a similar sentiment to the objection to addressing school bullying, by attempting to give identified bullies roles and responsibilities that will improve their esteem in socially constructive ways - for example designating the bully the task of welcoming other students to class. Allegedly parents object to "rewarding" bullies in such a way, because they see a role that is identical to that of the lowly esteemed Walmart greeters as prestigious like a prefect or class captain.

In the same way, the journalist seeing men and masculinity as the problem, appears to have the naive intuitions of justice manifest as this being only legitimately addressed by the apportioning of more resources into women, unable to conceive that apportioning resources to men could result in women as beneficiaries.

If you will, ideologues appear to make incompetence driven errors akin to "if the husband is sick why should he get the medicine? Give it to the wife as reward for her being healthy."

This is really bleak behaviour, and I just, at a personal level, want to chip away at it. This post is not about feminism, and if you can parse it, hopefully you'd agree with me it's not anti-feminism but pro.

My problem with the left is that they are too conservative and authoritarian, and my problem with the right is that they are not being conservatives and have gone radical and authoritarian. I am left of you all and attack via the narcissism of small differences. 

Authoritarian ideologues have done tremendous damage if for no other reason than their ineffectual and incompetent management has wasted precious time and resources with an unserious approach to serious issues that need addressing.

Lamba out.

On Seriousness

 Somewhere, right now, a silver haired grown man who spent most of his life wearing shoes that need polishing, slacks and shirts that need ironing is doomscrolling a feed of bullshit tik-tok-esque videos via youtube or facebook's knock-off tik-tok functionality. 

His age wearied eyes lock onto a bullshit video that temporarily halts the swiping of his gnarled thumb. In the video short videos of people falling over or throwing a bottle so it rotates through the air and lands on its end are intercut with a "content creator" performing a "face journey" as though he is looking over there and seeing a cat sneeze only to next look over there and see a kid ride along the top of a fence on his bmx.

Juvenile, childish bullshit too readily dismissed as "harmless fun" when there is no longer anyone in our lives to regulate how much "harmless fun" we imbibe when we cannot regulate it ourselves.

So look over there > corporate cringe. And look over there > activist emoting. And now... look over there > sensationalist news. And take a peek at this > The Dutton lead coalition campaign. And take a closer look > Amelia Hamer's campaign for the seat of Kooyong.

"wow a price!" how people let themselves be talked to now.

The Liberal party had held the seat of Kooyong since basically forever. It was the seat of longest serving Prime Minister Robert Menzies. In 2010 this "safe" seat was given to candidate Josh Frydenberg:

Fresh faced at 39 in 2010

Frydenberg despite his baby face was well credentialed. His contemporary in State politics, at least for the somewhat overlapping seat of Kew was Tim Smith:

Fresh faced at 31 in 2014

Tim Smith was also, somewhat well credentialed. When his face appeared on posters in my local streets, I was frankly offended to be offered such an inoffensive nothingburger of a candidate and back in 2014 Liberals winning in Kooyong/Kew was pretty much a given.

By the time Josh Frydenberg became the first sitting federal Treasurer, and first Liberal party candidate to lose the seat of Kooyong ever, Kooyong also had birthed something else: A serious candidate to run against an incumbent Liberal in the form of Dr. Monique Ryan who as at writing, looks to be retaining her seat.

By my reading, which is by no means authoritative, Kew and Kooyong were functioning as places regarded as so predetermined to vote for the Australian conservative party that these were seats given to young prospects to feed a pipeline of future cabinet members and leaders, which both parties have/had around the country.

The incumbent is a serious person, and so naturally the Liberal's preselected:

A profoundly unserious candidate. Amelia Hamer, and knowing nothing else, which I had documented in a draft post, that I had no idea of her family connection to a former Victorian Premier for which the Melbourne Arts Center's Hamer Hall is named. 

Amelia has not yet risen to the wikipedia standards of significance such that I have any idea how old she is. I've seen some journalism suggesting that she was preselected because the party thought she might appeal to younger voters. This must be qualified with a general observation that the virtual annihilation of the Liberal Party (in particular) demonstrates that Australian journalists, are among the least informed of the Australian population. The second mandatory qualifier, is that the Liberal party's appeal to young voters is not a matter of the candidates, but the party.

I will give anyone a chance, and Amelia's chance was a flyer that I read on the train into the CBD and deposited in a recycling bin having studied its "content" thoroughly. It was by my analysis the most profoundly unserious attempt at advertising I came across. As were the ads Youtube bombarded me with of Amelia Hamer saying pretty much nothing of any substance or consequence.

While Dr. Monique's ads were not exactly profound, they at least outlined her policy positions, what she'd accomplished in her first term and that she was a doctor, who had left an important position producing social goods to seriously contest a seat that had been held continuously by one party since 1945.

By contrast I learned that Amelia was born here, and worked in banking - an industry that no longer produces social goods and is mostly engaged in arbitrage. 

Beyond that, Amelia's case consisted of claiming to be a "Strong voice for Kooyong" despite having nothing to say, and also being a member of a major party with a whip or whatever that means the people of Kooyong whatever their concerns about climate change in an affluent Eastern suburb of Melbourne Victoria, will produce not a peep when it comes to building a massive coal mine in regional Queensland because the party needs them seats.

There was also the, well, actually informative party campaign slogan "Get Australia Back on Track" though you know, what track? When did we come off it? How get? When back? The information though tells us that the Liberals have shifted from a conservative party, if they ever truly have been, to an unspecified nostalgia party. 

For me, it is very unserious to simply present oneself as standing for something, if you have no way of explaining how it is to be done. Like, let's just try to imagine this in the context of the cost of living crisis - how will the Liberal party, particularly fresh faced Amelia Hamer get the cost of living "back on track?" 

Well, this presumably involves going somehow back to a time when the cost of living was much lower, I would be inclined to pick something like the early 70s. This was when industrialized nations around the globe had powerful labour movements. Growth in production resulted in growth in real wages. People could afford housing with a single blue-collar income, with house prices being a single digit multiple of median wages. 

How is any serious person to seriously conceive of how the Australian Liberal party would achieve even a move towards such a state? It is simply impossible. 

By having the opportunity to observe behaviour, I believe I was able to make a more accurate inference from the "Back on Track" campaign slogan, for one it reeks of a conference room meeting where a bunch of hacks brainstorm up ways to rephrase "Make America Great Again" only slightly better than a complete hack in the form of Clive Palmer wasting all his money rebranding his party as the TRUMPet of Patriots, and brainstorming up the campaign slogan "Make Australia Great Again" 

But, if there was culture war issues on the agenda, I didn't fucking notice any outside of Clive Palmer's Trumpet of Patriots, who polling told me was tracking far behind One Nation, whom I heard not a peep out of.

So I assume, or infer, that by "Back on Track" the Liberals mean the track that leads to an asset rather than work based economy with growing wealth inequality and rising cost of living by redistributing the tax burden downward and public wealth (government assets) into the private sector. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not so uncynical that I think Labour will have much success turning our economic ship around, at least not in one term. But on that hand, "Building Australia's Future" while also seeming like a hackey refrasing of Hillary's "Stronger together" and Biden's "build back better" or whatever, is at least a refinement, and so likely all most voters needed in this election was "the vibe" that I think sunk the Voice Referendum in 2023. 

Enter then the narrative fallacy. Which I believe Nicholas Nassim Taleb first understood the fallacy for himself, by observing the same story told by a news channel to explain two equal and opposite phenomena. As evidence, here is reelected PM Anthony Albanese's somehow editorial view: "Australians show there’s something they care about more than cost of living":

The opposition and some others in this campaign appear to have forgotten a basic truth about Australian voters: they reject divisive politics, they will not be fooled by culture wars, they do not endorse hatred or division. ~ "The Age's View"

It is a narrative fallacy insofar as this "basic truth" also must explain the opposite outcome of 2023's "The Voice" referendum. Unless we categorize the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Voice to Parliament as an artefact of the culture wars, intended to fool the Australian public, a tool of hatred or division. 

The referendum was even more decisive than the ALPs victory over the weekend, and without being able to breach the paywall, I cannot see PM Albanese's argument. For example, as at writing not only was the Liberal party repudiated by urban election results, but also the Greens. One Nation and Trumpet of Patriots garnered a combined 8% of the National vote, more than the combined Independent vote. 

It is just my opinion, but I think this election result is best explained by the timing - the Trump Tariff wars, which serve as a global reminder that elections are consequential to the household and a vote should be taken seriously.

Do I believe Australian voters took their vote seriously? No. Not consciously. I think they just built a strong naive association between voting conservative and economic mismanagement, just as late last year around the time Biden/Kamela were ousted, the US voters built up a naive association between inflation and the incumbents, here is a good video of a comedian interviewing George Monbiot referring to a likely debunked finding that shark attacks effected the outcome of a New Jersey election in 1916 and keeping in mind that George Monbiot is a) a journalist, b) graduated from Oxford in zoology and c) cited a debunked example - the point in my opinion still stands.

For example, the Liberal Party was fairly summarily expelled from the cities. In my seat of Kooyong it voted 69.8% "yes" to changing the Australian Constitution to require by law a body to be called "The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Voice" as recognition of ATSI as the "First Peoples" of Australia that could make "representations" to Parliament on matters concerning ATSI peoples. But likely because of some rezoning to bring Toorak into the electorate, it as at writing may be one of two urban seats the Liberal party may capture.

Which makes the "devisive politics" narrative unable to explain the two opposite phenomena. Certainly in the seat of Goldstein that has been lost by a teal independent to the Liberal Party, it does not explain why they would be 56.2% in favour of The Voice and less than 1% in favour of returning to a representative of the party that withdrew its support of the Voice and likely tanked all chance of its passing. (Certainly much more so than my blog posts as to why I couldn't bring myself to vote yes, which were read by roughly 60 people and likely persuaded nobody.) 

So I offer an alternative narrative, that only stretches as far as Kooyong and Goldstein, and cannot explain for example, why Adam Bandt leader of the Greens party lost his seat of Melbourne to the ALP. These two lonely islands of electoral seats in an urban setting that are less than 1% in favour of the Liberal party after incredible spending by the party to regain the seats, were likely decided by the issue of land tax. This narrative will not be popular, because land tax is a state policy decision, not federal however, it is only as irrational as voters turning on an incumbent party because of inflation and the RBA interest rates. 

In the same way that median/modal Australian's obligatorily leveraged to their eyeballs speculating on property prices, gets angry when the RBA doesn't give them their entitlement of low interest rates in perpetuity, the affluent residents of Melbourne's inner east and bayside south, whom own multiple properties, including beach houses, country houses etc. for which in Victoria they pay a penalty vacancy land tax, are outraged by this, and for some reason, think the federal representative can do something about the fact that they may have to offload at a massive capital gain, their tying up of scarce and unproductive assets.

Now the linked article is from an ultra-left media source in the UK, where along with raging marxist lefties they a) have a tax policy toward housing speculation that looks like utopian idealism compared to Australia's with negative gearing and capital gains concessions, and b) have all these useful terms of art that Australian's simply do not use because there is no media will like "Buy-to-let" though c) such a term would be somewhat inaccurate to describe Australian property investors, who too often, buy property with no intention of letting it to anyone at all. "Buy-to-flip" and "Buy-to-develop-into-a-piece-of-shit-and-then-flip" are more likely terms.

The pertinent passage for the Kooyong-Goldstein narrative is this:

Being a landlord is not a job. Operating as a buy-to-let landlord means taking a property off the housing market and then allowing someone who needs a home to pay the mortgage on it – with the wages of their work. 

Landlords, then, don’t create housing stock. They don’t create anything – except perhaps anxiety and anger among tenants, often paying huge amounts for substandard, damp and unsafe accommodation. This is why money made from ‘landlordism’ is known as passive income.

But a passive income isn’t enough for landlords. Hamptons itself admitted that the increase in new limited companies is due to landlords realising that there’s more wealth to be hoarded this way. 

I have neither the time nor the energy to argue my case, I am simply confident I can. Again, I am sure many of the affluent elder voters of Kooyong and Goldstein conceive of themselves as exceptionally hard-working baby boomers, and it may even be true that they have worked hard, though this fact simply creates confusion for everyone. If you will Crown Prince William of the house of Windsor, for all I know works very very hard as a helicopter pilot for Sea Rescue, or whatever. But most people would never confuse the enormous wealth he stands to inherit one day as a result of the proceeds of whatever income he gets from flying a helicopter. 

Many boomers worked really hard and made tremendous personal sacrifices in order to achieve a 6 figure income at the tail end of their working lives. But the majority of their wealth derives from being born in the 1950s and having access to a property market before gens X, Y and Z where the wealthiest of them, were able to buy up and inherit real property in the 70s and 80s, when real wages basically froze and people compensated for the lack of wage growth in an economy that was becoming enormously more productive thanks to technological innovation globally driving mining booms, by speculating on house prices.

Look, I've already written two paragraphs now, but obviously not every boomer did this, most just bought a house to live in and raise their families, like housing was intended, but the wealthiest 20% of boomers, heavily concentrated in Kooyong and Goldstein and other affluent electorates, bought up property portfolios, beach houses, they likely don't let them to people who aren't blood relatives, to whom either for legitimate tax reasons they refuse to sell properties to in favour of below market rents, or for emotional control reasons refuse to sell to their children, and expect their children to buy their own properties by taking on colossal debts under the pretext of the white-collar salaries they have access to through expensive education.

Where I can save time, is by letting Gary Stevenson explain how there is no real difference between rent, interest and profit. Suffice to say, it is a subtle point that most people buying a house can miss. In an Australian context, what most people miss is that the massive premium Australians pay for home ownership, is basically giving the landlord all the rent right now, plus some, to forego their legal right to charge a private income tax to you. Furthermore the bank is also doing this, via interest. 

So I think Goldstein reverted to Libs, because of Victoria's progressive land tax policy that has kept Melbourne property markets from tracking as badly as Sydney and Brisbane/Goldcoasts. Not because it's rational, but because it is emotional. This is what I hear old affluent people complaining about out east and bayside. 

It also explains why these seats voted by much greater margins than they've flipped "Yes" for the referendum, because the Voice costs them fucking nothing. Despite all the scare mongering about any treaty coming for your houses. Indeed, culture war issues and identity politics are advantageous to the rich because they suck all the oxygen out of class issues and environmental issues.

It also explains why the ALPs super smart move, was to make the election about "Cost of Living" itself a deft euphamism that allows generalized expensiveness to be talked about, without mentioning that everything is because our house prices are literally fucking insane, and suicidal. The Coalition basically could not run a serious campaign, because their policy is literally to accelerate a growing wealth gap.

Now I had intended to make the election a segue into all the other aspects of unseriousness plaguing societies globally, but I'm exhausted now. It shall have to await another time. I got better happier things to write about. (elsewhere not on my blog, which will continue to be quite dour.)

One "Why" I Didn't Get the Ladies in Highschool

 Disclaimer

The reason I spent most of my time in high-school as a very eligible bachelor is overdetermined, even excluding all the the reasons I don't even know about. Some of those reasons persist to this very day and overlap entirely with reasons my friends periodically need a break from our friendships.

Disclaimer out of the Way

The particular reason of many I want to talk about, I only stumbled across recently. I'm a fan of adman Rory Sutherland, a cartoonish character who synthesizes a lot of pop-science and applies it. 

Anyway, this guy in one of his many interviews, possibly one cut down to a short was talking about that ambiguous class of people known as "creative people" and compensation. He made a connection for me I had never made on my own, even though I was swimming in it, like David Foster Wallace's fish. 

Rory asserted that creative people enjoy a kind of premium on their wages, because they don't need to spend a lot of money to basically, whatever. I would say "stimulate themselves" but I suspect for most people that evokes imagery of inserting some battery powered device into themselves.

Which may well be a good enough example, creative people would probably turn out to spend less on getting off. 

But if you take like a holiday... 

The Elephant in The Room

Sorry I had to interrupt to address the fact that I've just launched into basically identifying myself as creative and the rest of you as mostly not. Being someone who has long got about the arts scene, not just here in Melbourne but also in Mexico, I dislike the term "creatives" for two largish reasons:

1. The first being that "uncreatives" doesn't work as an antonym, visual artists, musicians and DJs can form snobby little cliques and call themselves "creative" but it doesn't follow that a bunch of accountants, lawyers, doctors, engineers, nurses and programmers are being "uncreative".
2. The term "creatives" actually in my experience fosters a lack of creativity. It most often is referring to the "creative aesthetic" which is, people dressing in a kind of artist or muso blackface, haemorrhaging money realising what they think will pass as having something to say because Warhol or Duchamp or Yoko Ono or Arcade Fire already said it. Subculture conformity (or garden variety conformity at one remove) basically.

Personally, I think a "creative person" is someone who creates a lot of stuff, be it prose, poetry, music, lyrics, paintings, sculpture, programs, speeches, audits, excel spreadsheets or databases. 

I'm likely comfortable calling myself creative on objective grounds, I've drawn the drawings, painted the paintings, played shitty bass lines, acted, written, directed, hammered the nails etc.

JP introduced me to one attempt to objectively measure individual creativity. The one that people may know is the "write as many uses for a brick in a minute" or something, and everyone including myself gets blown away by the kid that came up with "paper clip holder" however, I now feel a kid couldn't come up with that answer, as what kid knows what paper clips are anymore?

I digress, there's basically some survey for which the average score is 0. It has all these categories that measure level of accomplishment in a bunch of creative fields, from music to art to architecture. Furthermore, even amongst creative people, the average score across fields is 0, as very few people both record an album of songs they composed themselves and have a building they designed constructed etc.

On that checklist, though I've never reached the highest levels of accomplishment in any field, I went surprisingly far in numerous fields most of which I don't identify with - like drama.

So from here on out, that's the sense in which I'm calling some people creative and others not, and putting myself in the creative camp. I think I even get points for writing a shitty blog on an ancient website.

Back to the post-Disclaimed Narrative

...So you picture a holiday, you probably picture a resort with a swim up bar in a pool with decks and lounges and then sandy beaches and then turquoise waters out to a reef that you have to fly to. 

Or even a weekend, most people might think of going shopping, going to the footy, going to brunch or hosting a dinner party.

This is the "premium" Rory asserts creative people get, without crucially employing it as a justification to not pay creative people equitably. 

Creative people don't need to spend that money to have a good time. Indeed, I am often happy to spend a day off writing a blog post. 

So to bring this back to high school dating, how much did it cost to go on a really good date?

For you, I'm going to guess $30 of late 90s Y2K money. For me? $3.20 because we could sit and share chips and gravy in Ballarat Central Square Arcade from Chequers (still in business, but $6.50) and then walk maybe across the tracks and sit in a fairly sketchy park where we would talk until we made out.

I mean I once went on local public TV dating show "More Amore" a version of the dating game, where winning contestants went on a date paid by the production to, in our case, Hoffbrauhaus a German restaurant that included men dancing and slapping each other in lederhosen. I don't need any of that shit because I can create an experience through conversation, questions.

Indeed, while I promise I will eventually thread the needle of how this hampered my ability to get the ladies, a divorce lawyer here sings the benefits of couples bonding over pizza in a park over dropping $250, because if you lead with your wallet it will "always be transactional." Which I will also at some point come back to.

But if I am reminiscing about actual dates I went on, how did you NOT get the ladies in Highschool?

I was a late bloomer, and I should take a second to acknowledge all those who bloomed after me, and those yet to bloom. I basically between mid-year 12 and 3rd year uni went through my serial monogomy phase, with relationships lasting longer and longer, but never quite being viable. For most of highschool I had crushes, and no action. Then far more crushes and minimal action. But I never felt unattractive, this is what has me captivated by Rory's assertion, because it reconciles with these facts of my experience.

On the periphery of my vision, I was aware that there were some guys who were so unattractive their value proposition to attractive girls, was to give them free drugs, and to this day, this is one thing I have noted down to warn my daughters about when I hand them a copy of Salt N' Pepa's "Very Necessary" to figure out the rest.

Assuming even pathetic weed to be reasonably expensive by the gram, beyond this, I wasn't really aware of what average joe's might be spending on their best gals.

I spend almost nothing, because I basically have never got in the habit of spending anything. It wouldn't occur to me to spend anything, not until like two weeks ago when Rory was asserting that it was much cheaper to be creative.

It makes sense right? Like we've seen enough of those lockdown epicurious videos where a pro-chef swaps $400 ingredients for a pancake with a home chefs $8 worth of ingredients, and the home chef has to follow some complicated recipe using sturgeon roe and snow crab with advice from a food scientist and I'm pretty sure the fucking recipe, while the pro-chef generally makes something better with the $8 ingredients anyway.

At pro-chef level, that's the ratio of the creativity premium - 50x. Like I literally don't know what the vast middle-band of uncreative peers did on their dates. We're all horny teenagers that weren't even thinking about asexuality back then, because it used to be sufficiently exciting to have the occasional gay or lesbian kid in the whole school. (They weren't, just very few came out until after high-school, in many cases, immediately after high-school) but anyway, if you could go out with someone, and someone sufficiently experienced to get over the frigidity hurdle, then everyone had a cheap good time awaiting them in terms of finding somewhere to make out.

But I suspect, probably a bunch of dudes bought girls they had been dating for two-weeks, and would be dating for a further two weeks, expensive apparel maybe from the surf shops, or maybe globe sneakers, an anklet, Oakley sunglasses, maybe you took them to La Porchetta's or Da Vinci's or L'Espresso or Olive Grove if she was trying to get into medicine. 

Maybe you went shopping and used the money you earned at McDonald's to get her that thing she had her eye on in the hopes of getting your dingaling touched, or maybe getting some fingers inside her.

I don't know, I wasn't paying attention. I fell in love with L when I asked her out, and she suggested we meet at the Pancake Parlour. A sensation I since saw captured in Arundhati Roy's "The God of Small Things" when a character remarks "There goes a jazz tune." Now two creative people on a date - you are talking super cheap dates, so long as one or both aren't "creatives".

The Brick Actually Explains Much

By Andrewlister - Own work, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12018011

I've been avoiding the brick test because of my strong association with consultant hacks that tour around  businesses-that-won't-give-a-payrise-above-inflation-to-top-performing-employees but will drop $2k~$10k on some hack to run a workshop where they drop some pop-science that theoretically could be put into practice but most staff are just happy to be paid to be there. That's their pay rise.

What I would guess is the leading flaw in the Brick-creativity test, is that every time it is administered, they still have the subject of the test be a brick. 

Whereas for robust results, the test should likely be run through multiple iterations with swapping subjects - a brick, a chair, a whisk, a smart phone, a pencil, a PET-bottle etc. 

If it is a brick every time, and worse, every workshop facilitator mentions "paper clip holder" in the intro, then people can just gradually accumulate more uses for a brick with practice, so it fails the retestability. 

Logically then, if there are people who struggle to come up with 8 uses for a brick in 3 minutes and people who run out of time at 120 uses, and this is because of a variation in "creativity" trait, logically this extrapolates out to everything.

From whence, the creativity wage-premium emerges. Do you need to "get the gear" to go on a hike? Perhaps even just a Leatherman multi-tool? Or can you creatively use your regular shoes to also walk a hiking trail in, take a snickers instead of trail mix, use your hand to drink water from the stream etc.?

(Warning: By "hike" I'm referring to any kind of day trip, not heading off trail and navigating using a compass and map with a very real chance of disappearing for 72 hrs, getting hypothermia and dying. In which case the "creative" approach may just result in being dangerously underprepared. I'm referring to not needing Nordic Walking Poles, energy bars and drink bottle for a 3.6km round trip to a spring from a carpark.)

In the kitchen you may or may not be familiar with something Alton Brown popularised as the "uni-tasker" which is a kitchen gadget that only does one hyper-specific thing. This would be at the extreme of concrete thinking. But multiply out the difference of whether you can think of 2 or 10 uses for EVERYTHING in the first few seconds to EVERYTHING and creative people are just going to have way less material demands.

I caught up with a friend from high-school and was telling him about this Rory-gifted insight, and he is now expecting a child with his partner who is an artist, and remarked that when he met her he discovered her entire kitchen apparel consisted of one pot and a spatula with which she prepared everything. Possible embellishments aside, this negative correlation between creativity and material need resonated with his experience.

What the brick tells us, is that creativity dictates how much you need.

Now, back to highschool:

Indirect Defence Against the Ladies

Over the easter break, I had a one hour layover in my sweet-home Ballifornia and decided to kill time with a brisk walk up and down "the street." Covering the main drag in less than half an hour I was diverted down a side street that played host to a fond teenage memory. Albeit one my mum would probably sooner forget.

I was thrilled to see that "New Generation" clothing was still in operation. I am sure it simply cannot be what it once was due to the advent of internet shopping and Ballarat getting the internet and credit cards, but that it was there at all was a thrill to me.

It still faces target more-or-less. So the memory was that my mum desperate to find some "nice clothes" probably necessary for some funeral or something as opposed to the tatty rags I gravitated toward wearing all the time, and after a brief perusal in New Generation clothing, I announced quite publicly that none of the clothes were speaking to me and we were going to head over to Target. My fond memory is my mum's HORRIFIED expression, particularly since it was so illogical. It was not that we were forced to shop at Target, it's that New Generations overpriced range of safe bland clothing was rejected. I think I got an orange t-shirt from Target for $6 that I kept in circulation for the next 6 years.

Nowadays I would probably be more concerned that any of my clothes were made by slaves, but it's not like Target's clothes are slave labour and New Generations are not. 

By the time I graduated year 12 I think my parents had won the battle of buying nice things a couple of times, I never had polarized sunglasses but I did end up with a waterproof rip-curl watch and a cream coloured study desk and...nothing. I was incredibly successful at blocking my parents from getting me "nice things" that I, nor nobody needs.

I'm of the camp that human's are not rational but rationalizing, that our conscious thinks it's the oval office but is in fact the press secretary etc. so while I was wearing Mossimo sneakers because Quan Yeoman's wore them in some Regurgitator clip, most of my intrasexual competition were shelling out for Globe and DC shoes as Blink 182 were ascendant. Had I at the time known about Dunlop Volleys I would have been wearing those. 

I honestly felt constantly under assault to buy what to me was unnecessary shit and felt strongly enough about it, insofar as my parents were willing to buy me unnecessary shit and I didn't have to pay for shit, which again required a very active style of defence to ward my wardrobe against unwelcome gifting. I became quickly, and remain "someone impossible to buy for."

What I only recently clicked when Rory started making his sensible assertions, was that I was also playing an aggressive defence against most of the dating pool in this regard. For sure, the only girl from my own school I dated was M, a fellow school switcher and fashionista that got all her outfits from Op-shops, indeed introduced me to never paying more than $3 for an article of clothing.

The problem with that, is if there's anything that can have me spend money on clothes, it is to attain the inefficiencies of self-expression over fitting in. Custom is often expensive, but op-shops/thrift-stores/vintage stores can enable self-expression at low-low prices, indeed are just about the best way because while every fuckwit can buy a fedora or influencer hat, if you find a conversation piece in an op-shop nobody else can rush out to get the exact same thing.

If I now squeeze out some cognitive empathy though, I need to first recreate the unconscious mind which does not have a perspective, which makes perspective taking difficult.

All we can do is infer, and I'm going to have to drag up the bogeyman of Evolutionary Psychology. I personally am comfortable with evolutionary psychology because I am uncomfortable with special pleading. Certainly there are meaningful differences between the human experience and our nearest relatives like Chimpanzees and Bonobos; but if evolution via natural selection can explain dog psychology, baboon psychology, sheep psychology and all sorts of mammals, it becomes special pleading to say "selection pressures can't explain a kind of adapted human psychology." We are into God made us in His image and all the other mammals spare.

Which is to basically say if the lionesses like a lion not just with an impressive mane but a dark impressive mane as the most expensive to produce in terms of calories, it is likely that humans developed analogous unconscious preferences over the 150,000 years or so we were basically homeless drifters.

And yeah, it is clearly adaptive enough to include stuff by the 20th and 21st centuries. Such that our psychology can do things like associate brand with access to calories. This is the working backwards from an unconscious vague-awareness that if you have children with a high-sexual investment through a non-motile large sex cell like an ovum that takes 9 months to gestate and years to raise in which your own ability to obtain calories through labour will be severely curtailed - you find providers strangely alluring.

Building back from that vague awareness it might translate into a conscious rationalization that Johnny Football hero comes from a context in which he can obtain this seasons line of clothing from New Generation.

Hitting upon a central paradox - the creative premium is real. If you can spend $2,000 on a wedding instead of $20,000 that confers a real financial advantage. Such advantages tend to compound. 

But the disadvantage is going to be, that people using "costly signalling" as an unconscious proxy for "capacity to provide" then anyone who can use creativity to avoid unnecessary costs is likely not showing up on most of the dating pool's radar.

Because alas, somebody might not have the latest stuff because they recognize that it is unnecessary but also because they can't afford it. In my experience, most people are not so adept at cognitive empathy/perspective taking that they can recognize that other people don't value what they do, even highly successful people like employers routinely don't identify that their own employees aren't motivated by quarterly growth so much as surviving a fairly brutal economic environment in safe harbour. 

And I for one was completely OBLIVIOUS. In fact up until just a few weeks ago with Rory giving name to a cluster of phenomena I'd observed all my life, I had basically attributed everything to variations in esteem needs. Which is to say, some people don't need to belong, they have enough personal power to not give a fuck about others opinions. Other people really need to belong, they are acutely sensitive as to what everyone else is doing, such that any time they step off the beaten path they begin to immediately feel anxious and perhaps even existential dread.

But that doesn't really explain why I couldn't get the ladies, whereas the creative premium does somewhat. Highschool age ladies for example, found guys who were good at sport attractive and those jocks often didn't have to give a fuck about what anyone thought of how they dressed or their presentation yet wore the same branded clothing as desperate dipshit guys who were acutely sensitive to how they were esteemed.

A Neat Paradox

Who loses? Believe it or not, my psychologist proscribed me sleeping with more people. 70 to be exact. She challenged me to abandon my self-restricting unrealistic standards and massively increase my number of sexual partners. This big and likely literally hairy goal was no doubt unrealistic. 

There was also the kernal of the right solution in it for me, which was to not approach relationships as a pass/fail but being open enough for them to develop. But insofar as I pursued that 70 target, I was ready to quit after the first low-investment partner and replicated that finding on every subsequent encounter.

Where my creative material premium cost me romantic encounters not just in highschool but throughout my life, there is a case to be made that from my low-sexual investment perspective, I potentially missed out on a lot of experiences with women I'd love to sleep with but hate to talk to. 

A bigger contributor is likely that I also didn't partake in many of the judgement altering substances that can enable two people with nothing in common to hook up for sheer physical attraction.

But alas, much as I don't value the income I derive from a time consuming job I dislike; I don't much value kisses from people I have to hang around with and have painfully disconnected conversations with about a bunch of shit I don't care about.

So from my side, I don't think I lost much, if anything at all, by being such a turnoff/non-entity in this way.

The flipside I don't know. For certain, women who want a big lavish wedding lost nothing by not dating me. I suspect at some threshold, people are incapable of appreciating the creative. There are certainly people who are completely insensitive to anything but brand, failing to recognize that a Mercedes is little more inspiring than a Toyota Camry or Mitsubishi Magna, and that a Rolex is just a fairly generic vaguely gold watch in a world where there's little utility in an extremely reliable time-piece.

Where the losers most likely lie, are the people who connect spending with happiness but either don't, or take too long to notice what Chris Rock articulated so well in his episode of Jerry Seinfeld's "comedians in cars getting coffee":

"I like you, a gourmet meal with an asshole is a horrible meal. A hotdog with an amazing person is an amazing meal, it's all about the company. If we were in a cab, we'd probably be having the same exact conversation."

In many ways, if you think about a fine dining experience, amazing dishes brought out to peck at on a 12 course tasting menue, are frequent and stimulating enough to actually function as outsourcing conversation. A professional is coming in and giving you two stimulus to talk about, which is going to be far more valuable to people who cannot generate interesting conversation organically than those for whom the meal is a distraction/disruption.

So to be clear this:

 Is fine for people who have almost nothing to say to each other. There's no losers in that situation. You are only losers if this:

Is also fine, in which case, the lack of judgement/perception does not bode well for you making the successive decisions that will impact enjoying a good life together. You will probably keep losing by overleveraging your mortgage and purchasing things and hiring people because they are expensive and polished, winding up tied to (as the Onion put it in a recent headline) "a dead end 7-figure job." that you hate, losing your health, becoming depressed etc.

It's a neat little paradox because my creativity driven retardation in signalling that I was a viable provider likely filtered out all the prospective partners I would not want as a partner anyway. Especially the worst losers of all - those who don't just equate happiness with consumption, but aspire to ecstasy. The people who want a boat for their helicopter and other boat, certain in their assumption that if a little stuff makes you a little happy, heaps of stuff therefore makes you ecstatic.

I should also say, in discussing winners and losers. If you gave me a million dollars, like Chris Rock and Jerry Seinfeld have in multitudes. Nothing changes, it doesn't become a "I may as well" start dating the kind of people that cannot imagine solutions to their problems that don't involve paying through the nose. I would rather not get laid and avoid such company in which case this:

Is also meal wise, a winning outcome for me.

But Wait, There's Hypergamy

Which I have zero confidence to actually write about here in the 21st century. The social contract is very much changing without any real conversation. For example, I still feel that becoming unemployed is a better predictor of a man getting dumped by his girlfriend than a girl getting dumped by her boyfriend.

That said, when I was in my 30s I observed of many women in their 20s that they spent that decade in a relationship with a guy that more reflected a mother-child bond than an adult relationship. Boyfriends with various crippling anxieties that rendered them both emotional and financial burdens, and this completely defies hypergamy.

Furthermore, there's other strange shit that emerges from a growing wealth gap in which with wealthy countries like the former Commonwealth (including USA) as they approach the inequality of poorer countries like Latin America, India, China etc. the dating scene will likely improve, because having zero social mobility will become a norm. At the moment though, women trying to "marry up" are basically competing for an ever dwindling supply of men that will likely out-earn them.

The influencer economy also breaks things somewhat, with companies paying women to promote products to other women like meal kits, and other women paying women to pretend to be the kind of women that in past decades would have been a kept trophy wife. Except now they pay their own way.

My mistake in highschool, and in life, has been that just because I can imagine a great wedding for under $5,000 doesn't mean my prospective and actual partners can. It is a hazardous assumption. In which case, I likely should make some concession to solvency, or perhaps come equipped with a costed wedding package. 

There is also some sense to ye olde "Three months salary" guideline for engagement rings. It is a demonstration of investment, that I mean divorce statistics tell us, has absolutely no baring on the likelihood of a marriage lasting or being happy. Nor does it actually seem that anything is in place to ensure a father supports materially the raising of his own children. But its a fairly reasonable expectation in principle. 

A guy should demonstrate investment.

"You don't want to sleep with me?"

Said Luciana, my all time literary crush. I thought I better conclude with something generally applicable. And that is to point out that the creativity premium is fundamentally real.

Dating aside, people to this day, with all the information we have, are swayed by shiny baubles. The economy is in many ways, attrocious. It has long been known, for example, that most investment fund managers do not beat the market (which is to say, an index fund) while charging more. 

Rory Sutherland talks a lot about the main drivers of consumer behaviour being 1) "habit" doing what has/you've always done and 2) "sensitivity" doing what everyone else is doing. Leading to truly collosal waste.

Adman Bob Hoffman stands by his experience that "fame" is the greatest predictor of success, be it brands or politicians, dovetailing with Rory's habit and sensitivity.

So I'd like to think these observations go beyond that small niche market of women who may rue not sleeping with me in high school, to almost everybody everywhere.

An easy prediction to make, is that we have not seen the last of, nor even the biggest financial scam in history. People will get scammed by conmen in the future. They will also discover their employer was trading insolvent and cannot pay their benefits and entitlements out, which is a shame because they will also discover their employer is not a person that can go to jail, but a legal person - a corporation that always had limited liability towards those it is indebted to. And more basic than that, you will make purchases because the sales pitch was so good and they promised a lot, and the product or service will turn out to be a dud, or unreliable. 

It will all hinge on the same proxy signals as teens dating based on the ability to keep up with seasonal fashion produce: 

The great merit of costly signals, is that some people simply can't afford them. Teenagers often get confused and lack a long term vision, hence the guy who can afford to run a car (or Uber account) and pay for Grill'd burgers and not McDonald's can edge out a peer who can't but in the long run has much much better job prospects and earning potential. So it can still screw up, but less so as we move further and further from a skills and talent based economy to an asset based economy.

The great peril of costly signals, is that buying shit is something literally anybody can do. I do feel it's important progress to be honest in our discourse as to how transactional relationships are. But yeah, anybody who has $250 can drop $250 on a first date. That in essence is the problem. They could be Corey Haim or Corey Feldman, so long as they have $250. 

The same-same with job interviews. Anybody can buy a business shirt and slacks. Any employer can hire an office. Any sales rep can buy cars and watches. 

These signals need to count for less and less in our decision making process. I get that technically a bank could operate out of a garage with plastic lawn furniture now, just as well as a big stone building with doric columns, but psychologically we are just not ready for such realities. I'm not saying they should count for nothing, and you'll notice I'm saying hardly anybody, potentially nobody lost from not dating me in highschool.

But beyond this basic threshold lies everything important. Hence we have to first know what we actually want and what it is worth, then come up with rigorous ways to determine whether anyone can competently deliver that in an exchange of roughly equal value.

Start by looking for downselling. That's a good simple sign.