IIRC Aristotle said there are three kinds of friends, (1) those who are useful to you, (2) those whose company you enjoy, , and (3) those who share with you a commitment to the good. So, utility, enjoyment, character or virtue. This is an ascending process in terms of moral worth. It maps somewhat onto what you are saying here.
I think you take for granted that you are a single, self-employed, guy who has total freedom to associate with whomever you please.
If you work in an office, you can't really chose who you interact with. You don't choose the spouses of your wife friends, or the parents of the kids your kids go to school with. To the extent you pick/chose, those who satisfy criterion #1 may be the least worst option. No reason not to be cordial to these people. But no reason to assume doing so is a sign of unconditional admiration.
This is what I was going to comment. There are people that I interact with solely because of mutual friends or a connection through work or a social organization that I don't particularly care for. I don't think they have any reason to suspect I don't like them but I don't I'm acting acting disingenuously or being fake. Just being civil.
>You can try to work for a company with coworkers and management you like and respect.
No matter how great a company is, there will always be a need to interact with those who you would otherwise prefer not to. I'm not talking about "bad people" or people "I have no respect for" -- to genuinely really like a person is a pretty high bar for me personally.
>You also don’t really have to interact with all of the spouses of wife’s friends or parents of other kids at school
Sounds like maybe you don't have kids? You need to take young ones to dozens of birthday parties a year where you will be forced to interact with other parents. You will attend dozens of school functions where attendance is expected, the same parents there. Ain't nobody gonna move/switch schools/jobs because they happen to find their coworkers mid.
I guess it depends on the school. Birthdays tend to really get going on kindergarten. My older daughter just finished 2nd grade and parents always stay at that age. Not sure when that ends. As classes get larger in higher grades bdays will seem to become less frequent because your kid prob won't be invited to every one.
For whatever reason the private schools in my area have tons of events. Maybe they want you to feel like you're "getting your money's worth" or maybe people do actually enjoy those mixers and want to network. Or for soliciting donations.
Great post-- I don't want to clutter your comments section but just to say your writing is so enjoyable. I don't always agree but I always have a good time reading it :)
Agree about your pure heart, slight disagree low status relationships as defined in 1. I think it’s more that low status people are stuck with each other.
Part of being low status is being unable to imagine (or acknowledge) that there are people better than you. So you can’t respect anyone, and anyone worthy of respect wouldn’t want to hang out with you anyway.
On 3 I don’t think you have the luxury of wishing people well when you’re at the bottom.
It really can't be overstated how dysfunctional a lot of these low-status "relationships" are, though. If you've ever lived in a low-income area or apartment complex I bet you've heard vicious battles going on through the walls or ceiling. (A friend of mine eventually had to move specifically to avoid this, that's how bad it got.) These people don't get along, don't respect each other and don't particularly wish each other well - they just are possessive in the way a bucket of crabs is possessive and prefer the chaos to silence. They're less stuck with each other than sticking with each other.
This is bootstrappin' talk a bit but it costs absolutely nothing to join a service organization or a book club or a dance troupe. Every town with a four-figure population has *some*thing you can do. Or you can sit in a dark bar or a filthy living room and fight with people.
You're probably right that it will also manifest itself in a lot of "oh, you think you're better than me?" posturing from a place of insecurity but there are people who can transcend a lowly environment or upbringing and not work to drag others down to their level.
Having attempted to observe the 'low-status' relationships you mention, I have a different assessment: (a) they actually are liking one another for qualities that are invisible to me, and (b) the lack of status removes an additional 'brake' on their behavior.
Let's take (b) first: I've very much wanted to cause a scene in my neighborhood but don't because it's low-class to do so. I'm not 'better' than people who have less to lose than I am; it's like how they say that it's easier to budget when you're rich.
As for (a), if you ask people they'll tell you what they actually like about the people in their lives, and you can nod along sympathetically despite not at all being able to detect the positive qualities they mention. Maybe they're hallucinating them for social reasons, sure -- but maybe we all are. To some higher-value segment of the population, my friends describing me as wise and loyal and smart and fun would look as obviously and pointlessly untrue as when we hear it from people lower down.
Interesting points. I guess I'm just talking about the most dysfunctional among them. Obviously lower-status people can and do have meaningful relationships. It's more that their dysfunction, when it occurs, tends to manifest itself in close quarters. I think that's what I mean.
Best decision I've made in a long time was joining the local fire department (town with ~3000 population.) Not necessarily an option for folks in places with larger populations and career departments, but many more opportunities abound in those locales. Almost all small-town departments are desperate for people, and can find a role for just about anyone without recent felonies and with the ability to pass a drug test.
On 3, IMO its more like people who don't wish others well gravitate to low status. Alternatively, people who lack positive qualities like discipline, ambition, and optimism tend to be low status AND spiteful.
There is no ethical argument for veganism. We are human because we ate meat, and left the chimps behind. The only ethical argument regarding diet, is to embrace what is in the best interest of oneself and our species, and that is a nutrient-dense, animal-based diet. The argument that meat eating is unhealthy is dubious, given our evolution. Animal foodstuffs are much more nutrient-dense than plant foodstuffs. When in the wild, e.g. on Naked and Afraid, or among primitive tribes, every human seeks animals to eat above all else, and hunters have the highest status. It's instinctual. You can hack your way, artifiically, and with great contortions to survivial on a plant based diet, but it usually degrades one's health to an old, sarcopenic state. I'm making many assertions here, admittedly, but there is no consensus on diet, and this seems the most parsimonious argument to me. I listen to the vegans but I think they're mistaken. So admiration of a vegan's ethics? Irrational and backwards.
The ethical argument for veganism is entirely obvious: animals suffer from the farming necessary to provide you with meat, therefore it's better not to contribute to that suffering by supporting the industry. And there's also the environmental impact argument. You may decide you don't care about animal suffering or that it's healthier to eat some meat and that trumps animals' suffering, but it's hardly an obscure or silly argument.
No. Animals don't suffer to be eaten. In fact, they exist to be eaten. The environmental argument is nonsense. Regenerative agriculture is the answer. Watch "The Biggest Little Farm". Your existence has an impact on the planet and life, for the worse, but all life on this planet harms other life. It's an irrational argument because the basis of our species' constructed ethics can only have a rational basis by identifying and following our evolutionarily determined physiology and place in the food chain. Eating plants as we presently do, is killing wildlife, the soil microbiome, the nutrient density of your diet, and probably the mental and physical health of humans. But perhaps you're right, and an artificial, non-evolutionary, non-instinctual manner of eating is better. But I'm not convinced by the present data and bandwagon. I think Dr. Carvalho makes the best case for your point of view. The other vegans like Dr. McDougall and Dr. Gregor are nutty, never conceding any points in favor of the superior nutrient density of animal foodstuffs. And now we have lots of anecdotal data that don't prove anything, but cannot yet be discredited or ignored. I appreciate the spirit of your challenge. My bigger point is to challenge Hanania's claim of ethics, and your's as well.
Animals suffer under the mass farming necessary to sustain a meat market. That's not a comment, but a fact. The rest of your argument seems to hinge a naturalistic fallacy. I wouldn't deny that we evolved eating meat, but that doesn't mean it's moral to do so.
As for the environmental impact of plant diets, it will always necessarily be less than that involved in meat creation, because animals have to be fed plants before they are slaughtered. And it may well be the case that eating some meat is healthier for humans than no meat, but again, that doesn't make it moral.
Evolution is immoral? That would mean that life is immoral. When your morality starts with the premise that the facts of evolution and life is immoral, I'm speechless. Inhumane animal conditions are neither necessary, nor good for anyone. Check out humane ranches, and dairy farms, etc. They exist and allow animals to serve their own, and our, selfish purposes. Animals in a natural ecosystem of farming restore the topsoil and soil microbiome that mono-crop farming, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides destroy. We both want a natural ecosystem of healthy food. But you can't get it without the evolutionarily-based natural co-existance of plants and animals. This is a huge topic, but the plant argument is misinformed on many of their "facts".
Richard seems to embrace a Hellenic heroic ethos in which excellence on different dimensions tends to coincide, and the aristoi are just naturally better, happier and nobler than everyone else.
In my limited experience, some "high status" people are petty and shallow and some "low status" people are pretty cool.
I kind of think that being able to enjoy someone’s company naturally leads to admiration. You might not endorse a criminals ethics but you might be impressed by his vitality, courage and humor. A sterling moral character is not the only ingredient for respect.
The tidbit about toxic resentment being a trait in low status people is so true and maps perfectly to my experience. The only caveat id add is that this tends manifest within groups or “scenes” even more so than between them.
I was a musician for a while in NYC, and the surest sign that someone is low status is when they insult other people’s work and aren’t willing to share techniques. When you meet someone higher status they almost always want to see others succeed and offer whatever knowledge they have that might help you out. When you get to the highest status musicians, even ones with a reputation for abrasive personalities, they near universally keep their ears to the underground and are always looking to point the spotlight on the up and coming musicians they hear. When you’re just getting started and low status, it’s easy to get caught up in that resentful mindset, but I always did my best to emulate the people I admire.
This is why I will always respect Joe Rogan and feel he’s an ideal role model for young men. Here’s a guy who has reached the absolute top of he comedy world, and he has nothing but good things to say about up and coming comics. He literally paid out of his own pocket to open a comedy club in Austin, and made sure to have a small stage for open mic nights twice a week so he can help cultivate talent. He doesn’t need to do any of this, but he’s doing it because he wants wants to help other comics succeed.
UPenn psychologist Adam Grant wrote an interesting (though very cherry picked) book called “give and take” about how people who are more giving tend to be more successful because of it in the long run.
Very interesting essay. The only thing I object to a bit is the term low status people. I'd use the term low intelligence people. A shoe shiner can be low status but be a great person.
i like u richard. don't listen to her
I’m so relieved.
IIRC Aristotle said there are three kinds of friends, (1) those who are useful to you, (2) those whose company you enjoy, , and (3) those who share with you a commitment to the good. So, utility, enjoyment, character or virtue. This is an ascending process in terms of moral worth. It maps somewhat onto what you are saying here.
I think you take for granted that you are a single, self-employed, guy who has total freedom to associate with whomever you please.
If you work in an office, you can't really chose who you interact with. You don't choose the spouses of your wife friends, or the parents of the kids your kids go to school with. To the extent you pick/chose, those who satisfy criterion #1 may be the least worst option. No reason not to be cordial to these people. But no reason to assume doing so is a sign of unconditional admiration.
This is what I was going to comment. There are people that I interact with solely because of mutual friends or a connection through work or a social organization that I don't particularly care for. I don't think they have any reason to suspect I don't like them but I don't I'm acting acting disingenuously or being fake. Just being civil.
>You can try to work for a company with coworkers and management you like and respect.
No matter how great a company is, there will always be a need to interact with those who you would otherwise prefer not to. I'm not talking about "bad people" or people "I have no respect for" -- to genuinely really like a person is a pretty high bar for me personally.
>You also don’t really have to interact with all of the spouses of wife’s friends or parents of other kids at school
Sounds like maybe you don't have kids? You need to take young ones to dozens of birthday parties a year where you will be forced to interact with other parents. You will attend dozens of school functions where attendance is expected, the same parents there. Ain't nobody gonna move/switch schools/jobs because they happen to find their coworkers mid.
I guess it depends on the school. Birthdays tend to really get going on kindergarten. My older daughter just finished 2nd grade and parents always stay at that age. Not sure when that ends. As classes get larger in higher grades bdays will seem to become less frequent because your kid prob won't be invited to every one.
For whatever reason the private schools in my area have tons of events. Maybe they want you to feel like you're "getting your money's worth" or maybe people do actually enjoy those mixers and want to network. Or for soliciting donations.
Great post-- I don't want to clutter your comments section but just to say your writing is so enjoyable. I don't always agree but I always have a good time reading it :)
Agree about your pure heart, slight disagree low status relationships as defined in 1. I think it’s more that low status people are stuck with each other.
Part of being low status is being unable to imagine (or acknowledge) that there are people better than you. So you can’t respect anyone, and anyone worthy of respect wouldn’t want to hang out with you anyway.
On 3 I don’t think you have the luxury of wishing people well when you’re at the bottom.
It really can't be overstated how dysfunctional a lot of these low-status "relationships" are, though. If you've ever lived in a low-income area or apartment complex I bet you've heard vicious battles going on through the walls or ceiling. (A friend of mine eventually had to move specifically to avoid this, that's how bad it got.) These people don't get along, don't respect each other and don't particularly wish each other well - they just are possessive in the way a bucket of crabs is possessive and prefer the chaos to silence. They're less stuck with each other than sticking with each other.
This is bootstrappin' talk a bit but it costs absolutely nothing to join a service organization or a book club or a dance troupe. Every town with a four-figure population has *some*thing you can do. Or you can sit in a dark bar or a filthy living room and fight with people.
You're probably right that it will also manifest itself in a lot of "oh, you think you're better than me?" posturing from a place of insecurity but there are people who can transcend a lowly environment or upbringing and not work to drag others down to their level.
Having attempted to observe the 'low-status' relationships you mention, I have a different assessment: (a) they actually are liking one another for qualities that are invisible to me, and (b) the lack of status removes an additional 'brake' on their behavior.
Let's take (b) first: I've very much wanted to cause a scene in my neighborhood but don't because it's low-class to do so. I'm not 'better' than people who have less to lose than I am; it's like how they say that it's easier to budget when you're rich.
As for (a), if you ask people they'll tell you what they actually like about the people in their lives, and you can nod along sympathetically despite not at all being able to detect the positive qualities they mention. Maybe they're hallucinating them for social reasons, sure -- but maybe we all are. To some higher-value segment of the population, my friends describing me as wise and loyal and smart and fun would look as obviously and pointlessly untrue as when we hear it from people lower down.
Interesting points. I guess I'm just talking about the most dysfunctional among them. Obviously lower-status people can and do have meaningful relationships. It's more that their dysfunction, when it occurs, tends to manifest itself in close quarters. I think that's what I mean.
Best decision I've made in a long time was joining the local fire department (town with ~3000 population.) Not necessarily an option for folks in places with larger populations and career departments, but many more opportunities abound in those locales. Almost all small-town departments are desperate for people, and can find a role for just about anyone without recent felonies and with the ability to pass a drug test.
On 3, IMO its more like people who don't wish others well gravitate to low status. Alternatively, people who lack positive qualities like discipline, ambition, and optimism tend to be low status AND spiteful.
A role now filled in a large number of cases by Alcoholics Anonymous and similar organizations.
Yes, before religion became high status.
Every time a dog comes up to me unprovoked, I tell myself it’s because they can sense I’m one of the good ones
You have no idea how many horse people I know who say something exactly like this. Unironically.
This is one of the best Trump takes I've seen so far.
You are very likable in your videos. I wouldn’t have guessed you have kids--you seem too young.
I was shocked that he has kids.
He is 38, I think, so not that young.
There is no ethical argument for veganism. We are human because we ate meat, and left the chimps behind. The only ethical argument regarding diet, is to embrace what is in the best interest of oneself and our species, and that is a nutrient-dense, animal-based diet. The argument that meat eating is unhealthy is dubious, given our evolution. Animal foodstuffs are much more nutrient-dense than plant foodstuffs. When in the wild, e.g. on Naked and Afraid, or among primitive tribes, every human seeks animals to eat above all else, and hunters have the highest status. It's instinctual. You can hack your way, artifiically, and with great contortions to survivial on a plant based diet, but it usually degrades one's health to an old, sarcopenic state. I'm making many assertions here, admittedly, but there is no consensus on diet, and this seems the most parsimonious argument to me. I listen to the vegans but I think they're mistaken. So admiration of a vegan's ethics? Irrational and backwards.
The ethical argument for veganism is entirely obvious: animals suffer from the farming necessary to provide you with meat, therefore it's better not to contribute to that suffering by supporting the industry. And there's also the environmental impact argument. You may decide you don't care about animal suffering or that it's healthier to eat some meat and that trumps animals' suffering, but it's hardly an obscure or silly argument.
No. Animals don't suffer to be eaten. In fact, they exist to be eaten. The environmental argument is nonsense. Regenerative agriculture is the answer. Watch "The Biggest Little Farm". Your existence has an impact on the planet and life, for the worse, but all life on this planet harms other life. It's an irrational argument because the basis of our species' constructed ethics can only have a rational basis by identifying and following our evolutionarily determined physiology and place in the food chain. Eating plants as we presently do, is killing wildlife, the soil microbiome, the nutrient density of your diet, and probably the mental and physical health of humans. But perhaps you're right, and an artificial, non-evolutionary, non-instinctual manner of eating is better. But I'm not convinced by the present data and bandwagon. I think Dr. Carvalho makes the best case for your point of view. The other vegans like Dr. McDougall and Dr. Gregor are nutty, never conceding any points in favor of the superior nutrient density of animal foodstuffs. And now we have lots of anecdotal data that don't prove anything, but cannot yet be discredited or ignored. I appreciate the spirit of your challenge. My bigger point is to challenge Hanania's claim of ethics, and your's as well.
Animals suffer under the mass farming necessary to sustain a meat market. That's not a comment, but a fact. The rest of your argument seems to hinge a naturalistic fallacy. I wouldn't deny that we evolved eating meat, but that doesn't mean it's moral to do so.
As for the environmental impact of plant diets, it will always necessarily be less than that involved in meat creation, because animals have to be fed plants before they are slaughtered. And it may well be the case that eating some meat is healthier for humans than no meat, but again, that doesn't make it moral.
Evolution is immoral? That would mean that life is immoral. When your morality starts with the premise that the facts of evolution and life is immoral, I'm speechless. Inhumane animal conditions are neither necessary, nor good for anyone. Check out humane ranches, and dairy farms, etc. They exist and allow animals to serve their own, and our, selfish purposes. Animals in a natural ecosystem of farming restore the topsoil and soil microbiome that mono-crop farming, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides destroy. We both want a natural ecosystem of healthy food. But you can't get it without the evolutionarily-based natural co-existance of plants and animals. This is a huge topic, but the plant argument is misinformed on many of their "facts".
Richard seems to embrace a Hellenic heroic ethos in which excellence on different dimensions tends to coincide, and the aristoi are just naturally better, happier and nobler than everyone else.
In my limited experience, some "high status" people are petty and shallow and some "low status" people are pretty cool.
I kind of think that being able to enjoy someone’s company naturally leads to admiration. You might not endorse a criminals ethics but you might be impressed by his vitality, courage and humor. A sterling moral character is not the only ingredient for respect.
The tidbit about toxic resentment being a trait in low status people is so true and maps perfectly to my experience. The only caveat id add is that this tends manifest within groups or “scenes” even more so than between them.
I was a musician for a while in NYC, and the surest sign that someone is low status is when they insult other people’s work and aren’t willing to share techniques. When you meet someone higher status they almost always want to see others succeed and offer whatever knowledge they have that might help you out. When you get to the highest status musicians, even ones with a reputation for abrasive personalities, they near universally keep their ears to the underground and are always looking to point the spotlight on the up and coming musicians they hear. When you’re just getting started and low status, it’s easy to get caught up in that resentful mindset, but I always did my best to emulate the people I admire.
This is why I will always respect Joe Rogan and feel he’s an ideal role model for young men. Here’s a guy who has reached the absolute top of he comedy world, and he has nothing but good things to say about up and coming comics. He literally paid out of his own pocket to open a comedy club in Austin, and made sure to have a small stage for open mic nights twice a week so he can help cultivate talent. He doesn’t need to do any of this, but he’s doing it because he wants wants to help other comics succeed.
UPenn psychologist Adam Grant wrote an interesting (though very cherry picked) book called “give and take” about how people who are more giving tend to be more successful because of it in the long run.
One sure path to unhappiness is to be greedy for credit. It’s very rare to find somebody who is generous with those of equal status though.
Are you serious? “The purity of your soul”? Ahhh. Satire. Of course. Duh.
"Hating people takes too much energy, but despising them is quite easy." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Very interesting essay. The only thing I object to a bit is the term low status people. I'd use the term low intelligence people. A shoe shiner can be low status but be a great person.
Are there any examples where you have meanings 1 and 2 of "like" but not 3, or just meaning 3? I think meanings 2 and 3 can be combined.