3 ms·

> Most 18-year-olds are not super differentiated from each other. I wonder if this is just elitism looking down on the great unwashed masses. I confess that my

> Most 18-year-olds are not super differentiated from each other. I wonder if this is just elitism looking down on the great unwashed masses. I confess that my own initial reaction was to agree with the claim, then start composing a comment about how I was different from the others. But I, as much as anyone else, need to be careful not to stereotype a whole group of people.

pm90 7y ago
People here are really taking offense to the characterization of 18 y/o this way since the first thought is to see where they fit in this model of reality. But the author isn't speaking about individuals but aggregates; on the average, the 18 y/o American kid is most likely unsure about what they want to do in their lives, and are thrust into an extremely competitive zero-sum environment of college. All the author is saying is that this isn't representative of the real world, but people that go through this trauma might continue to think this way into adulthood, leading to a toxic culture and paradigm of the world.
tlb 7y ago
Girard would nod mmm-hmm at trying to find differences among people who went to college together. If you zoom out to look at the whole wide range of people around the world -- truckers, subsistence farmers, politicians, assembly line workers, homemakers -- people who went to the same college in the US are clustered very close together. One reason that Girardian conflict is attractive is that the differences aren't big enough to ensure different destinies. Rivals in college can put each other down, CS geeks insulting math geeks, knowing that their likely outcomes in life are broadly similar. Putting down, say, a subsistence farmer, who does have a different destiny, would seem quite cruel. Girardian conflict doesn't feel like elitism. Marxist conflict does.

3 ms·

> Most 18-year-olds are not super differentiated from each other. I wonder if this is just elitism looking down on the great unwashed masses. I confess that my

by mwcampbell 7y ago

pm90 7y ago
People here are really taking offense to the characterization of 18 y/o this way since the first thought is to see where they fit in this model of reality. But the author isn't speaking about individuals but aggregates; on the average, the 18 y/o American kid is most likely unsure about what they want to do in their lives, and are thrust into an extremely competitive zero-sum environment of college. All the author is saying is that this isn't representative of the real world, but people that go through this trauma might continue to think this way into adulthood, leading to a toxic culture and paradigm of the world.
tlb 7y ago
Girard would nod mmm-hmm at trying to find differences among people who went to college together. If you zoom out to look at the whole wide range of people around the world -- truckers, subsistence farmers, politicians, assembly line workers, homemakers -- people who went to the same college in the US are clustered very close together. One reason that Girardian conflict is attractive is that the differences aren't big enough to ensure different destinies. Rivals in college can put each other down, CS geeks insulting math geeks, knowing that their likely outcomes in life are broadly similar. Putting down, say, a subsistence farmer, who does have a different destiny, would seem quite cruel. Girardian conflict doesn't feel like elitism. Marxist conflict does.