21 ms·

Learning The Elite Class

271 points by jseliger 4y ago

labrador 4y ago
Are most people very concerned about their place in the social hierarchy? I'm an anti-social person so by nature I just don't.
- contrast 4y ago
  Don’t what? Plenty of anti-social people complain about social hierarchies, just as with social people.
  - labrador 4y ago
    I see people jockeying for position in the social hierarchy like pack animals responding to their instinctual programming. They are unable and/or unwilling to exceed their original programming. Male humans especially are trapped in cycles of competition for resources and females.
- seper8 4y ago
  Or are you anti-social because you can't fit in in the social hierarchy?
  - seydor 4y ago
    Most likely the former. There are a lot of people who are considered by others to be very high in hierarchy, yet they are antisocial and don't want much to do with other people. Many of them are scientists.
  - labrador 4y ago
    Being mostly unwilling to conform to group rules at the risk of being rejected, I lean towards being ostracized because I like the freedom and breathing room it gives me.
- ozim 4y ago
  I am just going to nag that anti-social person is someone who runs the streets and punches random people. If you don't care about convenances you are not anti-social.
  - labrador 4y ago
    I'm not talking about the psychiatric disorder, I'm talking about being a misanthrope.
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  I wouldn't call myself anti-social, but I'm not terribly concerned about where I am in the social hierarchy. I do have a few friends that are very concerned with it and looking at some of their behavior is just exhausting. I remember we were at a party and apparently there were some big wigs there. My friend was pointing people out to me like: "hey don't look this person in the eye", and "don't talk to this person, they are far too important". I proceeded to go up and talk to each one of the folks that he warned me about. Friend looked at me like I was insane, I looked at him like he was insane.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Yeah, Im not bowing before someone of a higher social class (in a figurative sense) and have no problem demonstrating that when the situation occurs. Don't be a dick to anyone, but you don't fucking special treatment.
- sinenomine 4y ago
  It is only natural to care deeply about something than has direct influence over distribution of resources and mates. Rank order defines a lot. In any society, even in an utopian commune.
  - labrador 4y ago
    There are other roles in the tribe like scouts. Scouts are lone travelers who venture out exploring bring back useful information to the tribe.
seydor 4y ago
It's great to see Dall-e being put to use in blog posts
- ipnon 4y ago
  We need a model to classify blog posts as natural or synthetic.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
adammunich 4y ago
> “plastic bubble” people in the high falutin’ world are distant, weird isn’t it
kstenerud 4y ago
One thing I noticed during the years I lived in the USA was how unaware people seem to be of social class. In older societies, everyone is aware of their class from a very young age, but in America they seem to pretend that class doesn't exist there (or at least the lower classes seem blissfully unaware, and thus unable to voice it - to their own detriment). I see it a lot in American racism as well. Everyone pretends that racism in America is just that, when it's actually classism born of racist roots (which is different enough that it requires a very different solution). Even the phrase "white trash" betrays the classim, whereby otherwise "white" (middle to high class) people are relegated to the lower ("black", "hispanic") classes (other terms like "white slavery" are also of a similar turn). And since it's extremely difficult to escape your class (as the author has discovered), the system is self-perpetuating.
- specialist 4y ago
  Yes and... > I see it a lot in American racism as well. TIL the notion of races is an American invention. The origin was to justify the subjection of enslaved peoples, to impose a class society. During the apocalypse, I've been binging history and biographies. The (more) recent scholarship about America has been both challenging and illuminating. As a gen-x white guy, mostly I'm embarrassed. I've always "punched up", so feel a natural affinity for minorities, working class, etc. But I just didn't get it. Even though I considered myself an ally, my understanding of racism, class struggle, justice, and so forth was really shallow. My diet consisted of Zinn, Chomsky, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, etc. For whatever reason, aside from MLK and Gandhi, I don't recall reading much from non-white authors. Highest recommendation to these books, probably in this order: Jill Lepore's These Truths, The 1619 Project, Heather McGhee's The Sum of Us, Caro's LBJ biographies (passing the Civil Rights Act). I think I needed These Truths to prepare me for 1619 Project, to provide context, set the stage. > when it's actually classism born of racist roots Yup. There's two books in my queue about this specifically. I'll update with cites as able. -- Another big cultural topic which I totally misunderstood was Liberalism and by extension Neoliberalism. Specifically, the (American) reactionary origins of "free enterprise". Being a nerd, of course all my friends growing up were self-identified libertarians. So I thought I had a good grasp of that mindset. And I always assumed the grand struggle in the USA has always been wealth vs democracy, per Kevin Phillips' books and maybe a few others. (FWIW, I always assumed I was a left-libertarian -- anti-state, anti-corporation, rabidly pro people -- but noob me had no idea had no idea how to talk about it.) But I just wasn't aware of the doublespeak. Nor how the intuitive sounding phrases obscure and obfuscate what's really going on. To the elites pushing this stuff, "free enterprise" is pro property, anti-democracy, anti-competition, freedom to act without consequences. It is explicitly against the rule of law, against accountability, against competition. Growing up in a "Lincoln Republican" area, "socially liberal fiscally conservative", none of these concepts would have jived with my notions of fairness and civics. To really see the disconnect between the elite and folk understandings, I had to chew thru the podcasts Know Your Enemy, 5-4 "How the Supreme Court Sucks", and Strict Scrutiny. Also, the books Democracy in Chains and Dark Money connected a lot of the dots for me. Specifically, the connection between pro segregation, anti-civil rights, anti-labor reactionaries and the modern movement conservatives.
bigbacaloa 4y ago
Having come from an ordinary well off family and studied at elite institution X, this account reads as surprisingly consistent with my experiences, despite my evident differences with it's author. In these environments I was always surprised by how much of what people said and did was a show and how inaccessible their true thinking was. Friendliness was just another commodity or marketing tool. The arrogance is not always well concealed and it's what tends to give away the falsity of many interactions. If for whatever reason one winds up in more intimate social settings with these folk, some of them turn out to be wonderful people, talented and creative and open, but many turn out to be predatory pirates, looking to take from the rest of us what they think is their right. Some of the former eventually morph into the latter as the social environment in which they operate teaches such behavior is virtuous.
- elefanten 4y ago
  This all rings true. But how are other socioeconomic classes different in that last respect? Do you not encounter predatory pirates in middle or lower class settings? Aesthetics (the specific type of falsity you describe) aside, is this mix significantly different?
  - Mezzie 4y ago
    Oh, this is fun because I can actually answer this. (My life and class background is weird). The lower class/working class/working poor, it's kind of similar to driving in states that see a lot of snow: There's an understanding if you see some poor bastard in the ditch and you can stop to help, you do, because next time it could be you. Liking each other does factor into how much effort they'll put into one another, and it's definitely possible to blow all your goodwill, but generally they assume there's a shared understanding that the shit stick is always going around, everybody's going to catch it, and everybody might need some help. In this class, the predatory people you find are mostly those who take advantage of that ambient goodwill (this is also why there's a knee jerk reaction against mooches- when your community relies on everybody pitching in to function, moochers are more of a big deal) AND people who are waaaay too chill about the risks/consequences of their actions. (These are the friends you end up in prison with.) The middle and upper middle class extend genuine resources and help if they approve of you, but are absolutely vicious if you don't. Because there's a sense that everybody should be able to take care of themselves/that running a household is achievable, if you step out of line and fail it's because you've failed. The circumstances of your poverty matter greatly to this class, and that's why you find very strong opinions on what the poor should and shouldn't do/what they're like. They're the most tribal of all the main groups. But if they do genuinely like you, they'll give you the shirt off their backs and are very sweet. They make their social decisions based on their emotions + values on how they think society should be (versus the practicality of the working classes). In this social class, predators are mainly social in nature. Pirating isn't really a thing because it's gauche, and that would give away the camouflage. The other way predators exist in this group are those who abuse the working class, particularly in the service industry. The rich/well off/extremely privileged are very pleasant until you do something that they don't like. They're very used to having control over their environment, and this can manifest as a sort of grace and a lot of generosity because it doesn't cost them anything. Break something? Not a big deal; it isn't like they can't get another one. On the other hand, if you do cross them, they do not take it well. There's a tendency to see most of society as similar to a giant 4X game, and unanticipated variables annoy them. We all know what these predators are like. This class is very calculating, because it's a necessary condition to being there, and this does show up in their social and other lives. I often got the sense the people I met from this class were very stressed out.
enriquto 4y ago
This article is a bit boring, but the Askhole deck [0] it refers to seems hysterical! [0] https://www.askhole.io/ https://www.askhole.io/
- luplex 4y ago
  I can attest to it - it gave me many interesting evenings!
Havoc 4y ago
I think a big part of this experience that contributes to the alien experience is that the author is effectively skipping the entire "upper middle class". People that are uni educated but not quite tux and champagne crowd.
andreskytt 4y ago
Some of this feels a bit artificial. Maybe it’s just me but I feel mostly like that at _all_ parties. And I dont’ belong to or mingle with elite in the sense she means. Also, it would seem there’s a simple lack of context: would she have a fundamentally different experience at a gathering of, say, biochemists?
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  > Also, it would seem there’s a simple lack of context: would she have a fundamentally different experience at a gathering of, say, biochemists? Do you mean a conference for biochemists, or a party? At a party, I'd bet she wouldn't have the same experience, even if she wouldn't get the occasional joke.
Adrox 4y ago
This article sounds like “classicism” upside down, all “elite people” are boring, plastic, superficial, all the same, despair poor people, focused only on money… Blablah. She finished with the drug dealer example, what if she went to a “gang-meeting” or Magic the Gathering meeting and tried to ask the same questions that she claims are not answered at this parties: “ How do people talk about money? What makes people prestigious? What kind of traits influence social standing? How familiar are people with evaluating quality of research? How private are we supposed to keep gossip?” Would she have clear or better answers?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  People with large amounts of money/property/assets often do have one thing in common that explains much of this stereotype - they're afraid that someone is going to come and try to take it all away from them. If they're a wealthy family, then they're often worried that one of their family members will squander all the wealth so that's often a subject of discussion - who has access to the funds? I've known a few such families, they're often fairly miserable in their internal dynamics. It all seems a bit futile, though, the extraction of wealth from the economy via the neoliberal program and the creation of wealthy lifestyles. What's happened in the USA is that the neoliberals vacuumed all the wealth out of the middle class, so now it's basically posh and prole with a big gap between them. It's as if it the USA has become late 19th century Britain (certainly the educational system is going that way). It has all the unpleasant vibes of a dying Empire. One notion from the article that's very true is this: Or does she (and everyone else here) habitually exaggerate their productivity? That's perhaps a central myth that must be maintained, that the USA is a meritocracy where hard work and hustle is the route to wealth, when in reality it has more to do with inheritance than anything else. Some people from wealthy families do squander their inheritance, but even then their social networks tend to keep them from falling below the poverty line. The fact that most wealth is in the hands of a lazy aristocratic class that isn't (with some exceptions) using it to build new research laboratories or develop novel technologies, while China rushes full speed ahead (ever see Shenzhen?), doesn't bode well for the future of the USA.
  - guelo 4y ago
mstanuch 4y ago
> Her life seems intense to me, and I don’t understand how she’s here at this party looking lively. I personally can work on my research a few hours a day before I need to go nap or watch some youtube videos. Is she fundamentally different from me in some profound way? Does she just have more energy resources? Or does she (and everyone else here) habitually exaggerate their productivity? This is a question that I’ve been asking since forever, never got an answer. They just do „normal things” and „nothing special”. I’m by no means an elite class but I see those overproductive people with an unlimited energy on my college educated but not wealthy level too. I just want to know how they do it!
- davidktr 4y ago
  There are several possibilities. * There are people with generally higher energy levels, personally I suspect it's mostly about the dopamin/noradrenalin system. * People can choose different strategies how to approach their work. Some are very good at controlling the amount of attention they put into tasks. They might spend lower amounts of energy per task compared with other people, thus having more overall energy to spend. * The types of task you do. I can sit in meetings all day. Draining but not exhausting. However, difficult programming and data analysis, writing acamedic texts, having actually creative thoughts? 4-6 hours per day, tops. * Stimulants. Lots of them. Again, mostly about dopamin/noradrenalin. Amphetamines, modafinil, nicotine, caffeine, .... There's a plethora to choose from, especially if you live in the US.
  - havblue 4y ago
    I was wondering about that as well. Aside from drugs and productivity, do some of these people simply have a lot of passive income where they don't have to concentrate on a "job"? Must be nice.
  - grog454 4y ago
    I agree brain chemistry probably plays a significant role. I've avoided stimulants (even as mild as caffeine) and depressants (including alcohol) since I was a teenager. I still have what I call an addiction prone personality, and can happily spend 15 hours/day playing the same game for days or weeks on end. I am able to direct this "addiction" to more productive tasks as long as I can convince myself the reward is there. There was a period of about a year where I averaged 100 hr work weeks and got very little sleep. I belive various forms of meditation kept me sane during that period.
endominus 4y ago
Some other articles that are a little more academic in tone about the nature and study of class in America, and might be of interest to people interested in this article; https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1237182.html https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1237182.html https://web.archive.org/web/20151006183427/https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151006183427/https://michaeloc...
twayt 4y ago
I was around some people who have been immensely successful in Silicon Valley (think founders of $X B companies) and they all seemed to have one thing in common. They had no qualms about blatantly ignoring a person talking to them. Or walking out of conversations without any proper manners. In front of an audience, they seemed like normal, friendly and charismatic people. But when you actually spoke to them 1 on 1, their true nature came through. Not sure if they are sociopaths, autistic, on drugs or simply elitist but it was an extremely unnerving experience.
- auntienomen 4y ago
  It might just be rational. Famous people have to guard their time carefully, or it will be eaten entirely by the demands of others. I'm not famous and I don't mind taking time for the 1 person a day who asks me to think about something. But if there were 100 people a day doing that I might have to prioritize.
  - twayt 4y ago
    Surely there’s a better way of guarding your time, like not being around people when you need to do it
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Or they have people constantly approaching them and burned out on being nice to all of them.
  - twayt 4y ago
    It was very selective and they only acted this way to a certain group of people
- _fat_santa 4y ago
  > Not sure if they are sociopaths, autistic, on drugs or simply elitist but it was an extremely unnerving experience. I think "asshole" is the term you are looking for here.
LAC-Tech 4y ago
Jungian typology says there’s two types of thinking - internal and external. “Internal thinking” is thinking that’s interested in curiosity “all the way down”, and tends to be precise, very thorough, and interested in puzzles, having fully fleshed out, consistent mental models. “External thinking” is curious to concrete ends - if an intellectual curiosity isn’t directly furthering your goal, you put it to the side. It’s concerned with faster, more effective decision making, provable real-world impacts. I feel personally attacked. But seriously though, while I've gotten better at handling it, there's a constant gravitational pull for me towards "internal thinking". But external is clearly where it's at. Anyone been on this journey?
- bschne 4y ago
  I'm still often struggling with this, but I do find there's a certain "activation energy" needed — on many real-world, very practical projects my interest only developed as I made some initial progress, realized "interfacing with the messiness of the real world" was its own intriguing intellectual puzzle, and got the hang of dealing with (and appreciating!) people who had more external thinking instead of dismissing it wholesale. Also, while puzzling is it's own satisfaction, I found I was not immune to the gratification of doing something others appreciated and that was "socially" considered useful. Takes some deliberate exposure and practice I guess.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  Whats the point of living if you never get to indulge in curiosity all the way down?
  - solarmist 4y ago
    I’m someone who’s constantly pushed myself way from internal thinking. It’s still seems shiny, but over the years I’ve come to desire being able to share an interest and someone else actually give a damn. So I’d say “because I want to make an impact on other people’s lives” and I’ve never had internal thinking that resulted in anything someone else would care about. In fact I’ve never had anything original come from it either. Maybe if I had a Ph.D. In mathematics maybe I could do this, but all my best ideas have come from insights derived from conversations (sometimes years after the fact though, so to someone with a worse memory they might seem spontaneous).
sudden_dystopia 4y ago
This was really interesting. Especially the author trying to figure out if she is the odd one or if it’s them. I do feel like a couple of the aspects are on her like the whole diatribe about not knowing how to publish a study in a journal. Pretty sure one could just look that up on the internet, I don’t understand why that seemed like some intractable problem for her, especially being surrounded by people with connections that could probably help her. Or the part about the vacation homes and white trash. There are plenty of white trash people with vacation homes(small cabins), myself included. So it seems to me, that she is actually just a tad sheltered. But no doubt that those so called elite people are also odd.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  If you have to ask about publishing in a journal you won't be published. It's very hard explaining to outsiders just how petty and vindictive peer review is. You need a friend to vouch for you to get published in a top tier journal. Largely the reason why I left academia and went back to being one of the parasites she talks about. Academia isn't any more meritocratic than the blue blood circles [0], the only difference is that the pie is so much smaller. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarted-progress-toward-cure/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarte... I talked to people about this in the 00s and it was common knowledge in the field that publishing anything outside what that cabal deemed acceptable would kill your career. When I asked if the persons career was worth more than their grandmothers life I didn't get an answer.
bsenftner 4y ago
Aella is a personality, author and artist to watch. (Not referring to her sex work.) She is on the cusp of a literary masterwork, and has all the necessary components for becoming a seriously respected culture artist. Her canvas is society, and she is one of the few people writing today with a voice peer to the beatnik literary greats. I expect to see her in New Yorker soon.
- thrown_22 4y ago
totetsu 4y ago
>“Does he know I’m white trash?” I find myself thinking. This is weird; I don’t think I ever identified with white trash before. But here in this beautiful room with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking a colorful skyline, I feel defensive. The latest episode of the hidden brain podcast discusses this very phenomenon of group perception shaping feelings. https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/separating-yourself-from-the-pack/ https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/separating-yourself-from-the...
puffoflogic 4y ago
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Nobody cares if you feel sorry for them that isn't one of your friends or family members. The article isn't about you. You might want to think about how easy life gets if you flatter and fuck wealthy people, and how hard it is if you don't know any.
f17 4y ago
> Her life seems intense to me, and I don’t understand how she’s here at this party looking lively. I personally can work on my research a few hours a day before I need to go nap or watch some youtube videos. Is she fundamentally different from me in some profound way? Does she just have more energy resources? Or does she (and everyone else here) habitually exaggerate their productivity? The thing to understand about these people is that they're institutions. The people under them do the work, and they make a full-time job of making themselves look good. Which doesn't mean they don't work at it, but it's a different kind of work and it's less taxing. With deep work, you start to decline after 4-5 hours per day. Schmoozers can play their game all day; it's just not as mentally difficult. And yes, they are very good at making themselves appear to be people whose shit doesn't stink. Spoiler alert: it actually smells like everyone else's.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Bingo, I could not have said it better myself, and right after I just left a meandering, confused comment in different thread trying to say the same kind of thing. This is exactly it. When you have convinced (or hired) other people to do the work you're supposed to be doing, you suddenly have 24 hours a day free to work on self-promotion, and "building your own brand," schmoozing, bullshitting, having that look, having that style, all those things that signal class and actually impress the big-shots who, in turn help to make you a big-shot. FTA: > I don’t understand how they do it, and I can’t tell if I or they are the weird ones. People here are directors of strategy or vice presidents or head tech coordinators or editors at magazines. I don’t think I could do any of that even if I had all of it handed to me. I think she's wrong: She could do this. Anybody could do it if it were handed to them. Imagine what you'd do if your livelihood was taken care of for you--you don't have to worry about money. You'd just kind of do what you want to do and hire other people to do the hard stuff. That's all these people are doing.
  - musingsole 4y ago
    > I think she's wrong: She could do this. You can be handed a functional institution, but unless you know how to keep it together, you'll just run it into the ground eventually. If you accept that the institution-people aren't actually working but building brands and selling their brands, then it follows that it is a different set of skills to do the work than it is to represent it.
ta988 4y ago
She is much more part of their clan than she thinks. Her self promotion and differentiation skills are intense. Plus she uses any intervention to market her stuff a bit more.
motohagiography 4y ago
To anyone who has felt similar, the way to navigate class in situations like that is to really practice not giving a flamingo. Not in an antagonistic or reactive way, but to have spent a few years really cultivating a paucity of firetrucks. The author was treated well because she wasn't a threat, and the people at that party could tell she was a civilian in their conflict. Outsiders are necessary because they polinate between tribes, and if you get invited to something like that, embrace your freedom. Think of it like spending a week in LA and Hollywood, where it can be dazzling, but then it starts to sink in that these people can't leave. That's what being middle class is like, it's the incentives and behaviours that result from belief you can't leave and it's "up or out," which is hilarious (in an existentially horrific way), because there is no "up." There is no "there" from "here," because not a single member of a legitimate elite got there with permission or assent - only the acquiescence of peers. You only ever win your place at that table. Elite is always the conseqeunce of mastery and achievement, and not flattery or prestige. It's not so much zero-sum as untouchable achievement. The rest are hangarounds. Being a member of an elite and elitism have as much in common as a rockstar and their fan club. Nobody wants to be around fans, they'd much rather be able to find people who they can share their appreciation of things with. If you gave up firetrucks and just got amazing at being a musician, or even just being amazing at whatever you do, you would be more welcome among rock stars because you have that level of achievement in common, and not just taste. While I came from a middle class family, several years ago I decided to drop out of the middle class because after really struggling with it, I decided it was a competition without a prize. If you have to struggle to maintain status, it was never yours. Struggle for achievement, but never for status. Being middle class isn't about income. It is predicated on the idea you are an impostor who must get ahead of all the other impostors by sustaining the narrative that none of you are impostors. Indeed, admittedly people who lose at games are always the most generous with their insights into them, and misery does love company, but whatever the case, I have the relative luxury of affording to share these views. Like how "all political careers end in failure," I was losing at something in which I didn't think anyone actually wins. However, like pursuing elite achievement - progress and success at being middle class means you also have to love the conflict for its own sake, just like loving a sport to be the best at it. Being a member of an elite means to have won a place as a peer among the very best in a field. Striving can be a real crab bucket, and I don't think it's something one should enter into lightly. A friend put it well with an analogy to "indoor cats" and "outdoor cats," where they have very different skills. Outdoor cats are romantic and generally better at catching mice and being a cat, but they can't use a litter box, they destroy furniture, spray everywhere, and they cause a power struggle whenever they show up. Indoor cats catch mice as necessary if at all, but are really good at maintaining the durable relationships that secure their welcome, and being declawed makes them behave more strategically, even if they can revert to apopleptic wildness when an intact outdoor cat comes around. Obviously my bias favours outdoor cats, but with a sincere respect for the skills indoor cats must develop to live. Vive la difference. The adage of "first rule of being an insider is don't criticize other insiders," applies so strictly that the things insiders ignore about each other often seems completely insane. What the author was writing about at that party was the opiate and glazing effects of proximity to power. Some of my more progressive friends were offended when I told them my lack of a degree now qualified me as working class, and that with my new class consciousness, I was going to use my gifts and advantages to advocate for my proletariat brothers and sisters, and I think they felt it as a betrayal of the game, and it sounded a lot like just losing and giving up. Maybe it was, though I think it just clicked for me that one doesn't recruit courtiers to storm a castle, and we don't need to because the one thing we know for sure about them is that they always forgive you when you win. Lovely and provocative article.
egypturnash 4y ago
Everyone here does seem more… mentally together. Conscientious, maybe? It seems like they’re probably working way more hours than I am. I don’t understand how they do it, and I can’t tell if I or they are the weird ones. People here are directors of strategy or vice presidents or head tech coordinators or editors at magazines. I don’t think I could do any of that even if I had all of it handed to me. I am solidly middle-class, have been for my whole life, and this is totally how I feel every time I talk with my animation school roomie. I burnt out on that industry and do weird freelance in obscurity, he stuck it out and was a director on the recent Animaniacs reboot. Talking to my other friends who have had success (multi-Hugh-winning writer, comics artist who's had years where collections of her strip sold more than the entirety of DC or Marvel) kinda feels this way too.
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  The real answer of course is that your friend and the elite class are all on stimulants! And you can too!
  - egypturnash 4y ago
    Quite possibly, I know what the comics artist is using, I dunno what the writer or director are doing but the use of controlled substances by the previous generation of animators we trained under was an open "secret", including horror stories about the shit their mentor did when he was running a show with the help of fistfuls of cocaine.
  - niknoble 4y ago
    What about conscientious people from the past, like 90% of historical figures we've heard of? Was Benjamin Franklin on stimulants?
    - ShamelessC 4y ago
      I hear religion is one hell of a drug, although that doesn't really explain all the atheist historical figures.
WalterBright 4y ago
> How do you even get into finance? Some paths: 1. get a math degree in college and become a quant 2. apply for a job at a brokerage house, then take the classes to get a brokerage license 3. get a college degree in finance 4. get a college degree in accounting
- yolovoe 4y ago
  The common path in my circle these days is to get a degree in computer science and maybe math. Then you apply to trading firms for internships/jobs. If you get them, great, make 500+ as a newgrad. If you dont, you can use FAANG or unicorns or even SWE roles at hedge funds as a backup and still make 200+. The thing that makes trading a bit hard to enter is the interview process. A lot of firms test your mental math skills, so you really need to start in high school ideally and do UIL Number Sense (in Texas) or similar contests. Or spend some time freshman year practicing mental math and tricky probability questions. I didn't do this and fell behind and thus am not a trader but instead a SWE. But a computer science degree is also an excellent backup in case you realize you don't want to do trading or aren't cut out for it.
  - burntoutfire 4y ago
    Trading firms are paying $500k a year to people who just graduated from college?
    - yolovoe 4y ago
      Traders at Optiver and other reputable firms are for sure making at least that much. Their pay is variable, but I think you generally hit 7 figure annual payouts really fast. Even new grad software engineers make 350+ at Jane Street, HRT and Citadel. You can easily verify this through levels.fyi. I didn't believe the data until some people I personally know who work here said its true. And of course traders who take on all the risk should have a much higher upside so their pay should be significantly more than 350.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
angarg12 4y ago
The stories given by OP don't seem to support her point as much, it seems to me. The fact is that she and 'other who don't belong' where in those parties. Contrast this with some crusty societies of Europe, such as Germany or the UK. You are simply not going to get invited or even be remotely exposed to those circles. Moving to the UK I was shocked by how openly classist they are. And unlike the US, where at least you can hope to climb the class ladder with money, it's almost impossible to make it there. The phrase 'old boys club' is both figurative and literal.
boppo1 4y ago
Ctrl+f 'aella', 0 results. If you like this, look around for more by 'aellagirl'. Very NSFW, but often wildly interesting (and well written) views into some worlds people are often curious about but don't see. It's a testament to her character and style that I hadn't even checked the byline, and halfway through thought "I think this is aellagirl". I don't even agree with more than a few of her viewpoints, but nonetheless, I enjoy her work. I think she will be viewed as an important writer for her chronicles one day. She documents without fluff (just her experience), she's intelligent and she's detailed. Her material covers lots of very contemporary and very human situations in a way totally removed from the connotations and cliches in movies and tv. I guess I'm trying to say that she writes clearly and honestly about her unusual experiences, and looking back we often find that valuable.
bzmrgonz 4y ago
Someone post the TLDR pls.
celdon25 4y ago
> People here are directors of strategy or vice presidents or head tech coordinators or editors at magazines. The author considers this the Elite Class? Those are just glorified middle management titles. Even most CEOs don’t qualify as elite. I got news for you…

271 points by jseliger 4y ago

Are most people very concerned about their place in the social hierarchy? I'm an anti-social person so by nature I just don't.

contrast 4y ago
Don’t what? Plenty of anti-social people complain about social hierarchies, just as with social people.
- labrador 4y ago
  I see people jockeying for position in the social hierarchy like pack animals responding to their instinctual programming. They are unable and/or unwilling to exceed their original programming. Male humans especially are trapped in cycles of competition for resources and females.
seper8 4y ago
Or are you anti-social because you can't fit in in the social hierarchy?
- seydor 4y ago
  Most likely the former. There are a lot of people who are considered by others to be very high in hierarchy, yet they are antisocial and don't want much to do with other people. Many of them are scientists.
- labrador 4y ago
  Being mostly unwilling to conform to group rules at the risk of being rejected, I lean towards being ostracized because I like the freedom and breathing room it gives me.
ozim 4y ago
I am just going to nag that anti-social person is someone who runs the streets and punches random people. If you don't care about convenances you are not anti-social.
- labrador 4y ago
  I'm not talking about the psychiatric disorder, I'm talking about being a misanthrope.
_fat_santa 4y ago
I wouldn't call myself anti-social, but I'm not terribly concerned about where I am in the social hierarchy. I do have a few friends that are very concerned with it and looking at some of their behavior is just exhausting. I remember we were at a party and apparently there were some big wigs there. My friend was pointing people out to me like: "hey don't look this person in the eye", and "don't talk to this person, they are far too important". I proceeded to go up and talk to each one of the folks that he warned me about. Friend looked at me like I was insane, I looked at him like he was insane.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  Yeah, Im not bowing before someone of a higher social class (in a figurative sense) and have no problem demonstrating that when the situation occurs. Don't be a dick to anyone, but you don't fucking special treatment.
sinenomine 4y ago
It is only natural to care deeply about something than has direct influence over distribution of resources and mates. Rank order defines a lot. In any society, even in an utopian commune.
- labrador 4y ago
  There are other roles in the tribe like scouts. Scouts are lone travelers who venture out exploring bring back useful information to the tribe.

seydor 4y ago

It's great to see Dall-e being put to use in blog posts

ipnon 4y ago
We need a model to classify blog posts as natural or synthetic.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

adammunich 4y ago

> “plastic bubble” people in the high falutin’ world are distant, weird isn’t it

kstenerud 4y ago

One thing I noticed during the years I lived in the USA was how unaware people seem to be of social class. In older societies, everyone is aware of their class from a very young age, but in America they seem to pretend that class doesn't exist there (or at least the lower classes seem blissfully unaware, and thus unable to voice it - to their own detriment). I see it a lot in American racism as well. Everyone pretends that racism in America is just that, when it's actually classism born of racist roots (which is different enough that it requires a very different solution). Even the phrase "white trash" betrays the classim, whereby otherwise "white" (middle to high class) people are relegated to the lower ("black", "hispanic") classes (other terms like "white slavery" are also of a similar turn). And since it's extremely difficult to escape your class (as the author has discovered), the system is self-perpetuating.

specialist 4y ago
Yes and... > I see it a lot in American racism as well. TIL the notion of races is an American invention. The origin was to justify the subjection of enslaved peoples, to impose a class society. During the apocalypse, I've been binging history and biographies. The (more) recent scholarship about America has been both challenging and illuminating. As a gen-x white guy, mostly I'm embarrassed. I've always "punched up", so feel a natural affinity for minorities, working class, etc. But I just didn't get it. Even though I considered myself an ally, my understanding of racism, class struggle, justice, and so forth was really shallow. My diet consisted of Zinn, Chomsky, Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, etc. For whatever reason, aside from MLK and Gandhi, I don't recall reading much from non-white authors. Highest recommendation to these books, probably in this order: Jill Lepore's These Truths, The 1619 Project, Heather McGhee's The Sum of Us, Caro's LBJ biographies (passing the Civil Rights Act). I think I needed These Truths to prepare me for 1619 Project, to provide context, set the stage. > when it's actually classism born of racist roots Yup. There's two books in my queue about this specifically. I'll update with cites as able. -- Another big cultural topic which I totally misunderstood was Liberalism and by extension Neoliberalism. Specifically, the (American) reactionary origins of "free enterprise". Being a nerd, of course all my friends growing up were self-identified libertarians. So I thought I had a good grasp of that mindset. And I always assumed the grand struggle in the USA has always been wealth vs democracy, per Kevin Phillips' books and maybe a few others. (FWIW, I always assumed I was a left-libertarian -- anti-state, anti-corporation, rabidly pro people -- but noob me had no idea had no idea how to talk about it.) But I just wasn't aware of the doublespeak. Nor how the intuitive sounding phrases obscure and obfuscate what's really going on. To the elites pushing this stuff, "free enterprise" is pro property, anti-democracy, anti-competition, freedom to act without consequences. It is explicitly against the rule of law, against accountability, against competition. Growing up in a "Lincoln Republican" area, "socially liberal fiscally conservative", none of these concepts would have jived with my notions of fairness and civics. To really see the disconnect between the elite and folk understandings, I had to chew thru the podcasts Know Your Enemy, 5-4 "How the Supreme Court Sucks", and Strict Scrutiny. Also, the books Democracy in Chains and Dark Money connected a lot of the dots for me. Specifically, the connection between pro segregation, anti-civil rights, anti-labor reactionaries and the modern movement conservatives.

bigbacaloa 4y ago

Having come from an ordinary well off family and studied at elite institution X, this account reads as surprisingly consistent with my experiences, despite my evident differences with it's author. In these environments I was always surprised by how much of what people said and did was a show and how inaccessible their true thinking was. Friendliness was just another commodity or marketing tool. The arrogance is not always well concealed and it's what tends to give away the falsity of many interactions. If for whatever reason one winds up in more intimate social settings with these folk, some of them turn out to be wonderful people, talented and creative and open, but many turn out to be predatory pirates, looking to take from the rest of us what they think is their right. Some of the former eventually morph into the latter as the social environment in which they operate teaches such behavior is virtuous.

elefanten 4y ago
This all rings true. But how are other socioeconomic classes different in that last respect? Do you not encounter predatory pirates in middle or lower class settings? Aesthetics (the specific type of falsity you describe) aside, is this mix significantly different?
- Mezzie 4y ago
  Oh, this is fun because I can actually answer this. (My life and class background is weird). The lower class/working class/working poor, it's kind of similar to driving in states that see a lot of snow: There's an understanding if you see some poor bastard in the ditch and you can stop to help, you do, because next time it could be you. Liking each other does factor into how much effort they'll put into one another, and it's definitely possible to blow all your goodwill, but generally they assume there's a shared understanding that the shit stick is always going around, everybody's going to catch it, and everybody might need some help. In this class, the predatory people you find are mostly those who take advantage of that ambient goodwill (this is also why there's a knee jerk reaction against mooches- when your community relies on everybody pitching in to function, moochers are more of a big deal) AND people who are waaaay too chill about the risks/consequences of their actions. (These are the friends you end up in prison with.) The middle and upper middle class extend genuine resources and help if they approve of you, but are absolutely vicious if you don't. Because there's a sense that everybody should be able to take care of themselves/that running a household is achievable, if you step out of line and fail it's because you've failed. The circumstances of your poverty matter greatly to this class, and that's why you find very strong opinions on what the poor should and shouldn't do/what they're like. They're the most tribal of all the main groups. But if they do genuinely like you, they'll give you the shirt off their backs and are very sweet. They make their social decisions based on their emotions + values on how they think society should be (versus the practicality of the working classes). In this social class, predators are mainly social in nature. Pirating isn't really a thing because it's gauche, and that would give away the camouflage. The other way predators exist in this group are those who abuse the working class, particularly in the service industry. The rich/well off/extremely privileged are very pleasant until you do something that they don't like. They're very used to having control over their environment, and this can manifest as a sort of grace and a lot of generosity because it doesn't cost them anything. Break something? Not a big deal; it isn't like they can't get another one. On the other hand, if you do cross them, they do not take it well. There's a tendency to see most of society as similar to a giant 4X game, and unanticipated variables annoy them. We all know what these predators are like. This class is very calculating, because it's a necessary condition to being there, and this does show up in their social and other lives. I often got the sense the people I met from this class were very stressed out.

enriquto 4y ago

This article is a bit boring, but the Askhole deck [0] it refers to seems hysterical! [0] https://www.askhole.io/ https://www.askhole.io/

luplex 4y ago
I can attest to it - it gave me many interesting evenings!

Havoc 4y ago

I think a big part of this experience that contributes to the alien experience is that the author is effectively skipping the entire "upper middle class". People that are uni educated but not quite tux and champagne crowd.

andreskytt 4y ago

Some of this feels a bit artificial. Maybe it’s just me but I feel mostly like that at _all_ parties. And I dont’ belong to or mingle with elite in the sense she means. Also, it would seem there’s a simple lack of context: would she have a fundamentally different experience at a gathering of, say, biochemists?

tsimionescu 4y ago
> Also, it would seem there’s a simple lack of context: would she have a fundamentally different experience at a gathering of, say, biochemists? Do you mean a conference for biochemists, or a party? At a party, I'd bet she wouldn't have the same experience, even if she wouldn't get the occasional joke.

Adrox 4y ago

This article sounds like “classicism” upside down, all “elite people” are boring, plastic, superficial, all the same, despair poor people, focused only on money… Blablah. She finished with the drug dealer example, what if she went to a “gang-meeting” or Magic the Gathering meeting and tried to ask the same questions that she claims are not answered at this parties: “ How do people talk about money? What makes people prestigious? What kind of traits influence social standing? How familiar are people with evaluating quality of research? How private are we supposed to keep gossip?” Would she have clear or better answers?

photochemsyn 4y ago
People with large amounts of money/property/assets often do have one thing in common that explains much of this stereotype - they're afraid that someone is going to come and try to take it all away from them. If they're a wealthy family, then they're often worried that one of their family members will squander all the wealth so that's often a subject of discussion - who has access to the funds? I've known a few such families, they're often fairly miserable in their internal dynamics. It all seems a bit futile, though, the extraction of wealth from the economy via the neoliberal program and the creation of wealthy lifestyles. What's happened in the USA is that the neoliberals vacuumed all the wealth out of the middle class, so now it's basically posh and prole with a big gap between them. It's as if it the USA has become late 19th century Britain (certainly the educational system is going that way). It has all the unpleasant vibes of a dying Empire. One notion from the article that's very true is this: Or does she (and everyone else here) habitually exaggerate their productivity? That's perhaps a central myth that must be maintained, that the USA is a meritocracy where hard work and hustle is the route to wealth, when in reality it has more to do with inheritance than anything else. Some people from wealthy families do squander their inheritance, but even then their social networks tend to keep them from falling below the poverty line. The fact that most wealth is in the hands of a lazy aristocratic class that isn't (with some exceptions) using it to build new research laboratories or develop novel technologies, while China rushes full speed ahead (ever see Shenzhen?), doesn't bode well for the future of the USA.
- guelo 4y ago

mstanuch 4y ago

> Her life seems intense to me, and I don’t understand how she’s here at this party looking lively. I personally can work on my research a few hours a day before I need to go nap or watch some youtube videos. Is she fundamentally different from me in some profound way? Does she just have more energy resources? Or does she (and everyone else here) habitually exaggerate their productivity? This is a question that I’ve been asking since forever, never got an answer. They just do „normal things” and „nothing special”. I’m by no means an elite class but I see those overproductive people with an unlimited energy on my college educated but not wealthy level too. I just want to know how they do it!

davidktr 4y ago
There are several possibilities. * There are people with generally higher energy levels, personally I suspect it's mostly about the dopamin/noradrenalin system. * People can choose different strategies how to approach their work. Some are very good at controlling the amount of attention they put into tasks. They might spend lower amounts of energy per task compared with other people, thus having more overall energy to spend. * The types of task you do. I can sit in meetings all day. Draining but not exhausting. However, difficult programming and data analysis, writing acamedic texts, having actually creative thoughts? 4-6 hours per day, tops. * Stimulants. Lots of them. Again, mostly about dopamin/noradrenalin. Amphetamines, modafinil, nicotine, caffeine, .... There's a plethora to choose from, especially if you live in the US.
- havblue 4y ago
  I was wondering about that as well. Aside from drugs and productivity, do some of these people simply have a lot of passive income where they don't have to concentrate on a "job"? Must be nice.
- grog454 4y ago
  I agree brain chemistry probably plays a significant role. I've avoided stimulants (even as mild as caffeine) and depressants (including alcohol) since I was a teenager. I still have what I call an addiction prone personality, and can happily spend 15 hours/day playing the same game for days or weeks on end. I am able to direct this "addiction" to more productive tasks as long as I can convince myself the reward is there. There was a period of about a year where I averaged 100 hr work weeks and got very little sleep. I belive various forms of meditation kept me sane during that period.

endominus 4y ago

Some other articles that are a little more academic in tone about the nature and study of class in America, and might be of interest to people interested in this article; https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1237182.html https://siderea.dreamwidth.org/1237182.html https://web.archive.org/web/20151006183427/https://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-3-ladder-system-of-social-class-in-the-u-s/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151006183427/https://michaeloc...

twayt 4y ago

I was around some people who have been immensely successful in Silicon Valley (think founders of $X B companies) and they all seemed to have one thing in common. They had no qualms about blatantly ignoring a person talking to them. Or walking out of conversations without any proper manners. In front of an audience, they seemed like normal, friendly and charismatic people. But when you actually spoke to them 1 on 1, their true nature came through. Not sure if they are sociopaths, autistic, on drugs or simply elitist but it was an extremely unnerving experience.

auntienomen 4y ago
It might just be rational. Famous people have to guard their time carefully, or it will be eaten entirely by the demands of others. I'm not famous and I don't mind taking time for the 1 person a day who asks me to think about something. But if there were 100 people a day doing that I might have to prioritize.
- twayt 4y ago
  Surely there’s a better way of guarding your time, like not being around people when you need to do it
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
colechristensen 4y ago
Or they have people constantly approaching them and burned out on being nice to all of them.
- twayt 4y ago
  It was very selective and they only acted this way to a certain group of people
_fat_santa 4y ago
> Not sure if they are sociopaths, autistic, on drugs or simply elitist but it was an extremely unnerving experience. I think "asshole" is the term you are looking for here.

LAC-Tech 4y ago

Jungian typology says there’s two types of thinking - internal and external. “Internal thinking” is thinking that’s interested in curiosity “all the way down”, and tends to be precise, very thorough, and interested in puzzles, having fully fleshed out, consistent mental models. “External thinking” is curious to concrete ends - if an intellectual curiosity isn’t directly furthering your goal, you put it to the side. It’s concerned with faster, more effective decision making, provable real-world impacts. I feel personally attacked. But seriously though, while I've gotten better at handling it, there's a constant gravitational pull for me towards "internal thinking". But external is clearly where it's at. Anyone been on this journey?

bschne 4y ago
I'm still often struggling with this, but I do find there's a certain "activation energy" needed — on many real-world, very practical projects my interest only developed as I made some initial progress, realized "interfacing with the messiness of the real world" was its own intriguing intellectual puzzle, and got the hang of dealing with (and appreciating!) people who had more external thinking instead of dismissing it wholesale. Also, while puzzling is it's own satisfaction, I found I was not immune to the gratification of doing something others appreciated and that was "socially" considered useful. Takes some deliberate exposure and practice I guess.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Whats the point of living if you never get to indulge in curiosity all the way down?
- solarmist 4y ago
  I’m someone who’s constantly pushed myself way from internal thinking. It’s still seems shiny, but over the years I’ve come to desire being able to share an interest and someone else actually give a damn. So I’d say “because I want to make an impact on other people’s lives” and I’ve never had internal thinking that resulted in anything someone else would care about. In fact I’ve never had anything original come from it either. Maybe if I had a Ph.D. In mathematics maybe I could do this, but all my best ideas have come from insights derived from conversations (sometimes years after the fact though, so to someone with a worse memory they might seem spontaneous).

sudden_dystopia 4y ago

This was really interesting. Especially the author trying to figure out if she is the odd one or if it’s them. I do feel like a couple of the aspects are on her like the whole diatribe about not knowing how to publish a study in a journal. Pretty sure one could just look that up on the internet, I don’t understand why that seemed like some intractable problem for her, especially being surrounded by people with connections that could probably help her. Or the part about the vacation homes and white trash. There are plenty of white trash people with vacation homes(small cabins), myself included. So it seems to me, that she is actually just a tad sheltered. But no doubt that those so called elite people are also odd.

thrown_22 4y ago
If you have to ask about publishing in a journal you won't be published. It's very hard explaining to outsiders just how petty and vindictive peer review is. You need a friend to vouch for you to get published in a top tier journal. Largely the reason why I left academia and went back to being one of the parasites she talks about. Academia isn't any more meritocratic than the blue blood circles [0], the only difference is that the pie is so much smaller. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarted-progress-toward-cure/ https://www.statnews.com/2019/06/25/alzheimers-cabal-thwarte... I talked to people about this in the 00s and it was common knowledge in the field that publishing anything outside what that cabal deemed acceptable would kill your career. When I asked if the persons career was worth more than their grandmothers life I didn't get an answer.

bsenftner 4y ago

Aella is a personality, author and artist to watch. (Not referring to her sex work.) She is on the cusp of a literary masterwork, and has all the necessary components for becoming a seriously respected culture artist. Her canvas is society, and she is one of the few people writing today with a voice peer to the beatnik literary greats. I expect to see her in New Yorker soon.

thrown_22 4y ago

totetsu 4y ago

>“Does he know I’m white trash?” I find myself thinking. This is weird; I don’t think I ever identified with white trash before. But here in this beautiful room with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking a colorful skyline, I feel defensive. The latest episode of the hidden brain podcast discusses this very phenomenon of group perception shaping feelings. https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/separating-yourself-from-the-pack/ https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/separating-yourself-from-the...

puffoflogic 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago
Nobody cares if you feel sorry for them that isn't one of your friends or family members. The article isn't about you. You might want to think about how easy life gets if you flatter and fuck wealthy people, and how hard it is if you don't know any.

f17 4y ago

> Her life seems intense to me, and I don’t understand how she’s here at this party looking lively. I personally can work on my research a few hours a day before I need to go nap or watch some youtube videos. Is she fundamentally different from me in some profound way? Does she just have more energy resources? Or does she (and everyone else here) habitually exaggerate their productivity? The thing to understand about these people is that they're institutions. The people under them do the work, and they make a full-time job of making themselves look good. Which doesn't mean they don't work at it, but it's a different kind of work and it's less taxing. With deep work, you start to decline after 4-5 hours per day. Schmoozers can play their game all day; it's just not as mentally difficult. And yes, they are very good at making themselves appear to be people whose shit doesn't stink. Spoiler alert: it actually smells like everyone else's.

ryandrake 4y ago
Bingo, I could not have said it better myself, and right after I just left a meandering, confused comment in different thread trying to say the same kind of thing. This is exactly it. When you have convinced (or hired) other people to do the work you're supposed to be doing, you suddenly have 24 hours a day free to work on self-promotion, and "building your own brand," schmoozing, bullshitting, having that look, having that style, all those things that signal class and actually impress the big-shots who, in turn help to make you a big-shot. FTA: > I don’t understand how they do it, and I can’t tell if I or they are the weird ones. People here are directors of strategy or vice presidents or head tech coordinators or editors at magazines. I don’t think I could do any of that even if I had all of it handed to me. I think she's wrong: She could do this. Anybody could do it if it were handed to them. Imagine what you'd do if your livelihood was taken care of for you--you don't have to worry about money. You'd just kind of do what you want to do and hire other people to do the hard stuff. That's all these people are doing.
- musingsole 4y ago
  > I think she's wrong: She could do this. You can be handed a functional institution, but unless you know how to keep it together, you'll just run it into the ground eventually. If you accept that the institution-people aren't actually working but building brands and selling their brands, then it follows that it is a different set of skills to do the work than it is to represent it.

ta988 4y ago

She is much more part of their clan than she thinks. Her self promotion and differentiation skills are intense. Plus she uses any intervention to market her stuff a bit more.

motohagiography 4y ago

To anyone who has felt similar, the way to navigate class in situations like that is to really practice not giving a flamingo. Not in an antagonistic or reactive way, but to have spent a few years really cultivating a paucity of firetrucks. The author was treated well because she wasn't a threat, and the people at that party could tell she was a civilian in their conflict. Outsiders are necessary because they polinate between tribes, and if you get invited to something like that, embrace your freedom. Think of it like spending a week in LA and Hollywood, where it can be dazzling, but then it starts to sink in that these people can't leave. That's what being middle class is like, it's the incentives and behaviours that result from belief you can't leave and it's "up or out," which is hilarious (in an existentially horrific way), because there is no "up." There is no "there" from "here," because not a single member of a legitimate elite got there with permission or assent - only the acquiescence of peers. You only ever win your place at that table. Elite is always the conseqeunce of mastery and achievement, and not flattery or prestige. It's not so much zero-sum as untouchable achievement. The rest are hangarounds. Being a member of an elite and elitism have as much in common as a rockstar and their fan club. Nobody wants to be around fans, they'd much rather be able to find people who they can share their appreciation of things with. If you gave up firetrucks and just got amazing at being a musician, or even just being amazing at whatever you do, you would be more welcome among rock stars because you have that level of achievement in common, and not just taste. While I came from a middle class family, several years ago I decided to drop out of the middle class because after really struggling with it, I decided it was a competition without a prize. If you have to struggle to maintain status, it was never yours. Struggle for achievement, but never for status. Being middle class isn't about income. It is predicated on the idea you are an impostor who must get ahead of all the other impostors by sustaining the narrative that none of you are impostors. Indeed, admittedly people who lose at games are always the most generous with their insights into them, and misery does love company, but whatever the case, I have the relative luxury of affording to share these views. Like how "all political careers end in failure," I was losing at something in which I didn't think anyone actually wins. However, like pursuing elite achievement - progress and success at being middle class means you also have to love the conflict for its own sake, just like loving a sport to be the best at it. Being a member of an elite means to have won a place as a peer among the very best in a field. Striving can be a real crab bucket, and I don't think it's something one should enter into lightly. A friend put it well with an analogy to "indoor cats" and "outdoor cats," where they have very different skills. Outdoor cats are romantic and generally better at catching mice and being a cat, but they can't use a litter box, they destroy furniture, spray everywhere, and they cause a power struggle whenever they show up. Indoor cats catch mice as necessary if at all, but are really good at maintaining the durable relationships that secure their welcome, and being declawed makes them behave more strategically, even if they can revert to apopleptic wildness when an intact outdoor cat comes around. Obviously my bias favours outdoor cats, but with a sincere respect for the skills indoor cats must develop to live. Vive la difference. The adage of "first rule of being an insider is don't criticize other insiders," applies so strictly that the things insiders ignore about each other often seems completely insane. What the author was writing about at that party was the opiate and glazing effects of proximity to power. Some of my more progressive friends were offended when I told them my lack of a degree now qualified me as working class, and that with my new class consciousness, I was going to use my gifts and advantages to advocate for my proletariat brothers and sisters, and I think they felt it as a betrayal of the game, and it sounded a lot like just losing and giving up. Maybe it was, though I think it just clicked for me that one doesn't recruit courtiers to storm a castle, and we don't need to because the one thing we know for sure about them is that they always forgive you when you win. Lovely and provocative article.

egypturnash 4y ago

Everyone here does seem more… mentally together. Conscientious, maybe? It seems like they’re probably working way more hours than I am. I don’t understand how they do it, and I can’t tell if I or they are the weird ones. People here are directors of strategy or vice presidents or head tech coordinators or editors at magazines. I don’t think I could do any of that even if I had all of it handed to me. I am solidly middle-class, have been for my whole life, and this is totally how I feel every time I talk with my animation school roomie. I burnt out on that industry and do weird freelance in obscurity, he stuck it out and was a director on the recent Animaniacs reboot. Talking to my other friends who have had success (multi-Hugh-winning writer, comics artist who's had years where collections of her strip sold more than the entirety of DC or Marvel) kinda feels this way too.

ShamelessC 4y ago
The real answer of course is that your friend and the elite class are all on stimulants! And you can too!
- egypturnash 4y ago
  Quite possibly, I know what the comics artist is using, I dunno what the writer or director are doing but the use of controlled substances by the previous generation of animators we trained under was an open "secret", including horror stories about the shit their mentor did when he was running a show with the help of fistfuls of cocaine.
- niknoble 4y ago
  What about conscientious people from the past, like 90% of historical figures we've heard of? Was Benjamin Franklin on stimulants?
  - ShamelessC 4y ago
    I hear religion is one hell of a drug, although that doesn't really explain all the atheist historical figures.

WalterBright 4y ago

> How do you even get into finance? Some paths: 1. get a math degree in college and become a quant 2. apply for a job at a brokerage house, then take the classes to get a brokerage license 3. get a college degree in finance 4. get a college degree in accounting

yolovoe 4y ago
The common path in my circle these days is to get a degree in computer science and maybe math. Then you apply to trading firms for internships/jobs. If you get them, great, make 500+ as a newgrad. If you dont, you can use FAANG or unicorns or even SWE roles at hedge funds as a backup and still make 200+. The thing that makes trading a bit hard to enter is the interview process. A lot of firms test your mental math skills, so you really need to start in high school ideally and do UIL Number Sense (in Texas) or similar contests. Or spend some time freshman year practicing mental math and tricky probability questions. I didn't do this and fell behind and thus am not a trader but instead a SWE. But a computer science degree is also an excellent backup in case you realize you don't want to do trading or aren't cut out for it.
- burntoutfire 4y ago
  Trading firms are paying $500k a year to people who just graduated from college?
  - yolovoe 4y ago
    Traders at Optiver and other reputable firms are for sure making at least that much. Their pay is variable, but I think you generally hit 7 figure annual payouts really fast. Even new grad software engineers make 350+ at Jane Street, HRT and Citadel. You can easily verify this through levels.fyi. I didn't believe the data until some people I personally know who work here said its true. And of course traders who take on all the risk should have a much higher upside so their pay should be significantly more than 350.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

angarg12 4y ago

The stories given by OP don't seem to support her point as much, it seems to me. The fact is that she and 'other who don't belong' where in those parties. Contrast this with some crusty societies of Europe, such as Germany or the UK. You are simply not going to get invited or even be remotely exposed to those circles. Moving to the UK I was shocked by how openly classist they are. And unlike the US, where at least you can hope to climb the class ladder with money, it's almost impossible to make it there. The phrase 'old boys club' is both figurative and literal.

boppo1 4y ago

Ctrl+f 'aella', 0 results. If you like this, look around for more by 'aellagirl'. Very NSFW, but often wildly interesting (and well written) views into some worlds people are often curious about but don't see. It's a testament to her character and style that I hadn't even checked the byline, and halfway through thought "I think this is aellagirl". I don't even agree with more than a few of her viewpoints, but nonetheless, I enjoy her work. I think she will be viewed as an important writer for her chronicles one day. She documents without fluff (just her experience), she's intelligent and she's detailed. Her material covers lots of very contemporary and very human situations in a way totally removed from the connotations and cliches in movies and tv. I guess I'm trying to say that she writes clearly and honestly about her unusual experiences, and looking back we often find that valuable.

bzmrgonz 4y ago

Someone post the TLDR pls.

celdon25 4y ago

> People here are directors of strategy or vice presidents or head tech coordinators or editors at magazines. The author considers this the Elite Class? Those are just glorified middle management titles. Even most CEOs don’t qualify as elite. I got news for you…