I think we pretty much agree! For context, I grew up in a "ring" that was quite inner in a global sense but quite middling or even outer in a local sense. I'v

I think we pretty much agree! For context, I grew up in a "ring" that was quite inner in a global sense but quite middling or even outer in a local sense. I've been in several inner rings since, and they were disappointing. Not in the sense of the people inside of them being hostile (maybe some were, but these were chaotic and short-lived), but more... anti-social, but not in a way that they're self-conscious of? IDK if this makes sense. I've found picky institutions select for people who crave selection from picky institutions and getting their own. This means the people are generally hardworking and savvy, but not necessarily conscientious. I agree they lack "major personality flaws" but, I know this is trite, they tend to lack personality (goals, identity, culture, hobbies, deep & meaningful relationships) altogether. Every interaction is a transaction. I'm open to the idea that my sample's unrepresentative. But I guess at this stage in my life/career of meeting people, I've decided it might be more long-term productive to follow the advice in the end of the essay, and build what I'm looking for instead. I guess my conclusion is that there's diminishing returns to going inner? At a certain point, you have more to gain by building your own "inner". This is probably extra true if you were blessed to be born relatively-inner? I think this may be one interpretation of the essay, and it rhymes with my experience so far.