Thanks! I would say though that my criticism is broader:
1. I do not think elites have "replaced" material signalling with belief signalling. I think this has always happened and I am not even sure there is so much evidence these ratios have changed. This is another argument for focusing on content of beliefs: elites will always signal, b…
Thanks! I would say though that my criticism is broader:
1. I do not think elites have "replaced" material signalling with belief signalling. I think this has always happened and I am not even sure there is so much evidence these ratios have changed. This is another argument for focusing on content of beliefs: elites will always signal, but do they believe in good things?
2. I think there is a mishmash of libertarian positions and far left positions in terms of what counts as "luxury beliefs" which is really misleading and confusing imo
3. The whole sphere formed around luxury beliefs has this conspiratorial, 4D chess mentality which I explain is the wrong framework to have. This is not to excuse elites, but more to stick to the truth.
As to your point, I think any criticism of these beliefs will implicitly target other elites. If you write in NYT that defunding the police is bad and why, you are realistically targeting other elites. You can also specifically stress this affects low income communities, I just don't get what the emphasis on the "class struggle" dimension adds to the conversation. Indeed, it arguably just creates another victimhood sphere: conservatives, who are now rivalling left wing people in finding new things to whine about.
I think you have misunderstood Troubled. According to Henderson, the elites do not hold these beliefs to signal to the _out-group_. They are signalling to their own in-group, and that is the point. They perceive the problem with the elite class is that it is too large. Being rich is too common. Having the correct ancestors is too common. Being educated, even at the top universities is too common. There are just too many people who qualify, and thus 'elite' isn't selective enough. So their project is to set things up so that only people who hold these particular beliefs count as 'the real elite'. Boot the rest into the non-elite wealthy and upper middle class. Excluding all the people unwilling to espouse such beliefs gets 'the cream of the cream' down to manageable size. Then, of course, they need a class of flunkies who pander to the elite. This test finds those people as well.
Now, I do not know to what extend this is true. I can well believe that this is true at Yale, where Henderson attended, but that in other places the fight for who gets to be the real elite is about something else. I don't live in the USA, and would never get invited to those parties anyway. But I have a good number of books, Roger Martin's *Fixing the Game* being one that is rather accessible, if a bit dated, which outline the fact that the richest Americans have been involved in a class civil war for many decades. It's rich somewheres vs rich anywheres and manufacturers vs financial services and oil and gas vs renewables -- the American wealthy is in no way united the way it was in the past. This has been bad news for traditional conservatives, because the ace-in-the-hole for conservatives always was 'we have more money'. This is no longer the case.
So class is very relevant to the discussion. And what you seem to have missed is that Henderson explicitly did not write his book for the elites, because he wants to change or modify their behaviour. He's not writing a critique of bad beliefs. He's writing for those in the position of his younger self, as a warning -- these beliefs are dangerous, and that the people who promote them do not live according to their precepts, which is the message he thinks they need to hear.
I think the point that “just because these people have apparent wealth and success and status doesn’t mean their espoused beliefs are valuable” is a really important one. Emulating those with luxury beliefs in those beliefs is dangerous, but a highly appealing trap to a social species that typically follows the behaviors of high status individuals.
I haven't read his book, but Rob has defined the luxury beliefs concept in a ton of other articles that I did read.
Is there a higher percentage of people attending Harvard nowadays? I agree competition seems to have increased, but beliefs are no good differentiator between members of the elite. One of the issues people complain about is liberal college monoculture. How could this monoculture arise if beliefs were actually a good status signal? If anyone within a circle can have access to a status signal, and easily at that, that's not a good status signal. It's much easier to believe in defund the police than to get into a Harvard PhD for example.
I agree that there are two strands, a "rich elite" and a "cultural elite". Most of us have no way to enter the former; the latter is accessible to e.g. those with the "power of the pen" or other abilities. But I don't think they are engaged in a battle. It seems to me plain that the one (economic elite) is subordinate to the other (intellectual class). Why that is I have no idea.
Your oil and gas company founder or your industrialist's grandkids went to Yale or went to Hollywood or joined the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders.
You not infrequently read about their wanting to "do penance" for their ancestor's sins, via their trust fund, which is plenty enough to give away and also keep them in those oft-referenced NPR tote bags and EVs and $$ authentic travel.
Perhaps it is not enough continually to ask why the cultural elite should so easily hold sway in this way, but to ask what were the shortcomings of a Whiggish business elite, in terms of the appeal of its values. Clearly the economic elite has shortcomings of its own which allow the cultural elite to exploit it.
This wasn't what I was saying. The argument is that there are two separate rich elites and they have been fighting each other for decades. Its a civil war. Culture is window dressing.
Ironically the term 'elite' is used in the same sloppy and imprecise way as 'luxury belief' sometimes tends to get used "in the wild". It's impossible to have productive discourse without establishing and sticking to precise definitions of terms from the very beginning. Plenty of third-quintile folks are going along with and parroting many of these harmful proposals enabled by similar degrees of delusion and insulation from the consequences, and to call such people 'elite' is ridiculous.
My own opinion this kind of "personally costless sanctimony" is a widespread phenomenon in human social psychology and a form of status signaling that is hardly confined to 'elites' at all. That would be like saying that sartorial 'fashion' is mostly or exclusive a thing for 'elites', when in fact the incentives, impulses, and behaviors related to trying to conform to or surpass peer competitors and be perceived to be as impressively 'fashionable' as possible are clearly powerful and observable for all classes.
Just like with the brilliantly-scripted "cerulean sweater" monologue in "The Devil Wears Prada", fashion of all types is for everyone, but trickles down in tiers of social class in cycles of imitation of above, and thus must keep changing at the top, for differentiation from below.
But note it's actually *not* from the very top, and I think this is what Henderson gets really wrong, needing to bone up on his Orwell. The problem is (or at least, was), not the true 'elite', but the *near* (thus aspirational) elites frustrated with being unable to get to the very top (for a number of possible reasons) and to either join or replace the existing class of top elites. That's kind of like Henderson himself, so perhaps the insight hits a little too close to home.
Unlike the Marxist model of class struggle, the proletariat never matter to any of this, and the main event is the rivalry between these two groups of elites which is a universal and perpetual feature of the human condition and the dynamics of these struggles has been a major driver of history everywhere since the dawn of civilization.
The typical person's perception of one's overall social status is like an index aggregating values from a lot of distinct variables including intelligence, athleticism, physical attractiveness, fame, popularity, wealth, power, character, righteousness, socially-recognized 'rank', and so forth.
If you are trying to compete for status with a rival and for whatever reason simple can't win where they are strongest (e.g., wealth, aristocratic heritage, etc.) then that opens up the possibility of winning by getting a lot better than they are where they are weakest.
This subconscious perception of opportunity and drive for class-leapfrogging is what motivates near-elites when they are trying to be ideological entrepreneurs and using their surplus cognitive talents to come up with and conspicuously preach new extensions or modifications for novel fashionable beliefs is how they to achieve superiority over rivals they cannot surpass in other ways.
The fundamental problem is that this whole process is vulnerable to falling into a number of pathological and destructive "Social Failure Modes", something that has recurred over and over in many societies for centuries and especially western or intellectually-westernized ones.
One of those modes is the one Henderson is trying to highlight - of members of the influential classes incentivized to adopt and espouse normative principles and social reforms with negative consequences because they benefit personally in their circle but have no skin in the game for the fallout - though I think he places far too much emphasis on the "class gatekeeping" function, again, perhaps exaggerating the importance because feeling this particular aspect of it a bit too keenly given his personal experiences.
Frankly we would all be much better off if these impulses were forcibly channeled into private and harmless contests and elites were forced to jockey for relative status by competing with Paul Allen to have the perfect business card.
Sorry if I was unclear. I was not trying to restate what you were saying. I was disagreeing (not obviously enough). There is a rich elite - which generally defers to the non-rich elite. Sure, the latter often has ways of enriching itself, and has - but there is no war in my view. I don't know what "culture is window dressing" means so I won't speak to that.
Yeah, I think your first paragraph is right on, and I would just add there is always the usual tension between the new money types and the old money types, the super rich vs the ultra rich, or the cognitive elite vs the financial elite, etc. Espousing said luxury beliefs is probably at least in part signaling which faction the speaker is aligning themselves with.
I thought your essay was persuasive and it summarized my own views pretty well. I have two problems with the concept of "luxury beliefs". First, I don't think it accurately explains why people hold these beliefs or the social dynamics surrounding them. Second, in practice the term tends to be a way to smear anyone or anything you don't like, which makes it not a very useful tool for discussion.
I agree. For instance, above oil and gas versus renewables is deployed as shorthand for "productive" versus "unproductive". This puts us in the position of classifying e.g. the Danes as the unproductive - as the "takers" - of the world. You've gone far astray if that's your logic.
Thanks! I would say though that my criticism is broader:
1. I do not think elites have "replaced" material signalling with belief signalling. I think this has always happened and I am not even sure there is so much evidence these ratios have changed. This is another argument for focusing on content of beliefs: elites will always signal, but do they believe in good things?
2. I think there is a mishmash of libertarian positions and far left positions in terms of what counts as "luxury beliefs" which is really misleading and confusing imo
3. The whole sphere formed around luxury beliefs has this conspiratorial, 4D chess mentality which I explain is the wrong framework to have. This is not to excuse elites, but more to stick to the truth.
As to your point, I think any criticism of these beliefs will implicitly target other elites. If you write in NYT that defunding the police is bad and why, you are realistically targeting other elites. You can also specifically stress this affects low income communities, I just don't get what the emphasis on the "class struggle" dimension adds to the conversation. Indeed, it arguably just creates another victimhood sphere: conservatives, who are now rivalling left wing people in finding new things to whine about.
I think you have misunderstood Troubled. According to Henderson, the elites do not hold these beliefs to signal to the _out-group_. They are signalling to their own in-group, and that is the point. They perceive the problem with the elite class is that it is too large. Being rich is too common. Having the correct ancestors is too common. Being educated, even at the top universities is too common. There are just too many people who qualify, and thus 'elite' isn't selective enough. So their project is to set things up so that only people who hold these particular beliefs count as 'the real elite'. Boot the rest into the non-elite wealthy and upper middle class. Excluding all the people unwilling to espouse such beliefs gets 'the cream of the cream' down to manageable size. Then, of course, they need a class of flunkies who pander to the elite. This test finds those people as well.
Now, I do not know to what extend this is true. I can well believe that this is true at Yale, where Henderson attended, but that in other places the fight for who gets to be the real elite is about something else. I don't live in the USA, and would never get invited to those parties anyway. But I have a good number of books, Roger Martin's *Fixing the Game* being one that is rather accessible, if a bit dated, which outline the fact that the richest Americans have been involved in a class civil war for many decades. It's rich somewheres vs rich anywheres and manufacturers vs financial services and oil and gas vs renewables -- the American wealthy is in no way united the way it was in the past. This has been bad news for traditional conservatives, because the ace-in-the-hole for conservatives always was 'we have more money'. This is no longer the case.
So class is very relevant to the discussion. And what you seem to have missed is that Henderson explicitly did not write his book for the elites, because he wants to change or modify their behaviour. He's not writing a critique of bad beliefs. He's writing for those in the position of his younger self, as a warning -- these beliefs are dangerous, and that the people who promote them do not live according to their precepts, which is the message he thinks they need to hear.
I think the point that “just because these people have apparent wealth and success and status doesn’t mean their espoused beliefs are valuable” is a really important one. Emulating those with luxury beliefs in those beliefs is dangerous, but a highly appealing trap to a social species that typically follows the behaviors of high status individuals.
I haven't read his book, but Rob has defined the luxury beliefs concept in a ton of other articles that I did read.
Is there a higher percentage of people attending Harvard nowadays? I agree competition seems to have increased, but beliefs are no good differentiator between members of the elite. One of the issues people complain about is liberal college monoculture. How could this monoculture arise if beliefs were actually a good status signal? If anyone within a circle can have access to a status signal, and easily at that, that's not a good status signal. It's much easier to believe in defund the police than to get into a Harvard PhD for example.
I agree that there are two strands, a "rich elite" and a "cultural elite". Most of us have no way to enter the former; the latter is accessible to e.g. those with the "power of the pen" or other abilities. But I don't think they are engaged in a battle. It seems to me plain that the one (economic elite) is subordinate to the other (intellectual class). Why that is I have no idea.
Your oil and gas company founder or your industrialist's grandkids went to Yale or went to Hollywood or joined the Peace Corps or Doctors Without Borders.
You not infrequently read about their wanting to "do penance" for their ancestor's sins, via their trust fund, which is plenty enough to give away and also keep them in those oft-referenced NPR tote bags and EVs and $$ authentic travel.
Perhaps it is not enough continually to ask why the cultural elite should so easily hold sway in this way, but to ask what were the shortcomings of a Whiggish business elite, in terms of the appeal of its values. Clearly the economic elite has shortcomings of its own which allow the cultural elite to exploit it.
This wasn't what I was saying. The argument is that there are two separate rich elites and they have been fighting each other for decades. Its a civil war. Culture is window dressing.
Ironically the term 'elite' is used in the same sloppy and imprecise way as 'luxury belief' sometimes tends to get used "in the wild". It's impossible to have productive discourse without establishing and sticking to precise definitions of terms from the very beginning. Plenty of third-quintile folks are going along with and parroting many of these harmful proposals enabled by similar degrees of delusion and insulation from the consequences, and to call such people 'elite' is ridiculous.
My own opinion this kind of "personally costless sanctimony" is a widespread phenomenon in human social psychology and a form of status signaling that is hardly confined to 'elites' at all. That would be like saying that sartorial 'fashion' is mostly or exclusive a thing for 'elites', when in fact the incentives, impulses, and behaviors related to trying to conform to or surpass peer competitors and be perceived to be as impressively 'fashionable' as possible are clearly powerful and observable for all classes.
Just like with the brilliantly-scripted "cerulean sweater" monologue in "The Devil Wears Prada", fashion of all types is for everyone, but trickles down in tiers of social class in cycles of imitation of above, and thus must keep changing at the top, for differentiation from below.
But note it's actually *not* from the very top, and I think this is what Henderson gets really wrong, needing to bone up on his Orwell. The problem is (or at least, was), not the true 'elite', but the *near* (thus aspirational) elites frustrated with being unable to get to the very top (for a number of possible reasons) and to either join or replace the existing class of top elites. That's kind of like Henderson himself, so perhaps the insight hits a little too close to home.
Unlike the Marxist model of class struggle, the proletariat never matter to any of this, and the main event is the rivalry between these two groups of elites which is a universal and perpetual feature of the human condition and the dynamics of these struggles has been a major driver of history everywhere since the dawn of civilization.
The typical person's perception of one's overall social status is like an index aggregating values from a lot of distinct variables including intelligence, athleticism, physical attractiveness, fame, popularity, wealth, power, character, righteousness, socially-recognized 'rank', and so forth.
If you are trying to compete for status with a rival and for whatever reason simple can't win where they are strongest (e.g., wealth, aristocratic heritage, etc.) then that opens up the possibility of winning by getting a lot better than they are where they are weakest.
This subconscious perception of opportunity and drive for class-leapfrogging is what motivates near-elites when they are trying to be ideological entrepreneurs and using their surplus cognitive talents to come up with and conspicuously preach new extensions or modifications for novel fashionable beliefs is how they to achieve superiority over rivals they cannot surpass in other ways.
The fundamental problem is that this whole process is vulnerable to falling into a number of pathological and destructive "Social Failure Modes", something that has recurred over and over in many societies for centuries and especially western or intellectually-westernized ones.
One of those modes is the one Henderson is trying to highlight - of members of the influential classes incentivized to adopt and espouse normative principles and social reforms with negative consequences because they benefit personally in their circle but have no skin in the game for the fallout - though I think he places far too much emphasis on the "class gatekeeping" function, again, perhaps exaggerating the importance because feeling this particular aspect of it a bit too keenly given his personal experiences.
Frankly we would all be much better off if these impulses were forcibly channeled into private and harmless contests and elites were forced to jockey for relative status by competing with Paul Allen to have the perfect business card.
The cerulean sweater monologue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2fgquYTCg
Sorry if I was unclear. I was not trying to restate what you were saying. I was disagreeing (not obviously enough). There is a rich elite - which generally defers to the non-rich elite. Sure, the latter often has ways of enriching itself, and has - but there is no war in my view. I don't know what "culture is window dressing" means so I won't speak to that.
Yeah, I think your first paragraph is right on, and I would just add there is always the usual tension between the new money types and the old money types, the super rich vs the ultra rich, or the cognitive elite vs the financial elite, etc. Espousing said luxury beliefs is probably at least in part signaling which faction the speaker is aligning themselves with.
I thought your essay was persuasive and it summarized my own views pretty well. I have two problems with the concept of "luxury beliefs". First, I don't think it accurately explains why people hold these beliefs or the social dynamics surrounding them. Second, in practice the term tends to be a way to smear anyone or anything you don't like, which makes it not a very useful tool for discussion.
I agree. For instance, above oil and gas versus renewables is deployed as shorthand for "productive" versus "unproductive". This puts us in the position of classifying e.g. the Danes as the unproductive - as the "takers" - of the world. You've gone far astray if that's your logic.
It also elides the fact that all of us are takers in some sense in this life, on this planet. One should have some humility.
"Second, in practice the term tends to be a way to smear anyone or anything you don't like,"
Ouch. I don't know how much this is true but it certainly seems a huge risk well worth being aware of. Thx for pointing it out.
"Conspiratorial" it's a psychologically powerful word.