Great move making this a written out interview! I had opened the tab originially thinking it was a podcast type thing, and it sat for quite a few hours before I got done with work and could actually pay attention, yet lo and behold! I could have started reading it right away!
(Lately I read things I care about, and listening is for movie reviews or blacksmithing videos. I don't know why.)
Anyway, thanks for writing this up about two great authors!
"Honestly? It’s probably my near-complete lack of any kind of education. I was homeschooled in a weird way where I didn’t really have any formal education past my freshman year in high school, and the college-level education I’ve had since then has been at bottom-tier online schools. If you asked me to tell you what a predicate or a preposition were, I’d have to look it up."
Would never have guessed! But I guess in retrospect it makes sense given the amount of uncorrelated truth he produces
I have a question for you guys. Who do you read most often? The reason I ask is because I have a sneaking suspicion all three of you will list Tyler Cowen in your top 5 or 10. Another reason I ask is that I found out about Infovores through reading Arnold Kling, and I suspect Arnold Kling is NOT among P or RC's top 5 or 10 reads. I find the connections among bloggers and public intellectuals (along the lines of https://jacobwood27.github.io/035_blog_graph/) endlessly fascinating....
It is fascinating and as the graph shows, Tyler is pretty central to a lot of writers' networks. He's had a huge influence on me in a way that kind of pops up everywhere in my writing if you're paying attention.
Apart from Arnold, I try to read Scott Alexander really closely because he's simply the best there is at what he does. I read Douthat a lot. I try to learn from Katherine Dee and other alt-identity writers who are interesting and witty and have voice for days. If Agnes Callard had a substack I would probably subscribe.
There are other people I'm thinking of that have profoundly influenced me primarily through other mediums. They tend to be religious thinkers who are not (I think) very well understood by people who put too much stock in the current news cycle or what's being said on Twitter. By their nature the ideas that resonate with me from these spaces are difficult to fully express in writing, but I try to incorporate elements where I can.
I mostly use Tyler for his linkstorms - that's not a slander on his name, I just don't read that much. I read Scott, obviously. But beyond that I mostly don't read particular authors that much in the sense that I check in and see when they have posted new things. I'm really, really bad about reading at this point in my life.
Arnold writes mainly at Substack now (https://arnoldkling.substack.com/) if you wanted to check him out in your own ecosystem. He does a series called "Keeping up with the [Fantasy Intellectual Teams]" that functions a little like Tyler's link posts but with more of a focus on current-events commentary. RC's regular commenters Rollins and Doc Hammer have been commenting there lately (speaking of network effects).
Nice interview. I hope you all keep on writing and improving. I think the question of what makes people want to subscribe and share is fascinating. It seems to mainly be about signalling an aesthetic and tribal identity, no?
I don't think it has to be strongly tribal, but people do really appreciate feeling like they've found a kindred spirit in some sense. Could be as simple as chuckling at the same jokes or noticing things most other people seem to overlook.
Still, it's hard to deny that the biggest subscriber platforms tend to project tribal vibes of some sort whether its anti-woke, EA/rationalist, or "sensible center-left" (TM). Each of those things has a pretty strong accompanying aesthetic a lot of the time that tips prospective readers off pretty immediately to what they're about and whether you're likely to fit in.
Even adopting a fairly neutral aesthetic and non-tribal posture is itself a kind of tribe/aesthetic judgment I suppose so maybe these forces really are inescapable? Agnes Callard has a great piece you might be interested in on a similar topic.
I'd say being tribal *helps*, but it can't be the whole story. I have a bunch of left-ier subscribers, as well as a bunch of atheists/non-christians. I also have a <1% views-to-subscribes rate on most things, so there's evidently a lot of people who are culturally/tribally aligned who fail to subscribe after reading.
There almost has to be more to it than just "this guy also doesn't love CRT-in-schools, I'll subscribe". I'm not sure what that is, but there's a negative space to be filled there for sure.
The views-to-subscribers ratio makes sense in a time of Substack saturation. I sub to 100+ and it is far too much. Something has to be pretty special (even in your tribe) to be read religiously. The rest soon becomes clutter.
This is where the stuff about having a niche comes into play: a generalist has to be exceptional to justify their place in your reads.
From the consumer-of-many-writings side, I think tribal identity is way overrated compared to just an interesting point of view, well reasoned and elucidated. I am a bit nit picky by nature, but it really can irk me when a writer and I agree, but they have all the wrong reasons. If we disagree and their reasons are wrong, yea sure, they are just an idiot, but if we agree it makes me want to spend a ton of time correcting everything, and eventually just settle on "Please be quiet because you are making good ideas look bad." Much better someone from a different tribe that makes very strong arguments to disagree with, because then the work figuring out why you think it is wrong gets you somewhere. At least that generates some ideas for essays for me to write.
2. is better right now in terms of how it exists in my headspace. If I write it today, it's going to displace "A biased guide to finding and sustaining love".
I mean, I talked to Grimace. I'm not saying that's not what he said but we both know there's some nuance there.
Playplace adventures aside, one of the problems with making big sweeping statements is that there's always someone who really *doesn't* like McDonalds or who would have independently reviled Nickelback, or whatever. But I think very honestly most people do like McDonalds, or at least don't hate it when they end up eating it for convenience or whatever. But you wouldn't know by talking to people - it's like, how does it stay in business if it's so bad?
That said, Wendy's has it beat by a pretty fair margin, among other burger joints. There's definitely better to be had.
Fair enough. I will eat McD's in a pinch, but we Pennsylvanians are blessed with Sheetz and Rutters, so better options abound. It is hard to beat a burger with fried mozzarella sticks and marinara sauce on it.
You are absolutely right though that the distaste for McDonalds is over stated based on their success. When I lived in MN among those benighted who knew not Sheetz, McD's was the place to stop for a quick coffee or treat for the kids. I think my distaste for it stems mostly from it being the baseline "This will suffice" sort of place, where there are almost always better options but it is still good enough. I mean, it isn't Arby's. In a sense McDonalds is where I eat when I am forced to, which makes me resent it a little, even though it is alright. I can't turn up the snobbery enough to go hungry instead of getting a double quarter pounder with cheese, certainly.
Great move making this a written out interview! I had opened the tab originially thinking it was a podcast type thing, and it sat for quite a few hours before I got done with work and could actually pay attention, yet lo and behold! I could have started reading it right away!
(Lately I read things I care about, and listening is for movie reviews or blacksmithing videos. I don't know why.)
Anyway, thanks for writing this up about two great authors!
Glad you enjoyed!
Wow, this is great! Love reading this collaborative effort. Thanks for posting!
"Honestly? It’s probably my near-complete lack of any kind of education. I was homeschooled in a weird way where I didn’t really have any formal education past my freshman year in high school, and the college-level education I’ve had since then has been at bottom-tier online schools. If you asked me to tell you what a predicate or a preposition were, I’d have to look it up."
Would never have guessed! But I guess in retrospect it makes sense given the amount of uncorrelated truth he produces
You'd be shocked by the amount of education I've managed not to get.
Thanks for the kind words - appreciated.
I have a question for you guys. Who do you read most often? The reason I ask is because I have a sneaking suspicion all three of you will list Tyler Cowen in your top 5 or 10. Another reason I ask is that I found out about Infovores through reading Arnold Kling, and I suspect Arnold Kling is NOT among P or RC's top 5 or 10 reads. I find the connections among bloggers and public intellectuals (along the lines of https://jacobwood27.github.io/035_blog_graph/) endlessly fascinating....
It is fascinating and as the graph shows, Tyler is pretty central to a lot of writers' networks. He's had a huge influence on me in a way that kind of pops up everywhere in my writing if you're paying attention.
Apart from Arnold, I try to read Scott Alexander really closely because he's simply the best there is at what he does. I read Douthat a lot. I try to learn from Katherine Dee and other alt-identity writers who are interesting and witty and have voice for days. If Agnes Callard had a substack I would probably subscribe.
There are other people I'm thinking of that have profoundly influenced me primarily through other mediums. They tend to be religious thinkers who are not (I think) very well understood by people who put too much stock in the current news cycle or what's being said on Twitter. By their nature the ideas that resonate with me from these spaces are difficult to fully express in writing, but I try to incorporate elements where I can.
I mostly use Tyler for his linkstorms - that's not a slander on his name, I just don't read that much. I read Scott, obviously. But beyond that I mostly don't read particular authors that much in the sense that I check in and see when they have posted new things. I'm really, really bad about reading at this point in my life.
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
Arnold writes mainly at Substack now (https://arnoldkling.substack.com/) if you wanted to check him out in your own ecosystem. He does a series called "Keeping up with the [Fantasy Intellectual Teams]" that functions a little like Tyler's link posts but with more of a focus on current-events commentary. RC's regular commenters Rollins and Doc Hammer have been commenting there lately (speaking of network effects).
Thanks for taking the time to reply! (I know this sounds like sarcasm or maybe a bot or something, but really, thanks.)
p.s. Bryan is the best.
Nice interview. I hope you all keep on writing and improving. I think the question of what makes people want to subscribe and share is fascinating. It seems to mainly be about signalling an aesthetic and tribal identity, no?
I don't think it has to be strongly tribal, but people do really appreciate feeling like they've found a kindred spirit in some sense. Could be as simple as chuckling at the same jokes or noticing things most other people seem to overlook.
Still, it's hard to deny that the biggest subscriber platforms tend to project tribal vibes of some sort whether its anti-woke, EA/rationalist, or "sensible center-left" (TM). Each of those things has a pretty strong accompanying aesthetic a lot of the time that tips prospective readers off pretty immediately to what they're about and whether you're likely to fit in.
Even adopting a fairly neutral aesthetic and non-tribal posture is itself a kind of tribe/aesthetic judgment I suppose so maybe these forces really are inescapable? Agnes Callard has a great piece you might be interested in on a similar topic.
https://thepointmag.com/examined-life/do-you-want-my-garbage-agnes-callard/
I'd say being tribal *helps*, but it can't be the whole story. I have a bunch of left-ier subscribers, as well as a bunch of atheists/non-christians. I also have a <1% views-to-subscribes rate on most things, so there's evidently a lot of people who are culturally/tribally aligned who fail to subscribe after reading.
There almost has to be more to it than just "this guy also doesn't love CRT-in-schools, I'll subscribe". I'm not sure what that is, but there's a negative space to be filled there for sure.
The views-to-subscribers ratio makes sense in a time of Substack saturation. I sub to 100+ and it is far too much. Something has to be pretty special (even in your tribe) to be read religiously. The rest soon becomes clutter.
This is where the stuff about having a niche comes into play: a generalist has to be exceptional to justify their place in your reads.
I'm more or less a generalist, and feel very lucky that I write in an unusual way for this exact reason.
"this guy also doesn't love CRT-in-schools, I'll subscribe"
To drive this truck through the wall, if not liking it was all that's necessary, I'd be subscribing to David French.
Speaking of, advice to aspiring writers: Don't be David French.
Best friends.
From the consumer-of-many-writings side, I think tribal identity is way overrated compared to just an interesting point of view, well reasoned and elucidated. I am a bit nit picky by nature, but it really can irk me when a writer and I agree, but they have all the wrong reasons. If we disagree and their reasons are wrong, yea sure, they are just an idiot, but if we agree it makes me want to spend a ton of time correcting everything, and eventually just settle on "Please be quiet because you are making good ideas look bad." Much better someone from a different tribe that makes very strong arguments to disagree with, because then the work figuring out why you think it is wrong gets you somewhere. At least that generates some ideas for essays for me to write.
Great. great interview. I've only recently started reading Parrhesia, but I have a soft spot in my heart for RC. RC: write about deontology! Please!
OK, so: I have a couple deontology-related articles on deck.
1. Deontology as defined by the modern usage of the word doesn't exist
2. Moral systems are only as good as their enforcement mechanisms
Which do you want? I have some other people who are waiting on 2.
Either one / all of them / more of them. The real answer is "whichever one is better," but that's hard to judge from over here.
2. is better right now in terms of how it exists in my headspace. If I write it today, it's going to displace "A biased guide to finding and sustaining love".
I third the motion.
I'm not not eating McDonalds after having read this.
It's salted fat meat, with bread!
But badly done! There are so many better ways to enjoy salted fat meat! I like sex too, but I don't go to McDonalds to get it.
I mean, I talked to Grimace. I'm not saying that's not what he said but we both know there's some nuance there.
Playplace adventures aside, one of the problems with making big sweeping statements is that there's always someone who really *doesn't* like McDonalds or who would have independently reviled Nickelback, or whatever. But I think very honestly most people do like McDonalds, or at least don't hate it when they end up eating it for convenience or whatever. But you wouldn't know by talking to people - it's like, how does it stay in business if it's so bad?
That said, Wendy's has it beat by a pretty fair margin, among other burger joints. There's definitely better to be had.
Fair enough. I will eat McD's in a pinch, but we Pennsylvanians are blessed with Sheetz and Rutters, so better options abound. It is hard to beat a burger with fried mozzarella sticks and marinara sauce on it.
You are absolutely right though that the distaste for McDonalds is over stated based on their success. When I lived in MN among those benighted who knew not Sheetz, McD's was the place to stop for a quick coffee or treat for the kids. I think my distaste for it stems mostly from it being the baseline "This will suffice" sort of place, where there are almost always better options but it is still good enough. I mean, it isn't Arby's. In a sense McDonalds is where I eat when I am forced to, which makes me resent it a little, even though it is alright. I can't turn up the snobbery enough to go hungry instead of getting a double quarter pounder with cheese, certainly.
Who DOES like Arby's? I've always assumed it was a front for the mob or something.