Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Matthew Ritter's avatar

Discussions about "elites" might suffer from a "No True Scotsman" issue - I think we'd all agree that it's a little different than "rich + college + white", but attempts to be more specific usually come close to being circular: Elites are the people who believe the things I'm arguing elites believe.

So maybe there's something to Rob's argument, maybe not, but it does seem like the onus is on him to be a little more specific, so that this concept is remotely falsifiable. Starting theories from observation is totally fine, but it he wants to put it forward as more than an "interesting idea I had", it also seems like he should bring some data too!

Expand full comment
Rob Dobson's avatar

I think there's a difference between the concept of a 'luxury belief' being one that privileged people hold as a status signal, and one that can be held by privileged people without it hurting them and so we can say it's a status signal.

The suggestion by Rob H is that rich people hold these beliefs as status signals, whereas I think the reality is that when a rich person holds that belief it's easy to say 'well you would say that, it's not going to hurt you', which you can't with a person of less privilege. The reasoning that less privileged people then believe it because of 'trickle down' seems ludicrous. Maybe there are beliefs that are entering into the mainstream, which people of all backgrounds believe/don't believe, and he's merely picking up on the fact that, for some people, those beliefs don't have a cost and then giving it a name. If anything, it's surely a stronger signal to believe in things which do cost you; so by his logic a belief in weakening monogamy should be a stronger signal for those of less privilege.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts