Okay, serious question. How did “wealthy and powerful men in New York” become so boring? (Not just to young women! I’m a 35 year old programmer, not the most exciting demographic either, but talking to bankers bores me to tears.) Judging by pop culture, rich folks weren’t seen that way by average folks in previous generations. And the rich folks I talked to in Moscow were all fascinating. So the problem seems recent and Western. What happened? More generally, what makes a social role exciting or boring at a certain point in time?
Aside from whpearson’s point (which I broadly agree with), it’s just a fact of life that most people are boring. And folks who literally pay for ordinary social interaction (seriously, that’s what she’s selling: Social Interaction As A Service!) are likely to be far more boring/awkward than average. A lot of dating success is simply “be less boring, and mske sure that you’re aware of when you’re boring someone to death, so you can course-correct”. Perhaps it’s just me, but I see this as fairly obvious.
To add to your point: these men probably not only self-select on having low charisma (otherwise they wouldn’t need escorts), but also on being obsessively focused on their work. This focus means that they don’t have much interesting to say on anything that’s not work-related, and may also contribute to having difficulties in their family life.
I’m reminded of this Paul Graham essay. So maybe it is not all western cities. But the focus of the elite in those cities.
. What happened? More generally, what makes a social role exciting or boring at a certain point in time?
So I think the question is what qualities are incentivised in the social role. So for lots of bankers the behaviour that is incentivised is reliability and trustworthiness. It is not just the state that likes people to be predictable and boring, but the people giving lots of money to someone to keep safe, will also select for predictability and boringness.
Russia I imagine the people selected for were the people that could navigate the polictical/social scene. I imagine there is an amount of gambling involved in that, that lots of people failing and falling. Does that fit with your experience?
I suspect you wouldn’t find the Silicon Valley or Boston elite boring because there is certain amount of exploration and being novel that is required.
It seems like the most exciting quality in a person is taking risks. For example, tech entrepreneurs in the West don’t take much risk, because they can always go back to a comfortable job. That’s probably why tech entrepreneurs, like bankers, are also boring to the article’s author and to me.
That explains another fact that has puzzled me for awhile. Since moving to the West, I’ve talked with a few “voluntourists” who travel to poor countries a lot. But somehow they tend to be not very exciting people, even though they have all sorts of crazy stories! The reason is that they can always fly back to the West, so they don’t take as much risk as natives.
Can we make this idea useful? If risk-taking makes you a more exciting person, what kinds of risks should we take? (For example, bungee jumping from 100+ meters feels scary to me, but isn’t dangerous at all, so I recommend it to everyone.)
I personally wouldn’t fetishize being exciting too much. Boring stability is what allows civilisation to continue to do what functioning it somehow, against all the odds, manages to do. Too much exciting is just chaos.
That said, I would like more exciting in the world. One thing I’ve learnt anything from working on a live service is that any attempt at large-scale change, not matter how well planned/prepared for has an element of risk.
what kinds of risks should we take?
It might be worth enumerating the things we can risk. Your example covers at least getting the feeling of risking the phyiscal body. Other things I thought of off the top of my head.
Social Standing—E.g. Write an essay on something you are interested in that doesn’t link immediately to the interests of your community.
Money—Taking a large bet on something. This tends not to be exciting to me, but other people might like it.
Emotional—Hard to give non-specific examples here. Declaring your love or being vulnerable in front of someone, maybe? Probably not exciting for the rationalist community, but for others.
Other risks, such as risking your organisations/communities status/well being seem like they would have thorny issues of consent.
Well, gambling addicts can look pretty pathetic, not exciting at all. Same for people who talk about their feelings too much. I suspect that physical risk is the only kind that works.
Gambling on your knowledge might work, rather thank on your luck (at least in a rationalist setting).
It is interesting to think about, what does this look like as a societal norm. Physical risk gets you to adrenaline junkies, social standing can get you many places (Burning Culture is one, pushing the boundaries of social norms). Good ol’ Goodheart.
Another element of the exciting-ness of risk is the novelty. We are making risky choices everyday. To choose to go to university is a risky choice, sometimes you make a good network/grow as a person or learn something useful. Other times it is just a complete waste of time and money. But it is seen as a normal option, so it has no cache.
To chose not to do something has elements of risk too. If you never expose yourself to small risk, you risk struggling later in life, because you never got a big pay off compared to the people that put themselves out there. But that kind of risk taking is rarely lauded.
I often like to bring questions of behaviour back to the question of what kind of society we want. How does risk fit into that society?
I thought about this some more, and it seems like my idea is wrong. Taking risks can help you become more exciting, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient. It’s more about communication skills, we’re back to square one :-/
Okay, serious question. How did “wealthy and powerful men in New York” become so boring? (Not just to young women! I’m a 35 year old programmer, not the most exciting demographic either, but talking to bankers bores me to tears.) Judging by pop culture, rich folks weren’t seen that way by average folks in previous generations. And the rich folks I talked to in Moscow were all fascinating. So the problem seems recent and Western. What happened? More generally, what makes a social role exciting or boring at a certain point in time?
Aside from whpearson’s point (which I broadly agree with), it’s just a fact of life that most people are boring. And folks who literally pay for ordinary social interaction (seriously, that’s what she’s selling: Social Interaction As A Service!) are likely to be far more boring/awkward than average. A lot of dating success is simply “be less boring, and mske sure that you’re aware of when you’re boring someone to death, so you can course-correct”. Perhaps it’s just me, but I see this as fairly obvious.
To add to your point: these men probably not only self-select on having low charisma (otherwise they wouldn’t need escorts), but also on being obsessively focused on their work. This focus means that they don’t have much interesting to say on anything that’s not work-related, and may also contribute to having difficulties in their family life.
I’m reminded of this Paul Graham essay. So maybe it is not all western cities. But the focus of the elite in those cities.
So I think the question is what qualities are incentivised in the social role. So for lots of bankers the behaviour that is incentivised is reliability and trustworthiness. It is not just the state that likes people to be predictable and boring, but the people giving lots of money to someone to keep safe, will also select for predictability and boringness.
Russia I imagine the people selected for were the people that could navigate the polictical/social scene. I imagine there is an amount of gambling involved in that, that lots of people failing and falling. Does that fit with your experience?
I suspect you wouldn’t find the Silicon Valley or Boston elite boring because there is certain amount of exploration and being novel that is required.
That makes sense, thanks!
It seems like the most exciting quality in a person is taking risks. For example, tech entrepreneurs in the West don’t take much risk, because they can always go back to a comfortable job. That’s probably why tech entrepreneurs, like bankers, are also boring to the article’s author and to me.
That explains another fact that has puzzled me for awhile. Since moving to the West, I’ve talked with a few “voluntourists” who travel to poor countries a lot. But somehow they tend to be not very exciting people, even though they have all sorts of crazy stories! The reason is that they can always fly back to the West, so they don’t take as much risk as natives.
Can we make this idea useful? If risk-taking makes you a more exciting person, what kinds of risks should we take? (For example, bungee jumping from 100+ meters feels scary to me, but isn’t dangerous at all, so I recommend it to everyone.)
I personally wouldn’t fetishize being exciting too much. Boring stability is what allows civilisation to continue to do what functioning it somehow, against all the odds, manages to do. Too much exciting is just chaos.
That said, I would like more exciting in the world. One thing I’ve learnt anything from working on a live service is that any attempt at large-scale change, not matter how well planned/prepared for has an element of risk.
It might be worth enumerating the things we can risk. Your example covers at least getting the feeling of risking the phyiscal body. Other things I thought of off the top of my head.
Social Standing—E.g. Write an essay on something you are interested in that doesn’t link immediately to the interests of your community.
Money—Taking a large bet on something. This tends not to be exciting to me, but other people might like it.
Emotional—Hard to give non-specific examples here. Declaring your love or being vulnerable in front of someone, maybe? Probably not exciting for the rationalist community, but for others.
Other risks, such as risking your organisations/communities status/well being seem like they would have thorny issues of consent.
I’ve probably missed some categories though.
Well, gambling addicts can look pretty pathetic, not exciting at all. Same for people who talk about their feelings too much. I suspect that physical risk is the only kind that works.
Gambling on your knowledge might work, rather thank on your luck (at least in a rationalist setting).
It is interesting to think about, what does this look like as a societal norm. Physical risk gets you to adrenaline junkies, social standing can get you many places (Burning Culture is one, pushing the boundaries of social norms). Good ol’ Goodheart.
Another element of the exciting-ness of risk is the novelty. We are making risky choices everyday. To choose to go to university is a risky choice, sometimes you make a good network/grow as a person or learn something useful. Other times it is just a complete waste of time and money. But it is seen as a normal option, so it has no cache.
To chose not to do something has elements of risk too. If you never expose yourself to small risk, you risk struggling later in life, because you never got a big pay off compared to the people that put themselves out there. But that kind of risk taking is rarely lauded.
I often like to bring questions of behaviour back to the question of what kind of society we want. How does risk fit into that society?
I thought about this some more, and it seems like my idea is wrong. Taking risks can help you become more exciting, but it’s neither necessary nor sufficient. It’s more about communication skills, we’re back to square one :-/
Good post. I have a friend in a similar position. She has a lot of fun too.
My only gripe is that it’s limited in the numbers. And I’d love to see more of the number side of that.
Great story though! If I could do it I would. And I’m contemplating it. “Expert conversationalist”