I'm curious why you think this sort of conversation would only happen between wealthy people.
The other aspect to consider is that to have deep conversations, you essentially need 95% reading 5% actual discussing because the depth can be pretty high on most topics.
To give a practical example: you can have a deep and touchy convo about the place of religion in life, but in all likelihood every argument you will come up with will have already been written about in far more depth elsewhere. By the very nature of the medium and its history you are only going to have the illusion of depth if you only seek to have conversations as you are describing.
It would also be a good idea to carefully consider what you consider touchy. Chances are, it's just normal things to think about for your demographic. For instance, HN readers like to talk about controlling the masses, large future trends, and revel in the forbidden aspect of discussing this sort of thing. But in reality, population control and an 'architect' view of their place in the world has been a normal feature of the well-to-do classes for pretty much forever.
"Rich people in yachts" have some advantages and disadvantages when it comes to making conversation. On the plus side, they're more likely to be well educated and familiar with those arguments that have been developed over hundreds of years (often only because of core-curriculum or distribution requirements but still). If they're on yachts it also suggests that they have more leisure time to read and think about those subjects. If the kinds of conversations you had in your own college years are your thing, then conversing with other college grads - and not just those in technical fields - is a pretty good bet.
OTOH, my experience as a not-quite-yacht-class person myself is that few such people remember much of anything from their college years or spend any time at all continuing their own education. Pursuing money in one of a few narrow fields, plus leisure, is usually the sum total of what they have to offer in conversation. Many of the best educated people I've known, and most of the best conversationalists, have not been affluent. The breadth of lived experience they can bring to bear, both in their many professions and in their personal lives, generally makes the yacht-club crowd look like a bunch of boring clones. The lack of pretension is also a plus.
Which makes me wonder why I'm trying to discuss this here. ;)
> On the plus side, they're more likely to be well educated
Academics are much better educated , but they have molded the academic system in a way that it is dangerous to talk about certain things. I dont think rich people are particularly educated or smart, but their wealth attracts smart and educated people, while being relatively shielded from demonetization.
> I dont think rich people are particularly educated
Maybe you need to recalibrate what "not well educated" means. Rich people might not all have advanced degrees, but the vast majority have at least some college (even if they dropped out). Compare that to the approximately 1/3 who have never attended even a community college, some barely or not even making it through high school. Thinking that a bachelor's doesn't qualify as "well educated" is exactly the kind of bubble I was talking about.
I wouldn't be talking about my experience with less-affluent people if I hadn't personally availed myself of opportunities to meet them. I'm just saying that most members of my class have practically made a sport out of avoiding anyone unlike themselves. Part of it is that people who have never lived outside of "the bubble" themselves often no idea what it's like or what people there are like. None whatsoever. Among my RL friends, sometimes I try to bridge the gap by sharing some of my own experiences. Other times, frankly, I just have to walk away before I say something we'll all regret. Classism tends to be built bit by bit, and has to be dismantled the same way.
Because wealthy people don't have a dayjob to lose.
> in all likelihood every argument you will come up with will have already been written about in far more depth elsewhere.
Yeah, that's the point of discussion, bringing up things and ideas, original or otherwise. However, even bringing up what has been written in recent centuries is a no-go (a mild example, Huxley). The hope is that by stopping making these points, they will be forgotten
Huxley is to me a curious example because many of the themes written about on that page is quite mainstream if we ignore the specific dated references, even amongst "normies". The idea that we are more like Brave New World than 1984 is so mainstream that it is a fairly common argument to drop on social media.
Losing your dayjob is far from a guarantee just on that basis. This is what I wanted to illustrate, that many of the ideas we think are forbidden are just ideas that are natural for our material circumstances.
The irony is that even if we are discussing anti-totalitarian measures as in this essay, we are still adopting the 'architect' mindset towards the rest of the population.
>I'm curious why you think this sort of conversation would only happen between wealthy people.
>But in reality, population control and an 'architect' view of their place in the world has been a normal feature of the well-to-do classes for pretty much forever.
In depth conversations about touchy subjects (in a broad sense) can happen in many contexts, and it's important to drop the halo effect around the wealthy. In this case, not even just the wealthy in general but also the specific type of wealthy person OP is alluding to.
Based on their choice of words, my intuition also tells me that OP's definition of touchy inevitably has to do with shepherding the broader population in response to long-term trends. Which is basically the default mindset past a certain class, and not some revolutionary secret idea that people aren't discussing anymore.
> To give a practical example: you can have a deep and touchy convo about [some topic], but in all likelihood every argument you will come up with will have already been written about in far more depth elsewhere.
You are right about most arguments about most topics that have been accessible for people for at least a few generations.
However, it's also surprisingly easy to come up with completely new takes, once you veer off the beaten path a bit.
That is true, but at the same time the depth is so high that short of speaking to another Johnny von Neumann you are not likely going to have that original of a conversation when compared to the pre-existing literature out there.
Of course, I'm cheating a bit here by bringing up something by a genius like Scott Aaronson. But my general point is that combining previously disconnected fields can yield new insights or at least new questions.
Another example, it's from religion, but hopefully silly enough not to ruffle any feathers:
As far as I know Catholic doctrine says that all humans have one soul and free will. Also, ensoulment happens at conception. The problem is identical twins come from the same fertilized egg.
Does the fertilized egg start with two souls, or does the soul split later? Normally, whether identical twins happen is sort-of random. But we also have enough technology that for in-vitro-fertilisation a human lab worker can use their own free will to spontaneously decide whether to produce identical twins or triplets long after conception has occurred.
Similar issues occur when you clone a human from an adult's cells. (But it's somewhat easier to deny that clones have souls than to deny souls to identical twins.)
Honestly, I don't think anyone is losing sleep over this conundrum.
I'll be honest, I lack the scientific literacy to understanding much of what Scott Aaronson is saying in that essay. But I will take your word for it that he has some surprising insights.
The Catholic egg question is pretty fascinating to me. I am not religious at all but I would be curious to ask theologians for their take on it.
The nice thing about Catholics, from the perspective of these doctrinal brain teasers at least, is that they are fairly centralized. Centralized enough that they can have official positions. Unlike Jews or protestants or Muslims. (Perhaps Orthodox Christianity also has enough structure to have official positions?)
In any case, from what I remember when I last looked into this topic the Vatican's official position on this is issue is that they don't have an official position. (Disappointing, I know.)
In my experience, listening to conversations among wealthy people or high status people are far more interesting because as a group they have the ability to execute on a larger scale, and they can influence each other far more easily because of the credibility their wealth or status confers. I have been in many rooms before listening to people you would not believe, I was able to get there by simply playing the respected role of a modern day wizard: a software engineer of vast intellect with ability to generate new revenues from code.
When I have listened to poorer people or low status “hustler” types talking to each other about big things, it mostly just comes off as myopic philosophizing or bullshit and puffery. Just a bunch of wannabes talking about things too big for the britches I’m afraid. If you spend too much time around these people you’ll get sucked into their delusions and waste years perpetuating terribly misguided thoughts.
I talk to poor people when I want to learn about micro scale things: the plight of a gig worker, the struggles of a single mother, the hellish existence of a drug addict, depression, etc.
I talk to wealthy people when I want to learn about macro scale things: the logistics of vaccine transport, alternative supply chains, subliminal eugenics initiatives, bureaucratic shortcuts, laundering, etc.
And I’m not saying only listen to wealthy people wow how shallow, I’m saying go where wealthy people are and just open your mind and ears. Don’t try to stand out too much and your presence will not be a problem.
I don't entirely disagree with what you mentioned but I believe it paints only part of the picture and heading to the next level of abstraction is necessary.
Tautologically, a wealthy or high status person will know quite a bit about how wealth and power affects life. They will have insights on parts of human nature that poorer people might not encounter. There's clearly value in listening to this with an open mind.
However, even for those involved in high-level industries, that does not mean they do not have their own brand of myopic philosophizing and puffery. A large portion of their views on life is just as predictable as that of the small time hustler, and just as informed by their material conditions and cultural sphere, even if richer people have more of an opportunity to exist as individuals. There is this semi-aware understanding that wealthy people have to talk about Big Things, and the way they talk about Big Things inevitably leads to the 'architect' viewpoint and controlling the poor. I cracked a smile at the 'subliminal eugenics initiatives' because it's so representative of this mindset.
Every once in a while, you get a reminder of this. A high-level fund might fail all of a sudden, a billionaire might make a lethal decision that clearly lacks perspective or understanding of reality, or it can be something as innocuous as releasing a fairly pedestrian reading list. All sorts of hints that they are not superhuman but merely boosted along by snowballing feedback effects.
But since there is a culture of speaking in hushed tones about this, a range of complex emotions and fantasies when it comes to wealth and power, a nuclear grade sense of the halo effect, that we end up with OP thinking that yachts are filled with incredible insights 24/7 compared to the otherwise intellectually empty world of the non-elite, or yourself portraying the wealthy as divine enough that merely being in their presence is already an achievement on its own that must be accompanied with extra submissiveness and humility.
You get a minor taste of this on HN itself. Since the atmosphere is a mixture of wealthy, wealth-adjacent, and normal, the HN reader will not just look at the specific brand of articles that do well here but will also be self-aware in doing so: that they are supposed to talk and make connections about history, art, science, politics in a certain way, and cultivate this sense of being above the fray of the masses.
The other aspect to consider is that to have deep conversations, you essentially need 95% reading 5% actual discussing because the depth can be pretty high on most topics.
To give a practical example: you can have a deep and touchy convo about the place of religion in life, but in all likelihood every argument you will come up with will have already been written about in far more depth elsewhere. By the very nature of the medium and its history you are only going to have the illusion of depth if you only seek to have conversations as you are describing.
It would also be a good idea to carefully consider what you consider touchy. Chances are, it's just normal things to think about for your demographic. For instance, HN readers like to talk about controlling the masses, large future trends, and revel in the forbidden aspect of discussing this sort of thing. But in reality, population control and an 'architect' view of their place in the world has been a normal feature of the well-to-do classes for pretty much forever.