It's a bad sign when you can reduce what you care about to a unified thesis. What you call "pluralism" exists in all individuals and communities; it's terminal neurosis that drives people and groups, all the way up to the nation-state level, to seek its opposite — a kind of philosophical purity — in themselves and their surroundings.
"I don’t know whether this is ultimately good or bad," you say. I promise you, it's bad. The "solutions" that come out of the Bay aren't good for the present or future of society. They feel good to people who are preoccupied with the future, but they end in net-negatives for most of the people and systems impacted by them. Of course, this solutionist thinking is driven by fear of death and its more mundane proxies (fear of irrelevance, fear of boredom, etc). The same thing that's driven the darkest political movements humanity has ever known.
Life's subtleties, its deep textures and contrasts, all the stuff that gives it sustainable meaning... none of these can be sublimated into cohesive belief systems. Again, it's only neurotic, black-and-white, traumatized thinking that makes people so insecure that they get totally ungrounded without such belief systems. Unfortunately, they create realities that other people are then forced to inhabit.
It's easy to laugh at the Bay when you live in NYC. As you write, Bay Area--> NYC expats lack self-awareness. They tend to make an unseemly spectacle of themselves. But I am genuinely worried that their cultish thinking will make an impact even here.
This is shameless self promo, but I'll be talking about these issues in my next Substack post. I was able to write this reply quickly because I think about this stuff a lot.
I've lived in the Bay Area for 13 years. Contrarianism is sort of baked in to the culture, with only a small degree of conventionality or social pressure constraining counter-cultural beliefs and behavior. It might have something to do with the lack of more entrenched and traditional industries (NY has finance, DC has government, LA has entertainment) that have more rigid norms; tech def has its norms but it changes fast and there's an obvious "disruption"/contrarianism built into the culture. Like NY/LA it's very transient--people come here to make specific things happen in their lives--but for some reason the multi-generational communities seem to exert less influence on the culture than they do in those places. The last factor I'd raise might sound woo, but it's undeniable that there's just something in the air, the hills, the foliage that brings out a bit of crazy in people and attracts a sort of flighty, idealistic attitude; the temperate weather just makes it easier to live in another world. You can wear the same clothes year around and lose your sense of the shifting seasons and passage of macro time. I love it here.
I'm interested in your take on rationalists. I have an idea of what rationalists are like, and I consider myself one of them. Living in Tasmania, I haven't seen many in the wild. My impression based on what you've written in a few places is that they (we) are less good in reality than in theory.
I would distinguish between a "philosophic" (seeks truth through general theories and abstract systems) and an "ironic" (questions all truths, embracing uncertainty and complexity, ok with multiple persepectives being useful but limited) understanding of the world.
In my head, rationalists have an ironic understanding of the world, but you speak as if they have a philosophic understanding. Is this just the difference between you meeting actual rationalists and me not?
Philosophic understanding: "The IPCC models show that increasing CO2 concentrations directly correlate with rising temperatures. It's a clear cause-effect relationship that explains global warming perfectly."
Ironic understanding: "These models are our best tools, but they've needed revision as we've learned more about ocean heat absorption and aerosols. Science works with useful approximations rather than perfect representations of reality."
(To add to the above thanks, I'm a high school teacher who thinks about agency a lot, tries to teach kids to be more agentic (which they're severly lacking at a time when it's becoming more and more valuable), and I had a weird, inexplicable increase in my own agency about 6 months ago. Reading things you've written has taught me things about agency and helped me explain it. I really do appreciate the writing you've done and are doing. I've written about Developing Focus, Agency and Confidence in school kids because I think they are the bedrock of success. Any thoughts you have to share about this are welcome. (if you want to read what I wrote which I totally won't blame you for not doing: https://reimaginingeducation.substack.com/p/developing-focus-agency-and-confidence))
I like rationalists by and large, and think they are good at the kind of "ironic" reasoning you describe. My primary gripe is that there tends to be a big gap between theory/thinking/talking and practice/doing. Rationality is systematized winning, but where are the rationalists who've won? What successful organization of any kind has been built by rationalists? And most have no ability to code-switch in order to relate to non-rationalists, which actually makes them actively harmful to the causes they espouse at times.
My partner does not consider herself a rationalist and I think most of the time she makes better judgement calls on things than I do (in terms of results), using totally different methods.
Is it possible (but unlikely) that the causation of rationalists and success is reversed, or mixed? I.e. if you're good enough on some other dimensions to succeed, you'll never see value in rationialism so you'll never convert
It was interesting to read this as someone who has only lived in New England (or currently, Ontario) and never spent time in the Bay area. This phenomenon of soft cults or as you put it, "cults in the mundane sense" seems useful for distinguishing between real pluralism as opposed to diversity in the absence of nuance and cross-dialogue. Especially interesting was your description of this fixation on the future (either preparing for, or shaping it), often to the point of fetishization. Of course, there are mundane cults devoted to the past - you might put fascist or other far-right movements in this camp - but there's something uniquely unnerving about the future-oriented variety in that it's about accelerating the inevitable, rather than resisting the unknown.
Your post suggests five key features:
1) the core belief system/worldview tends to be extreme or contrarian (distinguishing itself from some perceived "mainstream");
2) these ideas are "memetically fit," easily spreading and giving rise to related subcultures;
3) a dogmatic conviction that their way is the one way and solution to everything (monolithic unifying principle with little room for multiple perspectives and nuance);
4) obsessive focus on the future and/or preparing for some specific expected scenario at the expense of the past or present, a fetishizing of the new and technological (or anti-technological);
5) this thinking is not a quality of isolated individuals but deeply social, embedded in a distinctive community held together by strong norms, shared commitments and personal relationships. In this sense it is as much a microculture as a set of beliefs or way of thinking.
I think people often underappreciate the significance of 5), as the glue holding 1-4 together regardless of the particular ethos or style.
God-shaped hole - the bay area feels extremely secular, not just in percentage non-religious, but in how very non-religious people are. Lack of any feeling of connection to the divine, or of any transcendental view of life/the world makes people hungry for any sense of meaning they can get.
Relative lack of cultural roots/history - the west coast, CA, and SF in particular are just very new places historically. From the San Francisco wikipedia page - "Its 1847 population was said to be 459". Compared to Europe, or even New York, which have much longer histories/deeper roots. There's just much less tradition here compared to older areas, which might make people more adrift/less grounded.
Also the population in SF being so diverse, means there's less of a gravitational pull towards any one vibe/culture. Whereas in many small towns in the midwest, there's a very clear cultural center of gravity - being Christian, patriotic, into country music (god, country, family), etc.
I agree on your second point about relative lack of tradition, but I don't think it's because of its lack of long history. LA by comparison is an even newer city (check their population counts at the turn of the 20th century), yet it doesn't have this same problem. LA has a lot of built-up cultural artifacts and traditions, a lot of it due the entertainment industry explosion in the 1900s. I think it's moreso due to what is deemed culturally relevant SF - it's technology, it's what's new. The culture continually shifts to the next "what's new", so it's hard to last culturally. That's my take anyways
>it's moreso due to what is deemed culturally relevant SF - it's technology, it's what's new. The culture continually shifts to the next "what's new"
I can get behind that, yeah. Though imo in terms of vibes LA still feels fairly unmoored/ungrounded compared to Europe/older countries. Same goes for CA in general, and the US in general, to lesser degrees.
This strikes me as especially beautiful writing and perceptive thinking. Congratulations!
I'm left with more questions than answers at the end. What human need is being sated by "living in the future" ? Why does _anyone_ come to want to live in the future?
This is nothing more than east coast snobbery: “The Bay just doesn’t have that same depth, which makes the culture both more malleable and more naive.” This is the same tired rhetoric you hear in Boston. I’ve spent considerable time around academic and professional circles. And you know what California has that Boston and New York sorely lack? A refreshing lack of pretentiousness. Those cities cling to the idea that they are the ultimate ‘cities,’ with New York as the pinnacle, demanding everyone conform to their narrow standards.
California culture is rooted in relaxation and openness. There’s no room for that kind of snobbery here. Innovation thrives partly due to the strength of our university system. Institutions like UC Berkeley, Caltech, USC, UCLA, and Stanford produce graduates with a different mindset than those from Harvard, NYU, Columbia, MIT, or Yale. And let’s not forget the weather—the Bay Area and most of California don’t have the burdens of snow.
There’s also Esalen in Big Sur. There's a history of counterculture and progressivism in Berkeley/Oakland, Haight Ashbury, The Castro
Let’s be clear: New York is not the Bay Area, and it sure isn’t California. If you didn’t grow up here, you simply wouldn’t understand. Comparing them is like saying Italy isn’t Germany; you're absolutely right, and that comparison is absurd. Not everyone in California is part of a cult or a commune. The only cults I belonged to was a community drum healing circle listed on Meet Up and Trader Joe’s. The Bay Area is not synonymous with just San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, San Rafael, Oakland, or Pleasanton. I’ve explored all these places and nearly every corner of California. It’s a vibrant tapestry of diversity, with distinct microclimates and cultures that defy gross generalizations.
People love to project onto California though. California Dreamin’ can be a hallucinogenic inspired experience, but the dream may also arise from the fact that there’s opportunity and jobs unlike other regions of the United States. But let’s be clear: what the Bay Area once was has vanished. Tech money changed everything, and that was the turning point. For decades we've watched various cities in the Bay Area be transformed into finance bro and tech bro hubs. We’ve also seen how those who migrate from east coast try to impose their values once transplanted. This is what eroded whatever semblance of community was left. Sorry — we don't do deep dish New York Pizza, but we have wonderful Indian, Thai and Burmese restaurants. If you want culture, stroll around College Avenue in Berkeley or the Mission or the Tenderloin. You can still find homeless individuals on Telegraph Avenue with their guitars, ponchos, and three-legged mutts, sitting on the sidewalk. Tie-dye shirts are still for sale. You see the tents and the struggles. It’s heartbreaking to see people strung out on drugs, and there’s a real concern for personal safety amidst it all. I suppose that’s what they’re calling culture now. If the Bay Area is lacking in ‘depth’ it’s because it’s lost its soul.
But the successful people in New York are far more screwed up than SF. It is so predictably about money, food, fashion, houses. It is as deep as the roots of an orchid.
It is all the same problem, however. “Elite” means some sort of badge-gathering wherever you are, and it is both sad and pathetic. I have been here a very long time, and the “new age” of today is mostly performative striving, yet the old SF hippie types I know were earnestly just trying to find balance and a little peace.
I was born and raised in Minnesota, lived on the East Coast for 10yrs, and then the Bay Area for 5yrs before returning to MN. Baz Luhrmann somewhat famously said, “Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard; live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft.” I’m inclined to agree. I enjoyed my time on both coasts and certainly learned some things about myself and humanity, but I’m grateful to be riding out end stage capitalism/democracy in MN.
But the successful people in New York are far more screwed up than SF. It is so predictably about money, food, fashion, houses. It is as deep as the roots of an orchid.
It is all the same problem, however. “Elite” means some sort of badge-gathering wherever you are, and it is both sad and pathetic. I have been here a very long time, and the “new age” of today is mostly performative striving, yet the old SF hippie types I know were earnestly just trying to find balance and a little peace.
This is so helpful and I love the analysis and placing it in different city contexts.
I was a Pastor and a leader within a major religious movement called the Emerging Church. So I know these dynamics from the original source material.
I lived in NYC for 13 years and I love how you’ve opened my awareness of that context and I affirm your thinking on it.
And I’ve always wondered about the Bay Area and so you’ve given me a great contextual sense of where to place it.
Thanks so much for this really clear thinking. I find it interesting that your work in Astera is so straight physical science, but your mind is so social science, social theory. My social science research has been twice denied by Astera…maybe get some social in there??
It's a bad sign when you can reduce what you care about to a unified thesis. What you call "pluralism" exists in all individuals and communities; it's terminal neurosis that drives people and groups, all the way up to the nation-state level, to seek its opposite — a kind of philosophical purity — in themselves and their surroundings.
"I don’t know whether this is ultimately good or bad," you say. I promise you, it's bad. The "solutions" that come out of the Bay aren't good for the present or future of society. They feel good to people who are preoccupied with the future, but they end in net-negatives for most of the people and systems impacted by them. Of course, this solutionist thinking is driven by fear of death and its more mundane proxies (fear of irrelevance, fear of boredom, etc). The same thing that's driven the darkest political movements humanity has ever known.
Life's subtleties, its deep textures and contrasts, all the stuff that gives it sustainable meaning... none of these can be sublimated into cohesive belief systems. Again, it's only neurotic, black-and-white, traumatized thinking that makes people so insecure that they get totally ungrounded without such belief systems. Unfortunately, they create realities that other people are then forced to inhabit.
It's easy to laugh at the Bay when you live in NYC. As you write, Bay Area--> NYC expats lack self-awareness. They tend to make an unseemly spectacle of themselves. But I am genuinely worried that their cultish thinking will make an impact even here.
Where can I read more about the idea that "the things that give life meaning can't be sublimated into a cohesive belief system?"
This is shameless self promo, but I'll be talking about these issues in my next Substack post. I was able to write this reply quickly because I think about this stuff a lot.
Theodor Adorno's Negative Dialectics is probably the canon text here. If you're new to critical theory or continental philosophy, Adorno can be unwieldy. The first comment on this Reddit post is quite good, and the author recommends an introductory text for the Adorno-uninitiated: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/11y60g/can_someone_help_me_understand_negative_dialectics/
subscribed! thanks
I've lived in the Bay Area for 13 years. Contrarianism is sort of baked in to the culture, with only a small degree of conventionality or social pressure constraining counter-cultural beliefs and behavior. It might have something to do with the lack of more entrenched and traditional industries (NY has finance, DC has government, LA has entertainment) that have more rigid norms; tech def has its norms but it changes fast and there's an obvious "disruption"/contrarianism built into the culture. Like NY/LA it's very transient--people come here to make specific things happen in their lives--but for some reason the multi-generational communities seem to exert less influence on the culture than they do in those places. The last factor I'd raise might sound woo, but it's undeniable that there's just something in the air, the hills, the foliage that brings out a bit of crazy in people and attracts a sort of flighty, idealistic attitude; the temperate weather just makes it easier to live in another world. You can wear the same clothes year around and lose your sense of the shifting seasons and passage of macro time. I love it here.
Joan Didion would agree there's something in the air
Thanks for these recent posts!
I'm interested in your take on rationalists. I have an idea of what rationalists are like, and I consider myself one of them. Living in Tasmania, I haven't seen many in the wild. My impression based on what you've written in a few places is that they (we) are less good in reality than in theory.
I would distinguish between a "philosophic" (seeks truth through general theories and abstract systems) and an "ironic" (questions all truths, embracing uncertainty and complexity, ok with multiple persepectives being useful but limited) understanding of the world.
In my head, rationalists have an ironic understanding of the world, but you speak as if they have a philosophic understanding. Is this just the difference between you meeting actual rationalists and me not?
Philosophic understanding: "The IPCC models show that increasing CO2 concentrations directly correlate with rising temperatures. It's a clear cause-effect relationship that explains global warming perfectly."
Ironic understanding: "These models are our best tools, but they've needed revision as we've learned more about ocean heat absorption and aerosols. Science works with useful approximations rather than perfect representations of reality."
(To add to the above thanks, I'm a high school teacher who thinks about agency a lot, tries to teach kids to be more agentic (which they're severly lacking at a time when it's becoming more and more valuable), and I had a weird, inexplicable increase in my own agency about 6 months ago. Reading things you've written has taught me things about agency and helped me explain it. I really do appreciate the writing you've done and are doing. I've written about Developing Focus, Agency and Confidence in school kids because I think they are the bedrock of success. Any thoughts you have to share about this are welcome. (if you want to read what I wrote which I totally won't blame you for not doing: https://reimaginingeducation.substack.com/p/developing-focus-agency-and-confidence))
I like rationalists by and large, and think they are good at the kind of "ironic" reasoning you describe. My primary gripe is that there tends to be a big gap between theory/thinking/talking and practice/doing. Rationality is systematized winning, but where are the rationalists who've won? What successful organization of any kind has been built by rationalists? And most have no ability to code-switch in order to relate to non-rationalists, which actually makes them actively harmful to the causes they espouse at times.
My partner does not consider herself a rationalist and I think most of the time she makes better judgement calls on things than I do (in terms of results), using totally different methods.
Is it possible (but unlikely) that the causation of rationalists and success is reversed, or mixed? I.e. if you're good enough on some other dimensions to succeed, you'll never see value in rationialism so you'll never convert
Now I want to move to the Bay
I must say, I really enjoyed my time living in a classic cult, the kind that had a whole chapter in "Larson's Book of Cults".
We did live in a commune.
We certainly didn't cut off from friends and family by force.
We did have a hermetic culture (the root of the word "cult").
Probably, a lot of Bay Area folks as described above could benefit from spending some time in a real, good ol' fashioned cult!
It was interesting to read this as someone who has only lived in New England (or currently, Ontario) and never spent time in the Bay area. This phenomenon of soft cults or as you put it, "cults in the mundane sense" seems useful for distinguishing between real pluralism as opposed to diversity in the absence of nuance and cross-dialogue. Especially interesting was your description of this fixation on the future (either preparing for, or shaping it), often to the point of fetishization. Of course, there are mundane cults devoted to the past - you might put fascist or other far-right movements in this camp - but there's something uniquely unnerving about the future-oriented variety in that it's about accelerating the inevitable, rather than resisting the unknown.
Your post suggests five key features:
1) the core belief system/worldview tends to be extreme or contrarian (distinguishing itself from some perceived "mainstream");
2) these ideas are "memetically fit," easily spreading and giving rise to related subcultures;
3) a dogmatic conviction that their way is the one way and solution to everything (monolithic unifying principle with little room for multiple perspectives and nuance);
4) obsessive focus on the future and/or preparing for some specific expected scenario at the expense of the past or present, a fetishizing of the new and technological (or anti-technological);
5) this thinking is not a quality of isolated individuals but deeply social, embedded in a distinctive community held together by strong norms, shared commitments and personal relationships. In this sense it is as much a microculture as a set of beliefs or way of thinking.
I think people often underappreciate the significance of 5), as the glue holding 1-4 together regardless of the particular ethos or style.
well put!
A few partial answers -
God-shaped hole - the bay area feels extremely secular, not just in percentage non-religious, but in how very non-religious people are. Lack of any feeling of connection to the divine, or of any transcendental view of life/the world makes people hungry for any sense of meaning they can get.
Relative lack of cultural roots/history - the west coast, CA, and SF in particular are just very new places historically. From the San Francisco wikipedia page - "Its 1847 population was said to be 459". Compared to Europe, or even New York, which have much longer histories/deeper roots. There's just much less tradition here compared to older areas, which might make people more adrift/less grounded.
Also the population in SF being so diverse, means there's less of a gravitational pull towards any one vibe/culture. Whereas in many small towns in the midwest, there's a very clear cultural center of gravity - being Christian, patriotic, into country music (god, country, family), etc.
great observations!
I agree on your second point about relative lack of tradition, but I don't think it's because of its lack of long history. LA by comparison is an even newer city (check their population counts at the turn of the 20th century), yet it doesn't have this same problem. LA has a lot of built-up cultural artifacts and traditions, a lot of it due the entertainment industry explosion in the 1900s. I think it's moreso due to what is deemed culturally relevant SF - it's technology, it's what's new. The culture continually shifts to the next "what's new", so it's hard to last culturally. That's my take anyways
>it's moreso due to what is deemed culturally relevant SF - it's technology, it's what's new. The culture continually shifts to the next "what's new"
I can get behind that, yeah. Though imo in terms of vibes LA still feels fairly unmoored/ungrounded compared to Europe/older countries. Same goes for CA in general, and the US in general, to lesser degrees.
This is a lovely and spot-on description
This strikes me as especially beautiful writing and perceptive thinking. Congratulations!
I'm left with more questions than answers at the end. What human need is being sated by "living in the future" ? Why does _anyone_ come to want to live in the future?
When the cosmic vortex beckons, I'd pick carbs over the group house—every time.
This is nothing more than east coast snobbery: “The Bay just doesn’t have that same depth, which makes the culture both more malleable and more naive.” This is the same tired rhetoric you hear in Boston. I’ve spent considerable time around academic and professional circles. And you know what California has that Boston and New York sorely lack? A refreshing lack of pretentiousness. Those cities cling to the idea that they are the ultimate ‘cities,’ with New York as the pinnacle, demanding everyone conform to their narrow standards.
California culture is rooted in relaxation and openness. There’s no room for that kind of snobbery here. Innovation thrives partly due to the strength of our university system. Institutions like UC Berkeley, Caltech, USC, UCLA, and Stanford produce graduates with a different mindset than those from Harvard, NYU, Columbia, MIT, or Yale. And let’s not forget the weather—the Bay Area and most of California don’t have the burdens of snow.
There’s also Esalen in Big Sur. There's a history of counterculture and progressivism in Berkeley/Oakland, Haight Ashbury, The Castro
Let’s be clear: New York is not the Bay Area, and it sure isn’t California. If you didn’t grow up here, you simply wouldn’t understand. Comparing them is like saying Italy isn’t Germany; you're absolutely right, and that comparison is absurd. Not everyone in California is part of a cult or a commune. The only cults I belonged to was a community drum healing circle listed on Meet Up and Trader Joe’s. The Bay Area is not synonymous with just San Francisco, Berkeley, Santa Cruz, San Rafael, Oakland, or Pleasanton. I’ve explored all these places and nearly every corner of California. It’s a vibrant tapestry of diversity, with distinct microclimates and cultures that defy gross generalizations.
People love to project onto California though. California Dreamin’ can be a hallucinogenic inspired experience, but the dream may also arise from the fact that there’s opportunity and jobs unlike other regions of the United States. But let’s be clear: what the Bay Area once was has vanished. Tech money changed everything, and that was the turning point. For decades we've watched various cities in the Bay Area be transformed into finance bro and tech bro hubs. We’ve also seen how those who migrate from east coast try to impose their values once transplanted. This is what eroded whatever semblance of community was left. Sorry — we don't do deep dish New York Pizza, but we have wonderful Indian, Thai and Burmese restaurants. If you want culture, stroll around College Avenue in Berkeley or the Mission or the Tenderloin. You can still find homeless individuals on Telegraph Avenue with their guitars, ponchos, and three-legged mutts, sitting on the sidewalk. Tie-dye shirts are still for sale. You see the tents and the struggles. It’s heartbreaking to see people strung out on drugs, and there’s a real concern for personal safety amidst it all. I suppose that’s what they’re calling culture now. If the Bay Area is lacking in ‘depth’ it’s because it’s lost its soul.
Haha, I'm visiting this summer for the first time and I look forward to seeing in person how weird it is
I live in the Bay, and a lot of this is true.
But the successful people in New York are far more screwed up than SF. It is so predictably about money, food, fashion, houses. It is as deep as the roots of an orchid.
It is all the same problem, however. “Elite” means some sort of badge-gathering wherever you are, and it is both sad and pathetic. I have been here a very long time, and the “new age” of today is mostly performative striving, yet the old SF hippie types I know were earnestly just trying to find balance and a little peace.
I was born and raised in Minnesota, lived on the East Coast for 10yrs, and then the Bay Area for 5yrs before returning to MN. Baz Luhrmann somewhat famously said, “Live in New York City once, but leave before it makes you hard; live in Northern California once, but leave before it makes you soft.” I’m inclined to agree. I enjoyed my time on both coasts and certainly learned some things about myself and humanity, but I’m grateful to be riding out end stage capitalism/democracy in MN.
I live in the Bay, and a lot of this is true.
But the successful people in New York are far more screwed up than SF. It is so predictably about money, food, fashion, houses. It is as deep as the roots of an orchid.
It is all the same problem, however. “Elite” means some sort of badge-gathering wherever you are, and it is both sad and pathetic. I have been here a very long time, and the “new age” of today is mostly performative striving, yet the old SF hippie types I know were earnestly just trying to find balance and a little peace.
This is so helpful and I love the analysis and placing it in different city contexts.
I was a Pastor and a leader within a major religious movement called the Emerging Church. So I know these dynamics from the original source material.
I lived in NYC for 13 years and I love how you’ve opened my awareness of that context and I affirm your thinking on it.
And I’ve always wondered about the Bay Area and so you’ve given me a great contextual sense of where to place it.
Thanks so much for this really clear thinking. I find it interesting that your work in Astera is so straight physical science, but your mind is so social science, social theory. My social science research has been twice denied by Astera…maybe get some social in there??