Rachel Carrell

i completely missed this discourse the first time so lemme try. i pressed blue without thinking about it, my gut reaction was "blue is prosocial and red is antisocial," on reflection this still seems right to me galaxy-brain game theory arguments in favor of red are completely missing the point. as others have pointed out, empirically blue wins, and this is a test of theory of mind more than anything else. the actual outcome is determined by what everyone else who is not you actually does, not by what game theory says they should do a certain kind of nerd thinks game theory is just the "correct" framework for reasoning about this type of situation and that is absolutely not true either and can be questioned on intellectual grounds and not just vibes. among other things game theory assumes every participant is perfectly selfish and perfectly """rational""" (and that this is common knowledge among the participants). this is just totally false as a description of the actual world! multiple parents pointed out that parents have to remember that this test includes their children. and obviously the vast majority of people have never even heard of game theory but they do know what selfishness and selflessness are funnily enough there's LW stuff around exotic decision theories that's actually relevant here. one of them i would describe roughly as "when you make a decision you are choosing to live in a world where people like you make decisions like that" and i'd rather choose to live in a world where people like me are prosocial "blue is prosocial and red is antisocial" is also a self-fulfilling prophecy, the more people who believe it the more true it becomes. so believing it is partly a bet on how much other people believe it, partly an act of hyperstition to make it true. few

You find it absurd because you’re viewing it logically and see two incompatible political values. But this mode of communication is not logical; it’s more like art, working through valences, pairing ideas with feelings repeatedly. The text says “kill the bourgeoisie; loot their palaces,” and the visual stimuli (designer clothes, understated makeup, wine and small plates) tell the (presumably consumerist) viewer that “this is desirable. You want this.” And THIS IS GOING TO WORK. Something so simple & stupid is going to convince a nontrivial number of people that whatever this lady is advocating for must be desirable. Ironically a very right-wing idea at its core, appealing to hierarchy

It’s sad she felt this way about herself but it couldn’t have been any other way because she wouldn’t have been such a great artist otherwise. She’s more beautiful than any hot girl nepo baby influencer with lip filler and ozempic birdchest because she’s a rare sort of person and not a moral loser. People will think I’m trolling or mentally ill or doing some evil internecine female competition thing but if you really think about it, you know it’s true.

90% of the women I know who want to "keep their name for professional reasons" are working like, normal email jobs I promise people will not be shocked and confused if your LinkedIn changes one day!