Who’s Scott Alexander? He’s a blogger. He has real-life credentials but they’re not direct reasons for his success as a blogger.

Out of everyone in the world Scott Alexander is the best at getting a particular kind of adulation that I want. He’s phenomenal at getting a “you’ve convinced me” out of very powerful people. Some agreed already, some moved towards his viewpoints, but they say it. And they talk about him with the preeminence of a genius, as if the fact that he wrote something gives it some extra credibility.

(If he got stupider over time, it would take a while to notice.)

When I imagine what success feels like, that’s what I imagine. It’s the same thing that many stupid people and Thought Leaders imagine. I’ve hardcoded myself to feel very negative about people who want the exact same things I want. Like, make no mistake, the mental health effects I’m experiencing come from being ignored and treated like an idiot for thirty years. I do myself no favors by treating it as grift and narcissism, even though I share the fears and insecurities that motivate grifters and narcissists.

When I look at my prose I feel like the writer is flailing on the page. I see the teenage kid I was ten years ago, dying without being able to make his point. If I wrote exactly like I do now and got a Scott-sized response each time, I’d hate my writing less and myself less too.

That’s not an ideal solution to my problem, but to my starving ass it sure does seem like one.

Let me switch back from fantasy to reality. My most common experience when I write is that people latch onto things I said that weren’t my point, interpret me in bizarre and frivolous ways, or outright ignore me. My expectation is that when you scroll down to the end of this post you will see an upvoted comment from someone who ignored everything else to go reply with a link to David Gerard’s Twitter thread about why Scott Alexander is a bigot.

(Such a comment will have ignored the obvious, which I’m footnoting now: I agonize over him because I don’t like him.)

So I guess I want to get better at writing. At this point I’ve put a lot of points into “being right” and it hasn’t gotten anywhere. How do I put points into “being more convincing?” Is there a place where I can go buy a cult following? Or are these unchangeable parts of being an autistic adult on the internet? I hope not.

There are people here who write well. Some of you are even professionals. You can read my post history here if you want to rip into what I’m doing wrong. The broad question: what the hell am I supposed to be doing?

This post is kind of invective, but I’m increasingly tempted to just open up my Google drafts folder so people can hint me in a better direction.

  • David Gerard@awful.systems
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    as a writer, I have no idea how to supply an answer that would be useful to you, but feel like noting my own approach might help? I write best when I’m angry at something, the summary is always “And then THESE FUCKERS …”

    also I try to be good at sentences and wit and jokes people will remember along the way, but the point is it’s nothing without a strong moral core

    as it happens Scott gave us his secret decoder ring in the leaked email to Topher Brennan: SSC was created to promote reaction and race science, exactly as obviously as it has achieved doing, and ultimately rests on an ecosystem of astroturf started by Thiel.

    • pyrex@awful.systemsOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Last paragraph first: Grudgingly, yeah, that’s a pretty good literal answer to the question. Peter Thiel won’t sell just anyone a cult following, and you’re not paying for it in cash, but he will sell you one if you’re lucky.

      Writing advice: I like your writing. I haven’t tried to emulate you because I haven’t read enough of your writing, and because when I made my first brush with you (which was like a year ago) I was spending a lot less time emulating people in general.

      It’s a little distressing to me because, well, I’m way too anxious to play the game of moral righteousness straight-facedly. It takes a very different personality from mine to say “Those are the bad people, fuck them” and not see the obvious similarities between me and the people I hate.

      Some level of this is actual, real-world hypocrisy: I’m the cofounder of an AI startup and at the same time I deeply dislike AI. I went here because one, there was money, and two, I didn’t want a way worse person than me to take the same job. It has not been what I hoped for – it has been deeply destructive to my personality – it has taught me a lot and made me much more cynical – it has definitely made me stupider.

      I don’t really know how to do a hypocrisy purge. (I hear this is what ayahuasca is for, but Catholicism also works, and I’m considering getting my brain tattooed with a laser gun.) I think until I do one I have to temper all my moral righteousness by saying “I think I know why this person is doing the thing they’re doing, and if you want their (bad) motives, here’s my guess.”

      • David Gerard@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        yeah. good people don’t change bad systems, bad systems change good people.

        i have only vague advice (we had our monthly in-office day today and i am in full body pain right now and can’t think) but i’m vaguely picturing a book I have here by a guy, writing as Jake Donoghue, who used to be a crypto marketer and has written an “and then THESE FUCKERS” about basically himself now that he’s gotten out of that racket, and finance writers with not a good word for crypto think it’s awesome. So it can be done.

        • Steve@awful.systemsM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          yeah. good people don’t change bad systems, bad systems change good people.

          YOU FUCKER, I love this line

        • pyrex@awful.systemsOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          The last time I met a person who had done deeply reprehensible, highly publicized tech fraud (FTX executive) he kind of just came off as a dude, and I liked him.

          That kind of makes me feel bad when I think about it.

          I haven’t met a high-profile fraudster lately, but my first impression of bad guys is usually pretty positive. As far as I can tell, people keep their ambient personalities when they break bad, but they compartmentalize and they develop supermassive appetites for praise. This long-run increases their suggestibility because they have to be more and more gullible to not hate themselves. I think this hollows them out – when you live a double life for long enough, you kind of stop observing the reality-fiction boundary at all.

          Not clear how to stop the cycle. There’s just too much money involved for me to dive off the train right now.

          • David Gerard@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            i’m in chats with a pile of crypto degens (to be clear: the guys who proudly label themselves as “crypto degens”) and they’re like normal nerds? They have a gambling problem and I can’t help them, but hey. They know who I am and what I do and what reality is and isn’t.

            i don’t have advice on money vs ethics when you still can’t tell your landlord to fuck off.

            • pyrex@awful.systemsOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Really? Weird. Very different experience.

              (Maybe crypto is less deteriorative than business?)