14
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by pyrex@awful.systems to c/morewrite@awful.systems

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] dgerard@awful.systems 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] fasterandworse@awful.systems 9 points 4 months ago

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

YOU FUCKER, I love this line

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 6 points 4 months ago

from Cain Maddox before he left twitter to just go do indie games

[-] pyrex@awful.systems 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[-] dgerard@awful.systems 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.systems 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Really? Weird. Very different experience.

(Maybe crypto is less deteriorative than business?)

this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
14 points (100.0% liked)

MoreWrite

110 readers
4 users here now

post bits of your writing and links to stuff you’ve written here for constructive criticism.

if you post anything here try to specify what kind of feedback you would like. For example, are you looking for a critique of your assertions, creative feedback, or an unbiased editorial review?

if OP specifies what kind of feedback they'd like, please respect it. If they don't specify, don't take it as an invite to debate the semantics of what they are writing about. Honest feedback isn’t required to be nice, but don’t be an asshole.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS