Favorite Greenspan audio performance, as found on Imus, The Oil Tanker and Dock Simile

No one is going to require much "evidence that most people don't find politics as interesting as pop culture"-- in other news, Pope is Catholic-- but your assertion that people are rationally ignorant about politics because "it's more fun to pay attention to other things" seems to beg the question more than a bit. Undoubtedly, people are ignorant of politics largely because they find more entertaining diversions with which to occupy their time. Whether this is "rational," in the sense of being in their own long-term self-interest, seems, at best, an arguable proposition. As you've pointed out in the past, one vote is never going to influence the outcome of an election, but a politically-informed individual can exert far more influence over the system than simply by casting a single vote. The power of informed individuals to influence political decision-making through public discussion is not insignificant, particularly in the Internet age.

Do you really think there are that many people who wouldn't be able to identify Bill Clinton, but for his sex scandal(s)?

Actually, yes. Moreover, fame goes beyond simple name recognition. Many people who do know who Clinton is would pay much less attention to him were it not for the scandals.

I suppose this list is probative of the claim that people find politics less interesting.

However, my guess is that the list is much more probative of many other issues, such as:
* the idiosyncracies of Forbes' formula for determining rank (including, e.g., which "32 major consumer" magazines Forbes picked);
* the degree people find our current politicians interesting;
* the relative low pay of civil service;
* the significantly greater role images play in relaying stories of athleticism and entertainment than in relaying stories regarding policitians; and
* the purposeful manner in which entertainment and athletics craft relatively short episodes (one game, one movie, one show) containing dramatic confrontations, as opposed to the rather more distended and continuous nature of political activity.

Indeed, the very virility of the political blogosphere, the growth of conservative talk radio, Fox News, the Drudge Report, the success of M. Moore's films, and the adage "Don't talk about politics or religion" all weigh strongly against the claim that people do not find politics particularly interesting.

My guess is that these recent posts are reflective mostly of Prof. Somin's relatively unique status. First, he was not born in the United States, and my guess is that his parents (or whoever raised him) lived much of their lives outside of the United States. Second, as he is appx. 34 years old and has a B.A., an M.A., a J.D., a 5th Circuit clerkship, an Olin fellowship, and, shortly, a PhD, and as those academic creditials are beyond sterling (top schools, honors, etc.), my guess is that he has been incredibly focused at least since he started college and likely his entire life.

I apologize for the ad hominem analysis, which here truly means to the person, without any sense intended that the analysis is suggesting any flaw or foible in his character to be imputed to his argument. It seems a little unfair for me to analyze his claim in light of his background, especially since my own argument cannot be similarly analyzed. Despite the apparent unfairness, I think my primary argument (regarding the actual ignorance of U.S. populace) has merit, and I think my analysis of Prof. Somin's background is illuminative of the way we got where we are.

For what it is worth, I was born just a few years after the Professor, I was born in the U.S. to parents in the U.S., I have lived in the U.S. my entire life, I have a B.A. from a fine university (U.S. News top 25 nat'l university, but almost certainly not the equivalent of a U.S. News #2 LAC), a J.D. from a fine university (again, from a very reputable program, although not as reputable as YLS), and then a respectable career to date (but, again, not the intellectual credentials of Prof. Somin). I have no published papers or essays (but I do have a "Welcome to the Firm" announcement). I knew of the vast majority of the people on the list, albeit many only with a rough sense of who they were.

Some politically informed individuals can have this kind of influence, yes. It does not follow that most people could do so if they only become informed. The mere fact that you are knowledgeable about politics is far from sufficient to have a significant impact on public policy. Relative to the average person, I was already well-informed about politics long before I became a professor and blogger on a relatively prominent website. But my influence on public debate was virtually nil until I took on these two roles.

I'm not sure that's entirely true, though I'll admit I haven't given it a substantial amount of thought. But, for example, we see a lot of criticism these days of the superficial, sound-bite nature of presidential campaigns and the triviality of television news generally. It seems plausible to me that, if a greater portion of the public were more informed about, and took a greater interest in, politics and current events, then the coverage of political matters in the mainstream media would likely be less superficial, and political campaigning would become more focused on substantive policy discussions and less so on appearances and sound bites, leading to more effective deliberative decisionmaking, both because an informed public would be more likely to select candidates whose substantive policy positions are most in line with their preferences, and because candidates and politicians themselves would be forced to articulate more detailed and thought-out positions in public forums. Given your appreciation for the efficiency of (relatively) free markets, I expect you would agree that a greater public demand for more substantive media coverage of politics and candidates would in fact produce that kind of coverage, while conversely, the general public's relative disinterest in serious political discourse is at least partially responsible for the relatively superficial treatment that these issues receive in the mainstream (especially television) media?

Sasha,

Are you proud that you are so ignorant of American popular culture and sports. The people you don't know are very prominent.

I'm not sure how much of Clinton's position on that list can really be attributed to his sex scandals. My first thought was, "Well, I don't know, maybe he's on the list because he was the president?" However, that doesn't explain why GW Bush isn't on there, or his father, if the current president was excluded from consideration for some reason.

There are other factors that could contribute, though. His wife is currently running for president, raising both of their profiles in the news. He makes a point of involving himself in public life to a greater extent than Bush the elder. His politics and persona made him a more attractive subject for the people who write the news, and possibly for the people who read pop culture news.

I still couldn't believe that the sitting president was really lower in a list of best known "celebrities" than some of the people down near the bottom, so I went to look closer at the criteria. A large part of it is earnings. Politicians, while they make out pretty well compared to, say, me, don't have access to the endorsement deals, large speaking fees, etc. that inflate the incomes of athletes, celebrities and, yes, Bill Clinton.

So I guess I'm saying you can't really use this to extrapolate the public awareness of politics. At best it's an inaccurate proxy of how much fame you can expect as a retired politician. Not much.

Josh

Indeed, the very virility of the political blogosphere, the growth of conservative talk radio, Fox News, the Drudge Report, the success of M. Moore's films, and the adage "Don't talk about politics or religion" all weigh strongly against the claim that people do not find politics particularly interesting.

This is consistent with the idea that most people find politics boring, but a sizable minority are intensely interested. If only 10-15 percent of Americans are highly interested in politics (which is roughly what polls suggests), that still creates an audience of 30-45 million people for Drudge, Moore, Fox News, et al.

The list is based on media exposure and income. Most celebrities are going to make more than politicians (at least when you discount everything the politicians get paid under the table). This doesn't mean that people are rationally ignorant about politics---it simply means that this group of people has a higher income and media exposure.

BTW, 4 cooking gurus: Rachael Ray, Emeril, Wolfgang Puck, and Bobby Flay.

actually, 5 -- Paula Deen.

xxxxxx and others: I wouldn't say that I affirmatively desire to be ignorant of these people. But what you're ignorant of is in part a statement about what you find important in life, so yes, to a extent, I take a certain pride in that ignorance.

Similarly, when I was in law school, I remained totally ignorant of the names of law firms, even some very large and important ones. I only went on one law firm recruiting event, toward the end of my clerkships, and two weeks later I had forgotten the name of the firm (though -- I know it now -- it was a major firm).

In the top 25 I've never heard of Phil Mickelson or Michael Schumacher at all (wait is schumacher some kind of writer?) and heard of I think but know nothing about Jay-Z (rap singer?) Kobe Bryant (basketball? some kind of scandal?) and I only know of David Beckham because I saw that film about the indian brit girl who plays soccer and it was named after a Beckham guy and I think that must be who David Beckham is.

In the next 50 I don't know Alex Rodriguez (unless, is he a Met?), Dr. Phil McGraw, Ronaldinho, Brian Grazer/Ron Howard, Roger Federer, Kimi Raikkonen, Sean (Diddy) Combs (obviously a rapper but just the name tells me that), Oscar De La Hoya (feel like I should know, but honestly can't you -- artist?)...

Oh, and I thought Lebron James was a football player... of the next I had never heard of at least 8, and couldn't recall 15 of the last group

See here, by the way:

Watercooler show

First of all: "To generate the list, Forbes analyzes celebrity earnings, plus media metrics like Google hits, press mentions as compiled by Lexis/Nexis, TV/radio mentions from Factiva and the number of times an A-lister appears on the cover of 32 major consumer magazines."

I'm sure, for this audience, I don't need to go over why that criteria yielded these particular results over a more general list of "most famous" or "most recognizable" individuals.

That being said, there are some names being mentioned by people as ones they don't know that are really making me grimace. Lebron James? Simon Cowell? Kobe Bryant? Jay-Z? These are individuals whose names I assumed had slipped into the common lexicon. These are the names I would feel comfortable using in a metaphor without feeling the need to include an extended description of the individual.

I can understand certain members of the general populace not being aware of these names, simply because they not interested and they're not likely to come across the names in their daily lives... but many people here regularly comment on public policy, public perception, etc. These are the people I expect to have at least a moderate pulse on society, at least through blogs, newspapers, etc.

Maybe I need to reconsider my perceptions as well...

Oh wait, I have heard of Dr. Phil. Just didn't make the connection with the "McGraw" at the end.

a representative sampling of his peers at Harvard Law School

But the peerless have none . . . .

Seriously, though, what is the utility of someone being able to identify these personages in the first place? Half of them will vanish into obscurity in the next decade and be replaced by a new set of disposable celebrities and valuable brain real estate will be taken up with dated and useless associations. You do not NEED to know who Phil McGraw or Danica Whatshername are to function as a lawyer. That's just absurd. (And I say this as someone who recognized 91% of the list.)

I overhear talk about these folks, but am rarely able to place them in a field of "endeavor".
Too much else going on.
However, wrt politics. Politics is not interesting. Politics is boring. But attention must be paid. Sort of like laxatives.

A few months ago I noticed Forbes list of Baseball general managers. The list was hardly definitive. It really wasn't about who the best GM was from a baseball POV, but from a business POV. (And that was according to the metrics that Forbes established for the survey.A GM who takes over a 70 win team and establishes it as a 75 win team has improved his team more than one who improved his team from 90 to 95 wins. But does that really make him a better GM?)

Perhaps to some degree the same phenomenon is going on here. It's not necessarily those with celebrities with the greatest appeal who are being listed, but those with the greatest financial impact according to the author's metrics.

I could identify 90 of the 100 (I would have drawn a blank on Brian Grazer, except that he was paired with Ron Howard, who I know) to at least a principal occupation, not that I could match names with faces. I think all of the ones I didn't know were ones that you don't have to consciously avoid common sources of news and information for - producers and directors, foreign racing stars, cooking show hosts, actors in children's movies, and one TV star whose show has been around for a year. Interestingly, 2 of the ones I didn't know I could have matched their picture to their source of fame without knowing their name (Daniel Radcliffe and Hayden Panettiere) - I've seen them in commercials repeatedly, and I haven't made an affirmative effort to block it from my mind.

WRT political figures, the ethics rules for federal politicians pretty well prevent anyone currently in office from making the list. They aren't allowed to have outside occupational income and their salaries count as 0 for the "entertainment income" part of the list.

Nick

Prof. Volokh: Indeed, I did not mean to suggest that you were incorrect -- my point regarding your ignorance was more an assertion that you were an additional bit of anecdotal evidence supporting my criticism of Prof. Somin's arguments.

Amber,

Well, what is the "utility" of social interaction in general? I might note that pop culture has long been recognized as important to social interaction, in part just because it gives us something fun and relatively uncontroversial to talk about, and the constant pop culture churn actually refreshes the possible topics of casual conversation. So, I am sure that there was once "cistern talk" about the latest efforts of Homer, or "wateringhole talk" about the latest efforts of those cavemen who liked to paint on walls, and so on.

Sasha,

I didn't doubt your ignorance about law firms or pop culture. I was just pointing out that in order to maintain such ignorance, you would basically have to "cloister" yourself, and it seems that you agree that you have done this (by avoiding or removing yourself from social interactions where such topics are discussed, or simply by tuning them out).

More broadly, I think your description of a largely solitary day-to-day routine is typical of many academics, and indeed I think for many academics such relative isolation is part of the appeal of the profession. Again, I was just pointing out that there was likely more going on here than a lack of personal interest in these topics. To slightly oversimplify, it is more a general lack of interest in social interaction (at least when other people are not discussing your personal favorite topics).

I guess my question, then, is why you think your relative lack of interest in social interaction is something to be proud of (at best I would think it is a neutral attribute, and arguably it is a negative attribute).

I would also say that you must not even skim through a weekly newsmagazine, such as Time or Newsweek. I've never seen an episode of American Idol but can tell you the generals of Cowell (the winners of American Idol are contractually obligated to have Cowell as their manager, sign to his record label, etc., leading to the predictable conflicts) from reading Time alone.

I could give you a pass on some of the more Euro leaning individuals on the list (ironic given your and your average VC reader's birthplaces though) such as Schumacher and Raikkonen (though Schumacher shows up in more places due to his highest-paid-athlete title for quite a few successive years). Although even I don't recognize some of the chefs on the list - presumably they haven't expanded into the multimedia empires that Ray and Lagasse have that would warrant their mention in the newsmagazines.

This discussion might seem amusing to people who actually know me. I actually know quite a bit about pop culture. Among other things, I can sing you scores of musical showtunes, dozens of TV commercial jingles, and several sitcom theme songs. Moreover, I'm a fairly extroverted fellow and love social interaction. I'm just highly selective about what social interaction I engage in, and what I pay attention to when I'm doing it.

It's people's selectiveness that, in part, defines what sort of person they are. A consequence of my selectiveness is that it makes me more ignorant than others about those areas that I choose to engage with. I don't affirmatively seek that ignorance, but to the extent it signals the sort of person I am to others and reaffirms it to myself, it expresses a value that, to me, exceeds the cost of the ignorance.

ATRGeek: social interaction!= talking about sports, actors, or daytime television personalities. even if you didn't want to chat about serious matters like law or capital-A Art or politics, you could always talk to people about themselves, which has the added benefit of increasing intimacy between friends.

If this is genuinely all you can think of ever talking about with people, your interactions are, as liberty observed, probably rather shallow.

Amber
All due respect, but ATR did not say that is "all" one can talk about. But it is a fact that the vast majority of the non-institutional population in the US uses these shallow subjects as social lubricants. Especially, as some have pointed out, in the real world of law firms and law practice.

On the value of cooler talk: I would say that rather than learning from cooler talk, most people come already prepared and just exchange opinions on items of common knowlede. With respect to pop topics, most of that knowldege for most people comes from TV, but... if you read or just browse your non-tabloid newspaper every day you pretty much have most of these names (with exceptions in some specific categories) in your peripheral vision, and then it's only a matter of how your mind filters things. I don't think you can choose whether to remember these peripheral vision items, so your conscious choice is only whether to glance at a particular section or not. I, incidentally, pretty much don't watch TV and can't recall when I heard cooler talk on topics related to most people on the list. Still, I knew close to 90% of the names mostly from that peripheral vision. BTW, I did not grow up in the US.

Another matter is whether not knowing LeBron is detrimental in a law professor. I submit that if a student needs to know LeBron in his professional life to keep up small talk with a client, he does not need a law professor to acquire that knowledge. As everybody agrees that would be much easier to do than to master law school material. If on the other hand LeBron is involved in some law case (e.g., like Kobe - not to imply anything about LeBron's character), a law professor might be more likely to know about it, or really quickly learn. I also don't understand how gaps in pop culture knowledge make somebody "impractical". I say that somebody could know little from that list and be very practical, knowledgeable and efficient in every day life. This term used by some commenters is too imprecise.

liberty,

I don't see the forced choice. I can have meaningful conversations with people about important and/or intimate subjects, and I can also discuss pop culture with people. Indeed, I can do both with the same people at different times or even at different points in the same convervation.

Sasha,

First, from your list it sounds to me more like you might have an interest in a narrow slice of pop culture history/trivia rather than pop culture in general. Similarly, to be "highly selective about what social interaction I engage in" is not to have a GENERAL interest in social interaction. Again, I would suggest there is a very significant difference in wanting to engage in social interaction generally and only wanting to engage in social interaction when the topic being discussed is among your favorites.

In fact, I'm intrigued by your use of the term "extroverted". I am by no means an expert, but from what you have described so far, you sound much more like a classic "introvert". See here:

Extraversion-Introversion

Finally, while to some degree it may be true that "[i]t's people's selectiveness that, in part, defines what sort of person they are," it may also be true that "it's people's openess that, in part, defines what sort of person they are." Indeed, the extraversion-intraversion notion (which I am not necessarily endorsing) places people on a scale with respect to these matters. And again, I could see arguing that one's location on this scale is a neutral matter. The part I still don't understand is why one would take pride in their location on this scale.

Amber,

Again, I don't see it as an either/or situation, and indeed would argue that all sorts of social interaction can be appropriate and beneficial in different contexts.

ATRGeek: How about, instead of "pride," if I just said "happiness in who I am"? Can't everyone be happy with who they are? (Of course both what you're selective about and what you're open to define who you are -- I think of that as two ways of saying the same thing.) Incidentally, I'm also happy with who you are; I'm not judging anyone who both recognized and is interested in 100% of the people on the list.

ATRGeek: And since you brought it up, based on the Wikipedia page on extraversion and introversion you sent me to, either I would reject the way they state the distinction, or I would say I fall within their "ambivert" category.

According to that page, extraversion is "the act, state, or habit of being predominantly concerned with and obtaining gratification from what is outside the self," and extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious; introversion is "the state of or tendency toward being wholly or predominantly concerned with and interested in one's own mental life," and introverts tend to be quiet, low-key, deliberate, and relatively non-engaged in social situations.

What about if I'm "predominantly concerned with and interested in [my] own mental life" but also "tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious"?

Fortunately they have their "ambivert" category, or else I'd have to say I transcend their distinction!

Full disclosure: I didn't recognize thirty names on the list.

I have to go with the notion that we recognize what we are interested in. I'm sure I have heard the thirty names at some time, but I also know I have a filter that selects certain items for attention and disregards others.

But, what a great list for those of us who are handicapped by our illiteracy. Just a few minutes of clicking armed me with all the information I will need on those mysterious thirty celebrities. No more shocked looks when I say something like, "Who's Nicole Ritchie?"

Sasha,

I think changing from being proud of your ignorance of pop culture to simply being happy with who you are would be a good idea.

I don't know how far we want to go with the extraversion-introversion idea, but here are a few more relevant passages from both Wikipedia and you:

Wikipedia: "Introverts, in contrast, are more reserved, less outgoing, and less sociable. They are not necessarily asocial, but they tend to have smaller circles of friends, and are less likely to thrive on making new social contacts. . . . An introverted person is likely to enjoy time spent alone and find less reward in time spent with large groups of people (although they may enjoy one-to-one or one-to-few interactions with close friends)."

Sasha: "But when I'm in a group of people and they're talking about sports, I generally either leave the group or start thinking about something else. Also, as part of my day-to-day routine, I usually do things alone, including eating, so as a side effect, I minimize my possibilities of hearing about sports. . . . I'm just highly selective about what social interaction I engage in, and what I pay attention to when I'm doing it."

Of course, Wikipedia also notes: "Although many people view being introverted or extraverted as a question with only two possible answers, levels of extraversion in fact fall on a normally distributed bell curve, with most people falling in between the two extremes. Ambiversion is a term used to describe people who fall more or less directly in the middle and exhibit tendencies of both groups."

Are you sure you are directly in the middle? It sounds more to me just like you are not entirely out on the far tail of the introvert side of the curve, particularly once you realize that introverts are not asocial, but rather, one might suggest, more "highly selective" when it comes to social interaction.

Finally, I will note this claim: "For many years, researchers have found that introverts tend to be more successful in academic environments, which extraverts may find boring."

But again, there may be nothing wrong with being on the introverted side of the scale.

I forgot to include this contrasting passage in Wikipedia in the context of Sasha describing his habit of doing things in his day-to-day routine alone:

"Extraverts tend to 'fade' when alone and can easily become bored without other people around. When given the chance, an extravert will talk with someone else rather than sit alone and think."

liberty,

Again, I just don't see the necessary tradeoff you are describing.

I also found some of your points downright confusing, such as this one: "Companies that don't try to do that find that real interaction among staff instead of synthetic morale-boosting actually works much better! For example, hiring people who actually want to work there and care about the enterprise gets you much farther."

I don't disagree that it is probably a good idea to hire people who want to work at the company. I don't see how wanting to work at the company is a kind of social interaction, however, and I also don't see why people who want to work at the company cannot also discuss American Idol or the Superbowl with each other.

I'm also confused about this part: "For example when entire offices full of people barely know or like each other and waste days going on 'corporate retreats' to bolster 'morale' and secretly every person hates the whole expedition... its absurd."

I, of course, was discussing purely voluntary interactions like "watercooler talk". Indeed, isn't part of the idea of "corporate retreats" to try to force employees to have more "meaningful" interactions than they would get in such casual work encounters?

And I am completely puzzled by this claim: "Too many and too rigid manners and norms lead to things like class hierarchies, 'nobility,' rigid rules that lead to families rejecting members for breaking them, cold distance between friends and also cultural biases like racism and sexism."

I'm not quite sure how I, the person who sees no harms and possible benefits in people voluntarily discussing pop culture--in addition, of course, to also having more consequential and/or intimate discussions--became the proponent of "class hierarchies" and "rigid rules". Indeed, aren't you the person who thinks you can identify what topics "matter" and what topics "cheapen social interaction," and aren't you the one who is complaining that our culture is not reflecting your preferences? So how I did become the elitist in all this?

Indeed, the full record is above; I just looked at it again and can't for the life of me see how I changed my position.

Also, I don't think you are a proponent of class hierarchies, but I do think that these social norms have an association with them: for example, the less educated had a hard time getting ahead e.g. in England because tyhey couldn't mimic this kind of small talk (like that musical or whatever where the poor girl is taught to speak fancy and learn all the social norms until she can blend in with high society... i forget what its called and i'm out the door so I can't look it up)...

The problem with knowledge of popular culture as an indicator of a "GENERAL interest in social interaction" is that many people consider the bulk of popular culture--and the people who gorge on it--to be hideous and/or contemptible. I'm therefore a little ashamed that I recognized as many names on that list as I do.

Sasha,

I wasn't asking if you were embarrassed that you did not know, but if you were proud in the sense that you are above such things and better than people that pay attention to silly things like pop culture and sports. Many who claim to be ignorant of these things do so in a way (especially if you are speaking to them face to face) that implies that they are above such pedestrian things and maintain their ignorance very deliberately and with pride. It is one thing to not know much about these people, and I doubt many do, and another to not recognize names that are very prominent in pop culture and sports.

everything I know about Simon Cowell in less than 10 seconds.

Yeah, from Weird Al rapping:

]Simon Cowell who folks want to disembowel

IS: Finally, I have to take my hat off to Alan Greenspan. Not only is he one of just four political figures on the list. He also made it despite the fact that his main claim to fame was a job that the average man in the street doesn't have the slightest understanding of.

That may be true, but Reverend Sharpton is not your "average man in the street," as he proved in the 2004 presidential debates when asked what he would take into account in appointing a Fed chair.

PS to the 0 people that will read this: I got 98, but it would have been 99 if the coverage of "The Secret" ever mentioned the writer's name. All the discussion (there has been a huge amount) has been around the ideas of the book and how successful it is, but very little discussions of Ms Byrne herself. My lack of attention to Moto GrandPrix is shameful and the cause for the other miss.

xxxxxx: Fair enough. Anyway, as I hope is clear by now, I don't think there's anything normatively good about not knowing the names -- or about knowing the names. It's purely a matter of (1) my interests, and (2) my attention level when other people talk about things that aren't interesting to me, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all a matter of subjective taste.

As I've said above, I'm "proud" of my result on the list in the sense that -- even though I wish I knew everything about everyone on the list -- the result provides a kind of dramatic confirmation of the sort of person I am, the sorts of values I hold, and the sorts of choices I've made.

Sasha,

With all due respect, your last post strikes me as internally inconsistent. On the one hand, you say: "I don't think there's anything normatively good about not knowing the names." On the other, you say: "[T]the result provides a kind of dramatic confirmation of the sort of person I am, the sorts of values I hold, and the sorts of choices I've made."

So, your results confirm the sorts of value you hold. But that isn't a normative claim?

Hmmm.

Let's try an analogy:

"My giving to charity confirms the sorts of values that I hold. But I don't think there is anything normatively good about giving to charity."

Or how about:

"My not giving into the temptation to steal even when I wouldn't get caught confirms the sorts of values that I hold. But I don't think there is anything normatively bad about stealing."

See the problem?

Now, maybe I could understand if by "values" you meant mere preferences, things that could be described as a matter of taste. So, for example:

"My eating pepperoni pizza confirms my preferences. But I don't think there is anything normatively good about eating pepperoni pizza."

Similarly:

"My not watching the Superbowl confirms my preferences. But I don't think there is anything normatively bad about watching the Superbowl."

But now here we get back to the original problem. What would we think about:

"I am proud of the fact that I eat pepperoni pizza and do not watch the Superbowl. Of course, that is all just a matter of taste."

I think in the end the basic problem with your current stance is that being proud of something you have achieved (in this case, a relative ignorance of pop culture), or a choice that you have made (in this case, to avoid social interactions involving pop culture), is an inherently normative concept. And that is because if there is no normative valance to your achievement or choice, it makes little sense for you to be proud of that achievement or choice.

Very weird discussion, and not what I would have expected. Some very High Tory/ardent campus Marxist cant coming from liberty, amber, et al on the subject of pop culture, the common man, and meaning.
... For someone to be named liberty but to claim that social norms cause harms. Complete Marxian lack of irony. How tattered is your Che bandana? How goes the revolucion against bourgeois sentimentality that keeps us unthinkingly bound into archaic class types that we can't even see. It's like the Matrix man! Now pass me the pipe. Dammit, in this revolution noone will bogart the bong!

Interesting. I don't see it as contradictory at all. Its true that Marxists agree that social norms contributed to class divisions, but they primarily beleived class divisions to be caused by private property and the commodification of property. It was economic relations causing social - class - relations. Not the other way around.

In my view, whether it is institutional (government imposed religion) or just social relations, the social I think can reduce the freedoms that a free market otherwise allows.

You're on to something there, but it's a bit too restrictive. What do people mean when they say "I'm proud to be Italian"? I think it means the following: Not only am I factually Italian, not only am I not ashamed of who I am, but also I find that my Italian identity is important to me. For instance, I might identify with being part of the Italian people because they have an inspiring story; I might identify with Italian culture because I feel a connection to my ancestors; etc. This hypothetical Italian person would not only get pleasure from being Italian (as one might get pleasure from eating carrots), but it's a pleasure in something that feels constitutive of himself.

This is why, above, I referred to "'values,' by which I basically mean certain types of tastes." Some tastes are subjectively trivial, in the sense that you don't feel that they make you who you are. Some Italians feel that way about being Italian. There's no right answer here; it's a subjective matter.

If you have a taste that you feel is really important, you're more likely to pursue it consciously. For instance, if you have a taste for intellectualism, you may take steps to get better educated, follow an intellectual lifestyle, etc. This is true regardless whether your family or someone else is holding you back. You can live a life that implements your values even if you didn't have to work hard for it.

Of course, some may enter the intellectual lifestyle by default; and others may consciously pursue a taste that they feel is trivial but strong, like a really really strong taste for carrots. But one does often find that people pursue their "constitutive" tastes more actively. But it's not the way in which it's pursued that I'm focusing on; it's how you experience the taste.

This is how a concept can arise that you could call "pride." If someone suggested that I change my taste for carrots into a taste for broccoli -- supposing such a procedure were available -- I would be fairly indifferent. If someone suggested that I stop being Russian or Jewish or intellectual or a medievalist, I would be outraged because I feel those are important aspects of who I am. And this is true even though I think there's nothing better about being a Russian Jewish medievalist intellectual than about being a Muslim Italian philistine sports fan. You should be who you are, I should be who I am.

Now it's true that when some people say they're proud of something, they mean to say the way they are is superior (this is probably what many people who say "white pride" are doing), but I think this more neutral concept of pride -- pride in being the way one is because it's not only non-bad but also important to one's sense of self -- is valid and consistent with usage.

I'd say more, but I have to run now.

ATRGeek,

Indeed there are certain rules that must apply in order to create a free market and arguably (and I argue this - I am not anarchist) institutions to enforce these rules. I happen to think government should play this role (making me libertarian and not anarcho-capitalist).

There are even social norms that can support this infrustructure, however, being not-an-anarchist, I don't think we should allow social norms to do all the work. But, I do think that the market (which requires the rules and the institutions that enforce them) helps to create the supplementary social norms. For example, misleading advertisers can be sued by government, or we can leave "misleading" out of the things that are explicitly against the rules and see whether the market won't punish those that mislead. If I expected the car I bought to last 10 years given the advertisement and it died after 6 months, this company that sold it to me would get a bad reputation. The market itself can bring about those kinds of norms.

But a social norm that one should know a lot of old-boys-club trivia if one wants a leg up -- whether its a leg up in business or worse favors from government -- is not necessary to the free market and in fact is damaging I think. I am not saying that we should regulate such things, government will only make it worse, but we should not favor it.

liberty,

Once again, I have no idea how we got from pop culture to "old-boys-club trivia". That, I think, is part of what hey was pointing out (that you seem to think that somehow the masses are being kept down by social norms designed to force them to discuss pop culture rather than what really matters, such as issues of class).

liberty,

I will once again note I don't see how pop culture discussions "drown out" discussions of "serious issues" (since we can have discussions of both). And that is again a claim which requires you to make judgments about what topics are more worth discussing than others. Moreover, what does that have to do with people being "pressured to discuss it when they don't want to." Couldn't we voluntarily decide to discuss things you do not consider "serious issues"? And alternatively, couldn't we be pressured to discuss not just pop culture, but what you are calling "serious issues"?

I think the general problem is that you keep changing your description of what about all this is allegedly "dangerous". At some points you seem to be saying the danger is the coercion itself (although frankly, I am still not sure how people are being coerced into discussing pop culture). At other points you seem to be saying the danger is that one's ability to participate in these discussions is being used as a measure of high class membership (although since this is pop culture, one would think the opposite). At still other points the alleged danger is that we should be talking about more "serious issues" instead (although it is not clear to me why we can't do both).

So which danger is it? Or is it some combination? I think a little clarity on this subject would be helpful.

ATRGeek -- Sorry for keeping on with the discussion.... I think ethnic pride _is_ similar, for the following reason: Some people are Italian but not proud of it; other people are Italian and are proud of it because they feel it's constitutive of their sense of self.

It's not at all odd to say someone has a taste for their ethnicity. Some people think ethnicity-talk is reductionistic and demeaning, and try to avoid any affiliation with their ethnicity. (This is how I react to most talk about being Jewish, but not to most talk about being Russian.) Others are lukewarm. Others enjoy being of their ethnicity because they feel this pleasure -- yes, a vicarious pleasure in part -- at their association with a people or a culture. That last group might rightfully say they're proud of being Italian; the previous groups, not so much.

Another example: When I say I'm proud of the accomplishments of my spouse or child or very close friend, it's not that I had work hard (or at all) for them, and it's certainly not that there's a normative component (they might have just won some competition or gotten some job that has no normative significance), but for someone very close like that, they're a very important part of my life, so that's also in a sense constitutive of me. So for an acquaintance I might merely say I'm happy for them or something like that, not that I'm proud of them.

Now my regret at being ignorant isn't inconsistent with all this. Sure, no one would (or should) feel regret about being Italian, or about the accomplishments of their spouse. But there's no reason why certain things you're proud of can't have come at a cost. I think we can all agree that you can be proud of having trained for years to win a race, but still regret that it meant you had to give up socializing with friends or pursuing other attractive paths in your life. But you're proud because you pursued something that was very important to you, even though you don't think you're better than other people for running.

I don't see the problem in my distinction between the carrots taste and the intellectualism taste. Every kind of taste can be strong or weak: I might like carrots a little or a lot, but it's a different sort of taste than one that involves my sense of self, like if I liked to give money to the arts because I felt a deep connection with art, or if I liked to read about druids because I had deep neo-pagan sympathies. My taste for druid reading might be weaker than someone else's taste for carrots, but his taste for carrots may be not all constitutive of his sense of self.

So the carrots guy would be unlikely to say he's proud of having been able to eat a lot of carrots over the course of his life. Whereas I could look back at all the knowledge I gained from my druid reading and be proud of it.

A last note: You suggested that I might have replied to xxxxxx: "I wouldn't say that I affirmatively desire to be ignorant of these people, or that I take pride in my ignorance in some normative sense. My ignorance of pop culture is just a consequence of my having a taste for other things."

But that would have been too weak. That would have bending over backwards so far to avoid making a normative statement that I would have ended up saying it's like a taste for carrots -- which would have given short shrift to how important my not-caring-about-sports is in my life.

As an example, I _hate_ thinking about clothes. There are few things I despise more -- basically, being at a sports game, clubbing, or bowling. Some people are just not interested in thinking about clothes; I would pay money to avoid thinking about it; and I don't even want to appear to be the sort of person who thinks about it, which is why I even resist the idea that someone else might pick out my clothes, thus sparing me the trouble. God forbid I should ever think other people are bad for caring about their clothes! But that is fairly central to my own sense of self, much like not caring about sports. It's so much more than just having a taste for other things.

Witness -- I don't see the connection between going on Jeopardy! and being fairly confident of winning, given that: (1) I invested approximately $0 in trying out for the show -- I worked several minutes from Sony Studios at the time, so there wasn't even significant travel involved. (2) I wouldn't be embarrassed at losing (indeed, I lost, and I'm not embarrassed), especially if it was because of a sports question! In any event, I lost not because of sports at all -- I don't recall that my show had any significant number of sports questions (if any).

liberty,

You claim now: "It isn't important or serious if you don't want to discuss it. That is my only distinction."

I won't belabor the point with many examples, but it seems to me that above you often explained why things could be important with reference to social issues, family issues, and so on. So, would you really say that if a family doesn't want to discuss something which is driving the family apart, then this thing they don't want to discuss isn't important?

Sasha,

You one claimed: "I wouldn't say that I affirmatively desire to be ignorant of these people." Now it appears that you DO affirmatively desire to remain ignorant, and to make sure people know you are ignorant: "I don't even want to appear to be the sort of person who thinks about it." That was a reference to clothes, but I gather you meant sports too, and I guess pop culture in general.

Anyway, I am personalized satisfied that this is indeed a normative issue for you, and not a pure matter of taste as you claimed in the middle phase of this discussion. But even putting that issue aside, you might consider how healthy it is that your indifference to sports, and generally to pop culture, is actually somehow "central" to your sense of self. I'd suggest that defining yourself in negative terms like that is not particularly healthy.

Indeed, I still think the analogy to ethnic pride is a bad one. But if you insist, it seems to me that the analogy would be if it was not only central to your sense of self that you were Russian, but also central to your sense of self that you were NOT Italian. So much so, in fact, that you are concerned about the mere possibility that people would mistake you for an Italian.

Now imagine you hear some people saying not only that they are proud that they are Christians, but also that they are proud that they are not Jewish. Also imagine they express a desire to make sure that no one ever think they are Jewish. What would you think about people like that?

culturally

It's actually central to my sense of self that I'm not religiously Jewish, and in fact I go at least a little bit out of my way to make sure that others don't perceive me that way. So, for instance, I'm much more likely to go to a church than to go to a synagogue, because I feel that if I go to a church people will rightly take me for a "tourist," while if I go to a synagogue people might mistake me for someone who's going because he cares about God. I don't want to be mistaken for someone who cares about sports or clothes in the same way I don't want to be mistaken for an observant Jew.

All this is to say that people can define themselves either positively or negatively, depending on context, and I don't think there's anything wrong with either. Empirically, people are more likely to identify themselves negatively for those areas where they dissent from a majority interest, and positively for those areas where they have an affirmative interest in things that others don't. To define yourself means to say ways in which you're different, and sometimes that means referring to what you've got that others don't have, and sometimes it means referring to what you don't got that others do. I see nothing unhealthy either way, though perhaps certain types of identifications might be bad in some ways.

So that's where sports comes into my world view, and that's why it's a negative component of my self-definition. But what still mystifies me is why you still think (and are now personally satisfied) that I meant anything normative by all this, as opposed to just taste-based. Everything I've said has to do with personal tastes that you feel are constitutive of your sense of self, and I understand how some people feel that way about their religion and others feel that way about sports. My view is merely that people should be happy -- "proud"! -- of the way they are. I can hardly think of anything significantly more subjectivist and relativistic.

liberty,

Again, I think it is quite clear that in many instances you have suggested exactly what sorts of things you believe are "actually important issues".

In the end, though, it doesn't matter. I still see no reason to believe people are actually being coerced in the ways that you claim. I also see no reason to believe that people are incapable of discussing both pop culture and "actually important issues". So, regardless of the nature of the problem that you have in mind, I don't see any reason to believe that it is a real problem.

Well, I won't get into a discussion of my Judaism. However, I think where we're disagreeing is on this notion of the word "values." I've said several things:

1. Values
2. Pure matter of taste
3. Important matter of taste
4. Tastes that you feel are constitutive of your sense of self

You said I started out with 1, tried to downgrade to 2, had to upgrade it to 3, and then (upgraded again?) to 4.

This is totally at odds with how I think of expressions 1 through 4. An "important" matter of taste can still be a "pure" matter of taste -- in my discussion, both liking carrots and liking to be an intellectual were pure matters of taste, but I felt that one was more important than the other. Why can't they have different importance but still be "pure" matters of taste?

So 3 is just a type 2. As for 3 and 4, 4 is just a clarification of 3. In what way are "values" important matters of taste (as opposed to just strongly felt)? Because of this sense of self business. So there's no conflict at all between 2, 3, and 4; all are fair representations of what I mean by 1 ("values") (except that 2 is broader insofar as it also includes non-value tastes, like carrots). So values are a pure matter of taste. They're an important matter of taste. They're tastes that you feel are constitutive of your sense of self.

And the idea that these are "contortions to avoid admitting that what [I am] talking about is not just [my] tastes but also [my] values--as [I] once admitted"? I "slipped up" somewhere? Puh-leeze! It's easy for me to stand by all of it because, to my mind, I've been saying the same thing! It's values! Which are tastes! Specifically, important tastes! By which I mean tastes constitutive of my sense of self!

But I still see nothing normative about it, because all this is saying is that I happen to have certain deeply felt tastes.

And of course, as I said, that this societal pressure could also then be used for other things (like figuring out who is upper-crust or who is one-of-us).

liberty,

You say: "If you can show that the only people who discuss these things do so not because of societal pressure but because of pure interest, then I will concede that my point is moot."

Let's turn that burden back around, shall we? Why don't you explain to me how watercooler talk is coercive, rather than having me try to prove a negative.

By the way, if you are really "speaking only of subjective tastes and [] not making normative judgements," why did you then bring up the claim "this societal pressure could also then be used for other things (like figuring out who is upper-crust or who is one-of-us)."

If you are making no normative judgements, then who cares? Class hierarchy, schmlass hierarchy: we are making no normative judgments. Similarly, if we "ignore biases or help to entrench sterotypes"--no problem! That is just a matter of subjective tastes! "[T]hings of consequence, leading to family divides"--no norms here (as an aside, I am sure Sasha has a nifty argument for why "family values" is not in fact a normative term). "other harms - racism, expulsion from the family, bigotry, etc.": taste, taste, taste! "The psychology of the masses-- it can be smarter than any given individual, it can also be much more evil. It is important to help it trend in the right direction." No norms here (ask Sasha for help explaining how "evil" is not a normative term).

Seriously, need I go on?

ATRGeek: The Wikipedia definition is O.K., not great: "Normative statements, on the other hand, affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong." "Good or bad" is vague -- I think carrots are good but I wouldn't call that a normative statement, it's a statement of taste. To say that carrots are good is to value them, but again, I don't find that normative.

Now "should or ought to be" and "right or wrong" -- that's what I mean by normative. When I say something normative, it's a "should" statement, as in "other people should act like this."

So anytime I say "This is what I believe but that's a matter of taste, other people can believe other stuff and that's just fine," I think that's not a normative statement; it's just a positive statement about what I value. To be normative -- at least the way I'm using it -- it has to be more than "this is what I like," even if the liking is really strong, important, constitutive of my sense of self, whatever.

Finally, I see nothing weird about the statement "values are a matter of taste." As I said just above, to say that carrots are good, that is, that you like carrots, is to value carrots. We find many things valuable. In fact, economics, both mainstream and Austrian, takes as given that value is subjective, i.e. defined by subjective tastes, which we take as given and sacrosanct.

I have many things that I don't consider a matter of taste -- my sense of morality, what's good and evil, like, you know, murder, theft, and so on. I am, after all, a libertarian, and not the utilitarian kind. So I make plenty of normative statements, all the time! But stuff like "intellectual pursuits are so valuable to me that I organize my whole life around them and they're an important part of who I am" -- that's a strong value of mine, but (apart from being more important to my sense of self) essentially just as much a matter of subjective taste as carrots.

ATRGeek: I just noticed you're bringing me into your conversation with liberty too. Just to be clear, "family values," as usually used, is normative, because people who believe in family values (at least in public discourse) seem to say that the values they're in favor of are good for everyone, not just themselves. Often they're advocating some sort of objective values, often religiously based. They're unlikely to talk about "my values" in this context, in the sense of "I live my life according to my values."

Now that's folks on the right who talk about family values; when people on the left try to appropriate the term "family values" for themselves, to justify nontraditional stuff -- "I think family values are just love and caring for each other" -- they, too, express it normatively.

There are probably some people who do talk about family values in the subjective value sense, not the objective value sense -- for instance "we like to do polyamory around here, but that's just our thing" -- but they tend not to use the term "family values" for it.