A big part of this IMO is that “money won”, for lack of a better phrase. There is no real concept of selling out anymore. Being shamelessly focused on wealth accumulation seems to be socially acceptable in a way it wasn’t fifty years ago.

Someone will probably say this is because current generations have less financial security, and I’m sure that’s a factor. But I think it’s a cultural shift that is much older and tracks better to the decline of traditional sources of values (community, cultural groups, religion, etc.) and their replacement by the easily understandable dollar. So it becomes harder and harder for a cultural definition of success to not mean financially successful. And being financially successful is difficult if you have deviant, counter cultural ideas (and aren’t interested in monetizing them.)

I disagree that people are less weird and deviant today. I believe they’re less weird offline, because weirdness is easier, safer, and less embarrassing to express online.

I also disagree that online has become less weird. It’s less weird proportionally, because the internet used to consist of mostly weird people, then normal people joined. Big companies are less weird because they used to cater to weird people (those online), now they cater to normal people. But there are still plenty of weird people, websites, and companies.

Culture is still constantly changing, and what is “weird” if not “different”? Ideas that used to be unpopular and niche have become mainstream, ex. 4chan, gmod (Skibidi Toilet), and Twitch streamers. I’m sure ideas that are unpopular and niche today will be mainstream tomorrow. I predict that within the next 10 years, mainstream companies will change their brands again to embrace a new fad; albeit all similarly, but niche groups will also change differently and re-organize.

(And if online becomes less anonymous and more restrictive, people will become weirder under their real ID or in real life.)

Others are saying the end of leaded gasoline, I’ll add that around 2008 when the trend accelerates schools started becoming more locked down and consequences for being a kid can now follow you into adulthood much easier due to social media.

I think we’re seeing a natural result of kids being scared of that one bad night being immortalized or that one fight turning into an arrest.

You’re just not allowed to be a kid really.

I, gen-x '79, was taught by Gen-z the reason we don't drink at the bars is cause someone'll make a video of us being weird and ruin us. Be weird at home. With the door locked. Fit in when the camera could be hiding and stay employed. Adequately satisfactory, A+.

I'm too old not to be weird. I get a lot of blank stares. I'm the only person I need the approval of. (For now. I worry the cameras find me more and more)

I was frustrated through the first...25%? of the article that basically the author was conflating all sorts of obviously negative things: drugs, alcohol, smoking, gun violence etc. with "deviance".

And then: no mention of furries, open sexuality, pastafarianism or the like? I think the author simply doesn't recognize "new" deviance. Each generation defines their own standards and non-standards.

The kids are alright.

It used to be cool to be deviant and not to be accepted by society at large. Ravers, skaters, punk rockers, cross-dressers, all subcultures that did not care if they were accepted by the normies. Transgression of social norms was considered the cool thing to do.

Now everyone wants social norms to be changed so they feel included no matter what crazy ass thing they are into.

Feels lame to me but I am old so what do I know.

I have this fondness for the old-school web of blogs and so on. And I thought perhaps that this decline of deviance was the reason for the perceived dip in blogs. But now I think it's actually different. All of us from then were the early adopters of this stuff. We were never going to be a lot. It's just that previously there were a thousand (metaphorically) of us with nine hundred of us like what we were, and now there are a billion with nine hundred of us like what we were, and the rest are what they were but now they're here.

I have this belief: if you don't know where the artist went, it's probably because you were a groupie rather than an artist and they eventually tired of you. After all, right now in San Francisco there are people like those in the circle of Aella (of Sankey chart fame) who had a "birthday gangbang" where each man had some limited time with her and then had to go to a fluffer. One of those fluffers married one of the men she met there.

This is beyond strange to me, but not in a disparaging way. It's just out of my zone of familiarity in a way where I feel I would not know what being in these people's presence is like. So I think the strange people are just finding the other strange people and enjoying their time together rather than what they would previously do: entice some normies to strangeness.

I also think many of these things have various causes. Apartment buildings have the same shape everywhere because they are all designed by committee and have the same schools of thought dictating "breaking up the massing" and all that. But even in that world, in the NIMBY capital of the world, there is a building like Mira SF which is pretty damned cool!

I initially thought not to post this because I think this is potentially flamebait adjacent for someone and I dont want to rock the boat.

But in the interests of attempting to not be so conformist and give us something interesting to discuss about this interesting article, I will try this anyways, and if you have a problem with me saying this then feel free to flag and move on, I don't care enough to get into a flame war about this, but I believe I'm not trying to troll or get a rise out of people.

Perhaps this is the feminization of society? As women have asserted themselves in the workforce and due to young women being the creators of mass culture for their generation, perhaps this is a partial driver for why everyone is so much less independent.

I dont know, this thought is not done and I'm already expecting incoming fire from someone somewhere, but perhaps this could help drive this.

Then again, it's more likely that this fits one of my conformation bias pet issues.

Good read, good points, but man I’d caution readers that the author’s perspective seems to very much come from a “normie” viewpoint.

For those of us in the “deviant” circles (like pretending to be a dinosaur on the internet), the reality is that a lot of deviancy became heavily normalized and accepted, not disappeared. The internet helped millions of deviants realize they can live authentic lives without worrying about the opinions of others, because the secret sauce is most people don’t give a damn about your deviancy. The little old Christian ladies berating a cashier for blue hair and tattoos are the minority, not the norm, and it means things once shunned as deviant are now embraced as acceptable, even natural.

I also think this is, in part, cyclical. Deviancy is itself a kind of luxury, in that you can afford to take part in it either because you have nothing to lose from doing so, or at the very least it won’t impact your gains in a negative manner. It explains why deviancy rises in times of comfort (post-WW2 America) and declines in times of crisis or stress (today).

The deviants are out there, we’re just not the deviants society came to expect from decades of prior stereotyping and therefore not readily found. As cultural experts churn from the old guard to the new, you’ll see the plethora of art, culture, and deviancy already present finally be surfaced for analysis by the masses.

At least, that’s my perspective, from the fringes of the weird.

Great post from Adam Mastroianni as usual, lots to chew on -- but to treat deviance and risk as equivalent seems a bit of a leap. The graphs line up, but just about any wide-reaching measure was put on its current trajectory sometime in the 70s-80s (see [0]).

The hypothesis that lower 'background risk' leads to lower voluntary risks (drugs, unprotected sex, etc.) makes sense. But as far as arts go, I think the cultural homogeneity we see is more of a direct effect of globalization than anything else. In other words, the default state of highly interconnected societies is one of convergence; the variety of the 20th century can be attributed to growth in communication and exposure to new concepts. Now that media technology has somewhat stabilized, we see a return to the cultural stability that has defined humanity for most of its existence.

[0] https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

I feel like a lot of this is breaking up of culture into a million shards. People are being weird in much smaller domains so if you look at the old bigger chunks of culture it seems like it's solidifying. Just because TV is largely boring doesn't mean online video isn't weird. You just might not like it so you don't pay attention to it.

The world has become very expensive and everything is way more competitive than it was in the past.

To me, it feels like there is little room to make mistakes. If you get detailed it's hard to get back on track. That I think is the primary reason people are taking less risks (or being deviant).

I made a comment related to this recently (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45486391) and I got a lot of helpful responses that I think help explain some of these trends:

1. With the Internet, things "converge to an optimum" much faster than before where you had more regional variation. Dominant design, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_design, explains part of this trend.

2. This article from earlier this year, "The age of average", https://www.alexmurrell.co.uk/articles/the-age-of-average, makes many of the same points but links to other good posts that help explain the change, particularly as it applies to business consolidation and risk aversion.

You don't know what you don't know. A comment section vaguely representative of an industry that is an integral part of "the system" isn't gonna be well equipped to accurately assess what forms deviance takes these days and the degree to which it proliferates.

A couple of generations ago, the majority of people transacted entirely in cash, and the only government ID they carried was a drivers license (and the women and children didn't even have that).

I can't help the feeling that everything in our lives and finances being tied to our permanent government-sanctioned identity has a chilling effect on deviance. No longer can one skip across state lines with a crisp hundred in ones pocket if one's deviance becomes widely known...

Intuitively this feels to me like an emergent property of interconnectedness. I suspect that if we operated more within the boundaries of smaller, localized communities, then deviance (from some communities' perspective) would be more observable by looking across those boundaries. Society has adopted a much more globalized consciousness where a lot of would-be-choices have already been distilled into a "best choice" based on the massive availability of data; knowing the "best choice" makes choosing easy, and people like easy choices, even if other people are making them on their behalf.

The article is using weird definition of "weird".

I do not remember high school students drinking alcohol being "weird". It was basically "normal". Most adults would pretend they do not see it, fair amount of them even facilitated it. It was only when things got noisy and too visible the rule was used.

Moving away was weird in America? I perceived economic mobility as something Americans were proud of and seen as superior over nations more likely to stay. It was not weird to move away, it was the expected action for quite a lot of people.

Mass culture is educating people to a level which it wasn't possible before, pruning really bad examples, and suggesting attainable relationships with self and the world. Lead is maybe a big reason why it succeeds, but even before the 192x when the lead started, people and craziness were wide spread. What happened with the maturation of all the media channels is that old religious and religion-derived psychoses were pushed out of fashion and being yourself wasn't opposed by centuries old norms. Being creative is often correlated with suffering and we are actually happy right now.

I don't mean that we don't have problems and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few is maybe causing part of the uniformity, but generally, we call them creative solutions, because they are aimed at uncomfortable problems.

> But wait, shouldn’t we be drowning in new, groundbreaking art?

We are.

I just watched a short Youtube clip of Corey Henry on organ accompanying a preacher's sermon. It's fucking insane-- he's doing two-handed Liszt-inspired cadenzas while the preacher is freely changing keys. I've never heard anything like it.

Also, some weirdo did what appears to be an accurate scrolling transcription that accompanies the clip.

Now Youtube is recommending a bunch more clips with scrolling transcriptions of out-of-this-world jazz performers doing deviant things.

Here's one now of Benny Benack scat-singing, showing an unbelievable vocal range. Now he's yelling the name "Phil Woods" as he quotes a fragment from Phil Woods' solo on Billy Joel's "Just the Way You Are."

Youtube will keep suggesting these things at me literally until I have to go eat food to survive. And that's just the scrolling transcriptions of deviant jazz solos.

In short, author is so wrong he thinks he's right.

Edit: clarification

I'm wondering if this overlooks areas where we experience much higher levels of deviation today. Take music, for example. When I grew up, I was basically limited to whatever was playing on the radio or MTV—there was only so much airtime for a small set of popular songs. The mainstream was much more mainstream. Today, I can listen to obscure Swedish power metal bands with fewer than 5,000 monthly listeners on Spotify without any difficulty.

The same goes for fashion. I have a picture of my mom and her friends where everyone looks like a miniature version of Madonna. Today, fashion seems far more individualistic.

Streaming has given us a vast spectrum of media to consume, and we now form tiny niche communities rather than all watching Jurassic Park together. There are still exceptions like Game of Thrones, The Avengers, or Squid Game, but they are less common.

One of my friends is into obscure K-pop culture that has virtually zero representation in our domestic media. Another is deeply interested in the military history of ancient Greece—good luck finding material on that when there were only two TV channels.

Maybe deviance hasn't disappeared—maybe it's just shifted elsewhere…?

I believe there is some merit in the fact that everything is overanalyzed now. Every new trend, fashion, or viral phenomenon is analyzed and commoditized so quickly that it kills its originality. Movies are generated, not directed (Netflix). Music lacks character — where are the crazy, drunken stars from the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s?

I also agree that there may be some connection with the use of mobile phones, which has actually made personal contact more difficult. Previously, if you wanted to discuss something with your neighbor or an old acquaintance, you had to call them and talk. Now it’s often just a chat. People are less aggressive and less willing to take risks.

It reminds me of an excellent Stanisław Lem sci-fi novel, Return from the Stars, where an astronaut returning from a mission finds that people on Earth have neutralized themselves from all aggressive impulses, and he is perceived as a wild and dangerous “prehistoric” man.

Another factor could also be that populations are growing older, which means less risky behavior and fewer “youth” crimes.

On the other hand, perhaps the norm to which we should compare the 20th century is the Middle Ages, when for hundreds of years everyone lived in essentially the same way.

I read somewhere that the USAF has been captured by officers with very conservative Christian expectations. To the point that junior officers don't even drink in public lest its held against them.

You can’t afford to risk being weird anymore. Housing is too expensive. Too many weird steps in non-pecuniary directions and you’ll end up on the street or your mom’s couch.

personal theory is that it has to do with connectedness. everyone is much more aware of everyone else now, and how to act, so it's far easier to not act out. In the past there were many more isolated subcultures, people disconnected from mainstream culture, etc, and they could stay that way for a very long time. Now there's a strong normative pressure, so they become more 'normal', that is, boring.

Some concept from evolutionary biology: if the environment remains stable, dominant competitors can sustain their advantage indefinitely, ultimately excluding all other rivals.

This pattern seems to apply equally to the "lifestyle" of human societies. When societal environments are too stable, existing advantage groups or models will continually reinforce their status, resources become concentrated and monopolized, and new changes and opportunities become increasingly scarce.

In other words, what we may be facing is a social system lacking ecological disturbances—a world that is so stable as to suppress evolution.

It makes sense that everything would converge on the same time

When every company does the same market “research” to figure out what appeals to consumers, over time they are all going to arrive at the same conclusion

As this particular style becomes familiar to people, it only reinforces the preference and now you’re stuck in a cycle

This is why imo there will always be room for a startups - eventually someone deviates from the path and strikes gold, eventually a company is *actually* courageous, does something bold, and moves an industry forward

We are unfortunately getting to a point though where giant tech companies have a stranglehold on resources and it hinders innovation

People are deeply concerned over their own wellbeing and that of their others’ while being bombarded by a collage of choices that indicate how to either preserve or compromise their lives and the associated consequences and as a result of this they are either reaching for things safe and familiar or leaping toward new ideals to a rough jingle of outcome and in truth there is such a surplus of “weird” going around and no one with the guts to determine the “good kinds of weirdness” from the bad kinds and all this guy has to offer us is countless links, fourteen footnotes and a glib call to action.

Weird that the article uses so many statistical averages, while trying to discuss outliers.

Edit: average is the wrong word - measuring outliers is hard.

Among the hundred ninety comments here there are countless claimed examples of modern deviance. To list some: furries, blue hair, Skibidi Toilet, queer culture, protest music, modern hip-hop, violence on TV, kpop, modern protests, online subcultures, and Berghain.

The problem is that it is all standardized, commoditized, low-risk, polished, neatly packaged for easy consumption. You can buy a physical plastic Skibidi Toilet at Walmart; not one but countless nameless skibidi toilet SKUs, injection-molded in China in volumes that would boggle the mind and shipped across the globe for pennies. You can identify with a unique gender and sexual identity and Mastercard will sponsor the event, with free drinks (synthetic syrups shipped worldwide in bulk bladders served in the same plastic cup, conveniently conforming to global regulations enabling concurrent use in Chile, Canada and Curaçao.

It does not help matters that most of your clothes, food, and tchotchkes similarly spent some of their disturbed existence sailing the globe in bulk-shipped liquid form.

A good litmus test is time travel. Go back and ask anyone in town about the capital-D Deviants. You will quickly find deviancy defying all my complaints. You will find risky, rough-edged, tough-to-swallow deviancy lurking in every corner and every corner will be unique. If someone dares to dye their hair or start a protest or dance weird then it will be truly unique. The liquids which with they drink and dye will be local. The words they chant at protests, write on signs, speak in hushed tones will be in local accents, with local affectations, in the local languages. The clothes they wear, the things they eat, and even the dark corners they hide in will be unique. Now, of course, even the corners are the same. They are lit brightly with the same LEDs, they are constructed to international building codes, they are made from smooth featureless sheets extruded from nameless factories. They conform.

One thing I've noticed with the younger generation is they are much more analytical and "in their heads"

They over-analyze and overthink everything a lot more than past generations which can be good and bad

Probably due to the internet and more access to information

For example when I was a kid you would watch a movie or play a video game and not think about it that much.

Whereas now its all about RT scores, metacritic, review megathreads, unboxing, reaction videos, video essay breakdowns/explainers , tv show podcasts

Analyzing/reviewing/meta-content has never been bigger

Hasn't there been a massive drop in average testosterone as well? In the context of that I remember a study which basically said increasing testosterone led to a higher chance of expressing opinions that didn't fit the in group consensus.

I wonder if this plays a role even if only ever so slightly

I have an issue with the claim that the culture is stagnating. One of the arguments is this:

> fewer and fewer of the artists and franchises own more and more of the market. Before 2000, for instance, only about 25% of top-grossing movies were prequels, sequels, spinoffs, etc. Now it’s 75%.

I think the explanation isn't a decrease in creativity as much as the fact that in the 1980s, there just weren't that many films you could make a sequel of. It's a relatively young industry. There are more films made today because the technology has gotten more accessible. The average film is probably fairly bland, but there are more weird outliers too.

The same goes for the "the internet isn't as interesting as it used to be" - there's more interesting content than before, but the volume of non-interesting stuff has grown much faster. It's now a commerce platform, not a research thing. But that doesn't mean that people aren't using the medium in creative ways.

the author obviously has not seen one of the near daily protests lately, or the majority of videos posted to social media, or perhaps they just chose the wrong word ("weird") for what they are trying to express. everywhere I look, freak flags are on full and public display now more than I ever remembered them being

Even the natural world is becoming more same-y, with specialist species going extinct and generalists thriving, and the same invasive species becoming prevalent the world over.

For the most part, this seems to be measuring the same trends behind the violent crime rate - which some think is related to the introduction (and banning) of leaded gasoline.

Interesting to put these trends into the mix. It sort of tracks - but the teen birth rate was the one which stood out as really not tracking well.

Not sure how these might be causally related to this:

https://www.freerangekids.com/short-sweet-how-we-got-to-heli...

I.e., decline of deviance might be causing helicopter parenting; or helicopter parenting might be causing the decline of deviance; or they may be reinforcing each other.

I've wondered if anyone has made a scholarly comparison of current trends in manners and general social liberalization to Victorian manners. I'd like to read a book comparing these two ages.

My impression is that, at least in the US, there are two contradictory trends overlapping and intermingling: extreme personal liberty (supremacy of "me" over "us"); and cultural enforcement of strict manners (e.g, around language and gender).

I think it’s simple economics. A competitor starts scrappy and has nothing to lose. It will take risks because if it fails because it has nothing to loose and everything to gain. It’s successful and as it grows in success it becomes more risk averse because it has so much more to loose. It looses the scrappiness that made it the dominant force.

This happened to the Roman Empire and it’s what’s happening to our current world order.

Qualifying myself on this topic to say I've written websites with `<blink></blink>` in them.

Half of this reads like a reactionary grasping at straws, throwing together a bunch of unrelated things to try and bemoan a "return to weird, but my version of weird". When in reality, the explanation is more straight forward: you're old man.

The culture is a live and well. I've lived through ircs and Discord groups. It's out there, it's just better gatekept to match the existing community now. Berghain doesn't just let in any sex pest. Furthermore, this is incredibly English speaking limited view of culture. Chinese and Japanese web culture is alive and well, you just don't know the language and so you can't participate.

The other reason for a lot of these shallow complaints - architecture being samey, websites being samey, branding being samey - is capitalism, which always as a rule tends towards consolidation. Things become same and boring because they figured out how to make money with it.

And using mass shootings as some sort of logical counter factual is some of the wildest, most insane strawmanning I've seen on the internet.

What a garbage article, I feel dumber for having read it. How in the world this guy manages to command a veneer of intellectualism is hilarious.

The world is more deviant than it's ever been. It's just no one cares anymore beacuse it's normalized. Look at Deviant Art, Pixiv, Only Fans, 4chan, etc... It's all over the place. It's just we came to mostly except it. We've got way more explicit popsongs today and music videos that are way more sexualized than 20-30-40 years ago. It's all normalized. In the 70s a film like Halloween was considered too gross. Now movies like Deadpool-vs-Wolverine or the TV show Bad Boys are just full of exploding bodies and guts and no one blinks an eye.

As for people not drinking/smoking/having-sex, yea, because they're all at home looking at those sites I just mentioned, and because between the 1960s/1970s the message sunking that that shit is bad for you. Killing yourself != deviance.

Anyone displaying 'weirdness' these days gets diagnosed with a place on the 'spectrum' and prescribed some kind of medication to tamp it down.

It's just the internet.

Lots of deviant communities that are still quite active if you turn off your laptop/phone and go seek out the eccentric folks in the real world.

The internet has pushed towards homogeneity over the last couple decades. If you're confusing internet with the real world constantly (i.e. staying "plugged in"), its easy to come to the article's conclusion. But, you can always choose to just "turn it off".

I don’t think there’s a decline in deviance at all. Just a normalization of deviance (no, not that kind. Go back to sleep, Rich. It’s not Halloween just yet).

It’s just easier to be weird and find other similarly weird people and to build a community of weirdness that is socially self-sufficient.

> Here’s some similar data from Northern Ireland on “anti-social behavior incidents”, because they happened to track those

I mean, I get what they're trying to say, but "anti-social behaviour in a place which was basically in a low-level civil war from the late 60s to late 90s fell in the noughties and tens" is not at all surprising, and not a useful comparison with the US.

NI is such a weird case that you should be very cautious about reading anything about broader trends into it at all.

I do like the illustration that they chose for the article. Jazzercise; the ultimate manifestation of deviance.

> There is no comprehensive dataset on cult formation, but Roger’s Bacon analyzed cults that have been covered on a popular and long-running podcast and found that most of them started in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, with a steep dropoff after 2000

I also don't love this as methodology. By its nature a podcast on cults is going to be biased towards covering the most _documented_ cults, and those will be older. Take something like the Zizians; did anyone other than compulsive 'Rationalist'-watchers even know they _existed_ until those murders? There are likely cults forming today which won't _really_ be noticed for a while.

(I'm not saying they're wrong that fewer cults are forming; I think they're probably right. But the methodology they're using to get there is questionable.)

> CULTURE IS STAGNATING

I don't buy this one _at all_; it likely _is_ true of movies and video games, for financial reasons, but pretty much nothing else. The sheer volume of music and TV produced today is vastly greater than previously, and that's even before getting into fan works and original internet creations (again, I think there's a measurement problem there).

> Every new apartment building looks like this:

AIUI the look that they're talking about is basically a consequence of common US planning rules; other places have their own apartment building archetype. All the apartment blocks built in a given place in a single year always look pretty similar; it's largely dictated by the rules.

The author using the 90s as a reference point strikes me as odd, as though that was a normal period.

The 90s was peak "binge", the West was on top of the world with no challengers. People felt they could relax. Perhaps they relaxed a bit too much.

Rosalia gives me hope... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htQBS2Ikz6c

this post which mentioned in the OP has far broader examples

https://www.alexmurrell.co.uk/articles/the-age-of-average

Two things kicked in around mid 90’s:

1. Dropping levels of elemental lead in folks born 20 years earlier, so lower impulsivity. 2. “The internet”, leading to higher levels of homogenization of culture

I have a hypothesis why that's the case:

1- Before everybody got an HD camera in their pocket, it was less costly to be "weird" in public. 2- Millennials and Gen Z's are both economically worse off than Boomers and Gen X. If you're economically insecure then counterculture and going against the trend don't quite live up to the feeling of what comes in their daily lives otherwise.

Just my two cents.

> we’re in a recession of mischief

I don't think this is true per se. It is more that a lot of things are censored or tailored into a specific direction now. The Trump administration shows this - see how recently the Python Software Foundation came to the conclusion that they could not ethically sign a grant proposal that was modified by the Trump administration seeking to manhunt down any LGBT supporter upon entry into the USA (once found they "abused" or rather misused US grants, which was the logical implication to follow-up on that clause the US government tried to sneakily add). Things became more uniform also because of Google search sucking now. How can we find alternative views? It is much harder than before. The world wide web has been turned into a nerfed variant by Google and co. All "AI summaries" show this - Google hallucinates to the user a variant of the web they control.

The word choice is strange. The author is listing the decline of risk-taking and experimental life choices like: pregnancies, crime, joining a cult etc. He is talking about people making safer / more conservative life choices. He also noticed that the monetary value assigned to people's lives has risen dramatically (over 12 million USD compared to 4 million USD a few decades ago). It is not the decline of deviance; it is decline of risk taking. That doesn't mean it is good or bad. It is just a fact.

> Another disappearing form of deviance: people don’t seem to be joining cults anymore.

I guess it's not deviant if it's a large percentage of the population.

Seems to correlate with the increase and decline of lead poisoning. I guess the plus side of lead poisoning was an interesting world. We need more deviants than ever now, given the authoritarian push we are seeing. Too many obey.

Wow… an engineer making generalizations about the fact that he is in a tunnel… and not realizing for a second that he is in said tunnel. How new.

The headline talks about deviance and the the article starts with "People are less weird than they used to be." and continues talking about weirdness mostly.

Deviance and weirdness are not the same thing. I 100% agree that deviance is in decline. I also think the authors impression that people are less weird and express themselves more boringly comes only from him living in his conformist bubble.

The weirdness has always been a countercultural thing and that is well alive; even though of course not accessible to everyone - like it never has been.

What is different in my opinion is that there is surprisingly little visible deviance (in the sense of dissent, defiance, disobedience) nowadays. I have a hunch this is because most young people value security more than freedom but I am not very sure about this.

T-shirt:

    No means no.
    Maybe means no.
    Yes means maybe.
    Regret equals rape.

    Fortunately, there's Pornhub.

> people don’t seem to be joining cults anymore

I think the shape of cults has changed. There is a vast army of social media influencers exploiting e.g. “new age” concepts to take advantage of vulnerable people, sometimes with devastating impact. Research just hasn’t caught up yet.

The article makes some good points but I think a lot of it is cyclical. Drinking, the very first activity mentioned in the article, was hardly considered weird or deviant for many of us growing up. I'm sure there are cultural factors at play here (I grew up in Ireland) but when I was a teenager it was the non-drinkers who were weird. Drinking was what our parents had done and their parents before them. Some of the more benign illegal drugs like weed were not so common that it was weird not to do them, but they were arguably common enough that they lost their weird status.

The decline in teen pregnancies can probably be explained (in part at least) by better access to abortion and contraceptives.

And as for the internet becoming more homogenous, this is a super very complaint on HN but I have long doubted it. I already know there are parts of the modern internet that are weird as fuck to me (just yesterday I read an article posted here about "gooning culture"). Objectively, the internet is just so much bigger now than it was then that it is statistically implausible that there isn't more weird stuff on it. HNers (myself included) are just in a relatively normal bubble.

But certainly the fact that we are all constantly online now can only encourage homogeneity in thought and behaviour.

Millennials are really great parents and the result of that is that the kids are well rounded and less deficient. That results in conformity because the history nerd, also goes to the gym and the gym bro also strives to do well at school.

THe article is mashing large socio-economic factors together to draw a false conclusion

In the 90s, it was _the done thing_ to go out, get drunk and fuck someone. It was the cultural expectation. I felt pressure to do it, and was deeply troubled at my inability to persuade people to fuck me.

none of that was deviant

Violent crime dropping across the board is a good thing.

The drop in northern ireland's antisocial behaavior is a Feature not a bug. Up until 2000 there was an active civil war, and youth violence was a pathway used by both unionists and republicans to recruit, train and execute the on going war. youth violence dropping is a fucking brilliant thing.

The points later on about sameness is also not surprising. Most people do not like sticking out. For example in the 1950s it would take a _very_ special person to build a japanese style interior in their house. The same for japan, you're not going to see loads of english parlours either.

But culture is global now, which means we all vaguely conform to global standards. Why? because we all see much more of the globe than our parents or grandparents.

But the _key_ point is that the complaints aren't new.

This is just nostalgia with graphs.

This is an interesting set of observations. One curious thing I've noticed is the moving thing. Frequently people online will say things like "You expect me to pick up my entire life and leave my friends and family behind to go somewhere just to find a job? People should be able to live where they want" or something of the sort. Leaving out the housing affordability part of that, I found the sentiment odd when reading it but with the context of this article I see it was that I was a blind man trying to figure out an elephant by holding his tail.

I've moved across continents so many times now in search of making it, and I feel like I have made it now. I could not have imagined the other way of doing things. But I suppose kids these days can make it wherever they are.

Some of these things do make sense, though, just out of accessibility. Once everyone can access everything, most will likely go watch 'the best'. That tends to a power-law now that access is cheap.

In some sense, web forums have also trended towards this. You'll get the exact same commentary on HN as on Reddit as on Digg. That kind of uniformity was hard in the old web forum days. We are all part of the same big community: the once hilariously-named 'netizen' is now real.

Definitely internet. When I’m not online, I goof out infinitely.

It’s because the bar has moved and more things are thought of as normal.

Weirdness itself is no personal virtue to be admired, there is already an epidemic of Quirk Chungus type personalities to avoid. This guy too offers an erratic yet safe gish gallop article blaming no one for the loss of our something.

Johnathan Bi explains [1] the stagnant output of deviant/contrarian creatives better as a lack of respect for artistic foundations after being influenced by the rabid 3rd or 4th generation in whatever artistic movement.

[1] https://youtu.be/YfLj1pHGfT4?t=1358

Chalk up one more nightmarish facet of modern life almost soley attributable to housing costs. I'd love nothing more than to work a part time job and practice the Sitar all day. But now that equals homelessness.

There’s no more The Man.

This is interesting although I'm a bit weirded out by how it conflates what I see as two (or maybe more) very different kinds of "deviance". One is doing something that is new, different, or somehow an expression of individuality. The other is just doing things that are (or are perceived as) edgy or bad.

In the latter category are things like teenagers smoking. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that it's somehow a bad thing that teenagers smoke less now than they did in the past. Also, when teenagers did smoke, that wasn't some kind of groundbreaking new trend; often they did it precisely to be like other people who were perceived as "cool". That's sort of the opposite of deviance in the sense of individuality.

I see those things as quite distinct from stuff like the homogenization of design or the prevalence of sequels, which can much more plausibly be characterized as a genuine loss of diversity, creativity, or something along those lines.

Now you could try to make some argument that there's a link between these things, and it feels like the article is sort of trying to do that, but it doesn't really connect the dots. I don't particularly see why a decline in teenage smoking would have any causal connection to a decline in book cover design diversity. At the most general level you could adopt a position like "great art requires suffering", but it's not even clear that the "lost deviances" mentioned involve suffering.

The article does mention at the end that "the decline of deviance is mainly a good thing", but it still seems to be trying to say that there is some causal link between the bad kinds and the good kinds.

I'd look elsewhere for the causes of the decline of "good" deviances (i.e., the creative ones). The one that comes to mind is the increasing interconnection of the economic and cultural world, which in effect forces businesses and creators in more and more sectors to compete in a huge market. It's hard for the quirky local music store with the eccentric owner to stay in business when everyone can buy a guitar cheaper online. It's also harder for the local musician to make a living when the main sources of music are oriented towards whatever is most popular across a big area (e.g., nationwide).

In domains where there are objective measures of progress, this can be a good thing. If someone comes up with way to build a better mousetrap, it is (or at least can be) beneficial for that idea to spread rapidly and displace worse mousetraps. But where the only thing being "improved" is the amount of money made, or where there is no ground-truth notion of "improvement" (as in art), interconnection is likely to cause "leveling", where everyone chases the latest trend because everyone can immediately see that everyone else is already chasing it.

In my view we don't need more illegal behavior or "bad" deviance to get around this. What we need is more robust defenses against leveling. That means, for a start, a breakup of the major commercial/cultural channels. If there is no single source for books, for music, for mousetraps, for playground equipment, for whatever, then people are forced to look for those things in different places. And then those different sources can evolve differently. And they can cross-pollinate, but we have to be careful to avoid allowing them to merge too much.

Good deviance can be seen as a form of diversity, and for diversity we need things to be different from other things. To get more different things we need more different sources, more different people in control, a greater number of distinct "generators" of all kinds.

A number of comments have suggested lead poisoning, but I think that's far too facile an answer. Perhaps it explains a bit, but does lead poisoning make you prefer original movies to sequels or to have better musical taste? If so, I say bring back the lead! ;-)

The article author presents a life expectancy explanation, but I think that's even less plausible than lead poisoning. When I was a teenager, I wasn't thinking about how long I would live, and it would have made no difference whether life expectancy was 60, 70, 80, or 90. Does it make any sense at all that teens drink alcohol and smoke pot if they believe they'll live to 70 but not if they believe they'll live to 90?

One thing that has definitely changed is parenting styles. I was a stereotypical "latchkey kid". Between the end of school and the beginning of dinner, I was free to go anywhere and do anything with no adult supervision. This was very common among GenX. However, later generations suffered from "helicopter parents" who won't let their kids out of their sight and arranged "playdates" and other organized activities for their kids, not allowing them to spontaneously choose for themselves. I suspect a lot of that was inspired by fear, American's Most Wanted and similar fearmongering about stranger danger and child abduction.

There's probably not just one factor to explain everything. Corporate consolidation, for example, also explains many cultural changes, and such consolidation has been occurring and growing over the course of many decades, even before the internet.

Not all of this is as straightforward as the author seems to suggest. In particular, I believe the massive increase in mass shootings is only in one country. Part of it is, I believe, the fear-mongering our glorious leaders and the media love so much.

>8. SCIENCE IS STUCK Science requires deviant thinking.

>scientific papers used to have style. Now they all sound the same, and they’re all boring.

Sometimes that can be because there's more paper than findings.

I would first want to clarify the vocabulary.

The author mostly means "statistical deviance" within certain scopes, which has no normative force (there's nothing good or bad about statistical distributions as such - it could be either good or bad, or neutral), but equivocates by quietly switching to other meanings of the word, like "moral deviance". We don't want moral deviance, by definition: anything deviating from the "ought" deviating from the good and thus bad in proportion to its deviation. It is good that drug use among teenagers, for example, has dropped such that the statistically common case is that few teens use drugs. (Note also the funny entailment: if drug use were extremely common among teens, we would also have low statistical deviance, but high moral deviance. Would the author then dream of the case where half of the teen population takes drugs to maximize statistical deviance in this respect?)

Now, within the scope of fashion, design, art, music, architecture, etc., are in one sense subject to fashion and so each epoch will show signs of convergence, replication, exploration, and reproduction of certain similar forms as they are developed and copied. However, globalism has long been accused of having a homogenizing effect, so the scope and scale today permits continuous information flow that stifles the development of divergent exploration. Culture has been flattened as a result. We often connect more quickly with distant constructs of the media and the social media than we do with the physical human beings around us.

Cultural exchange, I claim, is a good thing in general, but it is only successful when it respects the principle of subsidiarity which successfully marries the local with the global without destroying one or the other, as well as the objectively moral. While parochialism excludes itself from the richness of exchange, globalism crushes the local [0]. But the global can only be a function of the aggregate of locals, as the global lacks cultural substance of its own. The corporate and commercial now fill that void. This would seem to explain the dominance of the corporate and commercial in popular culture and the homogenizing effects of industrial mass production moved by the profit motive, and the resulting homogeneous poor quality. The poor quality of cultural production is the real offense.

[0] The best example of something that manages to accomplish this is the Catholic Church. A Catholic can walk into any church on earth and feel spiritually at home, even while there is variation in the liturgical practices among cultures. The Church is a patchwork of cultural and ethnic diversity sharing in a common truth. Cultural exchange is transmitted through it without crushing any of the participating parties. Simply put, the universality of the Church - the word "catholic" means "universal" - doesn't smother ethnic difference, and within this scope, patriotism - a love of one's people - doesn't metastasize into some kind of ideology of chauvinism or hatred of others. The spirit of logoi spermatikoi permeates and seeks to embrace the true and the good and the beautiful, wherever it is found, and include it in the great patrimony, transfiguring it where necessary. It is not a vacuous, egalitarian, relativistic pseudo-embrace of diversity, but a love of the variety and varying degrees of the objectively good.

Technology is the opiate of the masses.

My theory is it all has todo with immigration, or rather the way we treat immigration since the 2000s. In order to accomodate everyone the culture gained new sensibilities, and the bubble burst. But idiosyncratic cultures can only grow in bubbles.

We ve seen that in Europe before the US, where the german, french, English culture lost their influence and originality, becoming touristic products being sold by people of all colors and cultures.

Words like 'spirit' and 'soul' have been replaced with 'content and money, and the media is being driven by people with a generic "global" culture and outlook

I think the weird is still out there, but increasingly confined to meatspace. Burning Man? Very weird, especially the regional burns. Boutique music festivals have tons of weird. Go camping in the backcountry and you'll meet people who are at least eccentric.

Online there's plenty of weirdness still out there on obscure forums, Twitch streams, and Discords. Tumblr is still going, and Bluesky would have a lot more weirdness if it wasn't constantly consumed by woke purity spirals. (This is unfortunately a problem with IRL left-coded social spaces as well, left-libertarian seems to be the sweet spot.)

Unfortunately corporate America has taken over the vast majority of internet social spaces and that has made the weird much more difficult to find. This makes sense, back in the 90s there wasn't much weird on AOL (the FB of its day) - you had to go to Usenet, IRC, or BBSes. Later on Livejournal and Myspace.

Seeing a lot of comments disputing singular data points, but the author goes out of his way to provide as wide a variety of data points as he could find, and to try to disprove his own theory.

A couple anecdotal things I've noticed in my own life that align with his conclusions:

(1) I work in advertising. I've long bemoaned that my industry has turned to producing high-production low-creativity work for decades now. In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, people relied on creativity to get a message across. But today, it's all polish and no substance. I assumed it was because technology made it easier than ever to to do so, but maybe it's part of a wider trend.

(2) I used to love the variety of car designs. Every car was unique. Some were crazy. But today, take the logo off, and I'd be challenged to tell the difference between any two pickup trucks or any two sedans or any two vans. Every manufacturer has converged on the exact same design. (We see this in every industry, I just happened to be a fan of cars back in the day. But if you look at housing, clothing, computers, phones, tablets, etc etc, I can't think of any category that has real variety in design.)

(3) The author mentions book covers. Up until today, I was mistaking all those designs as meaning those books were part of the same series or something. I hadn't dug in to realize they were actually unrelated.

(4) My own kids have played it incredibly safe. I'm proud of them for being more responsible than I ever was. But I'm also worried they don't know how to take risks. I'm strongly of the belief that anything worth doing involves a healthy dose of risk. Could it really be that as a society, we've just abandoned risk?

I'm not saying the article is necessarily 100% correct. But I think it does pose what may be one of the most important questions of our era. Yeah yeah, I know that sounds bombastic: we have increasing global conflicts, a climate crisis, the apparent rise of neo-fascism, etc. But I don't know how we're going to solve those problems if we're all driving into the middle. How can 8 billion people be more homogenous than the 7, 6, 5, 4 billion that came before?

> Brian: Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!

> Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!

> Brian: You're all different!

> Crowd: Yes, we are all different!

> Man in crowd: I'm not...

> Crowd: Shhh!

I feel like there are so many factors here that it's hard to identify which thing have the greatest impact. Instead of attempting a coherent argument, I'll offer some further observations.

Taylor Swift is one of the most famous people in the world, yet I know quite a large number of people who could name only one or two of her songs. I would count myself a Taylor Swift fan even though I am in the group of knowing very little of her music. I admire her creativity, business acumen, legs, assertiveness, intelligence, and determination.

In the past, a performer at that height would dominate a much smaller range of media coverage leading to a more profound cultural impact. While being on fewer channels, they'd be on a greater proportion of the whole media landscape.

I think that pushes the dial in both directions. When something is targeted at all, they have to stay around the median to encompass the largest population.

Transformational change happens to a society when something that is targeted beyond the median becomes popular and drags the world with it.

You hear a lot of talk about the Overton window these days. I have heard it raised frequently as an argument for deplatforming. It strikes me as a profound misunderstanding of what the Overton window represents. People argue that you should suppress ideas you disagree with so that the measurement of the Overton window shows an opinion that is under-sampled against your adversary and consequently moves in the direction you prefer. This one of the most damaging examples of Goodhart's law that I know of.

To stick with the music analogy, I think if Guns 'n' Roses appeared before the Beatles there would have been a significant negative response from the public (although I would really like to pull an open minded musical expert out of history to capture their experiences of modern music). Some experts favour protecting the establishment, while others are the very first to realise the significance of a revolutionary new thing.

People are generally repelled by objectionable views and while the Overton window suggests that the notion of what is objectionable might change over time, suppressing objectionable views removes that repulsion from them while simultaneously being an act that many find objectionable. Both changes cause the dominant public opinion to move in the same direction, the opposite to what the people attempting to control the dialog desire. At the same time making the Overton window harder to measure, obscuring their failure.

The decline of deviance could be thought of as either a shrinking or expansion of the standard deviation of the Overton window. It depends upon your perspective and if you consider objective measures of variance to be more significant to subjective measures.

When the Overton window is much wider, there are a much broader set of opinions in the world, but also, by definition with the same level of acceptance as a compressed window. everything within the window is accepted. You could interpret that as a decline in deviance because you just don't consider the range of things accepted to be deviant.

When the Overton window is narrow, social pressures cause people to restrict their behaviour, which would also be considered a decline in deviance. On the other hand it would take much less to be considered deviant.

This makes me wonder if you need a second order Overton to measure the acceptability of opinions relative to their proportionate position on the Overton window. Would such a measurement measure polarisation? I would imagine that the ideal arrangement, no matter what the width of the Overton window was, would be a slower decline in acceptance of things that are disagreed with.

Once again though. If you started measuring this, would it become a target, and subject to gaming?