The Age of Instagram Face
newyorker.com
newyorker.com
There’s nothing new about Instagram or even photo retouching.
And more importantly, the idea that people want to modify their appearance to look more attractive is incredibly old. Just check out your local natural history or art museum, all the ancient art is mostly jewelry (although I’m sure that’s affected by survivorship bias).
I guess the article might be a nice explanatory thing to enlighten someone who has their head in the sand and has never seen social media.
I'm not sure whether that makes it good or bad in this case, but mainstream activity is different from fringe activity, even if the thing done is the same.
Comparing that to Make Up was very relatable and way more insightful than any other article on Instagram Face.
Writing this good never tires me.
I noticed when social media started to have an impact on how I feel, so I almost stopped using facebook - It's difficult to ditch it altogether because sometimes I need access to dev panel. I unfollowed everyone on Instagram who is not my immediate friend, anyone whose posts are obviously fake nonsense and not genuine moments. I need these to stay in touch with my old friends, see what's happening in their life. I don't need this to see where some C@#$@ drinks their cosmo today.
That same thing is already happen with plastic surgery in South Korea. You can opt not to do it, but especially as a girl, you're giving yourself a disadvantage. Watch a few generations go by and poof, suddenly its the new standard. Now what became a disadvantage might as well be what takes you out of the race unless you take the plastic surgery route anyway. Meanwhile, the only people who benefit from this are the ones at the top of the race, and the companies performing the surgeries. It might go so far that the people who don't have plastic surgery become ostracized for looking weird.
A similar thing happens in many forms of sports. Somewhere along the line, it became much easier to create and use steroids, and steroids have already shown to have an insane effect without any training necessary. Steroids are an odd example as they are proven to potentially be harmful, but realistically, how are you going to compete against someone using steroids and training the same amount, without taking steroids? Doping in cycling might be the best example: many of these substances can make cyclists endure for much longer, so either everyone needs to take them for it to balance out the playing field, or no one does. You can't say "its up to you", as there's no way you'll be able to compete against someone with a similar amount of training, but juiced up. A ace to the bottom here would be to allow doping, and subsequently, and new drug that would eventually come up.
And some people, like myself, would rather not have such somewhat intrusive operations become the new norm.
100% agree. People can do what they want to their own bodies, but I think it's a foolish idea. I can't offer you an easy solution, as there really isn't one. Sports are "gated areas" with committees overseeing entrance conditions. People agree to these rules to play. Not so for surgery; the only option would be to ban it which would be unconstitutional, impractical, and a staggering government overreach. However, you might be interested in reading more about positional arms races (the economic term for what you're describing). College is a good example: enough people try to set themselves apart by getting a degree that the degree becomes the expectation, becoming an additional cost that no longer provides any benefit. https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wilwilehe/54.htm
HN isn't one person, so this is a good thing.
Yet by the end of the article she is admiring women who had the procedure done and avoids looking in the mirror as much herself.
I’m definitely noticing that I am getting old and stubborn. I probably should dye my hair like a lot of people my age but I don’t want to although it really makes people look much younger.
He has a similar series on facial attractiveness which is interesting as well.
It's just semipermanent makeup.
The internet has only really been with us for a few decades, and yet has completely transformed the fabric of humanity, acting as a bizarre and extreme lens upon existing human traits.
At some point, logically, there has to be sufficient reaction to bring us back in line with what we came from. The "winner take all" effects from the internet are just too extreme to be feasibly sustained.
You can't have a happy society with such extreme gaps between rich tech people and everyone else living in tents or off what they choose to spend their money on. You can't have a happy society where the top 5% of beautiful men are paying people to schedule their calendar of tinder lays while other guys buy thot bathwater, or where the top 5% of women get all the attention and the rest wonder where their prince charming is who's been denied them from all this as they sadly pass 30 alone.
The fact is, a huge amount of bad has come from the internet. A seriously huge amount. And the opportunity cost of all that capital that went into enraged politics on twitter and inanity on facebook, that could've gone into medical research... At least we got Musk from it I guess.
It's a strange feeling. Being an active participant and facilitator in something that is clearly not naturally aligned with human happiness, only human progress. In the end, what choice do we have. This is our natural aptitude, and succeeding in it can mean the difference between living paycheck to paycheck and becoming financially free. So we're going to do it. We have little choice. But we can't say any of it is fundamentally good. At best we're peddlers of the neutral and inevitable.
99%
Inevitability is the most important, least understood concept I think. You hear it expressed sometimes as 'great surfers need great waves.' (Of course 'great' leaves room for taste, but it conveys the right gist).
These forces are much larger than individual humans, or even humanity -- and yet we love to forget this and glorify the surfers as having, somehow, caused the waves.
Elon Musk was 'on it,' in a big way, sure. He clearly has exceptional wave selection, or maybe just tastes that aligned perfectly with a time, place, and kind of wave.
But the swells are coming, regardless of how you ride.
Doesn't really apply to EU. Bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, some doctors, etc are the (small-time) rich. Most of tech people barely touch the upper-middle class.
I have a feeling we're just not a respectable trade.
> Doesn't really apply to EU. Bankers, lawyers, real estate agents, some doctors, etc are the (small-time) rich. Most of tech people barely touch the upper-middle class.
It's the same in the United States.
https://dqydj.com/net-worth-percentile-calculator-united-sta...
I'm not worth that much money, though I do fine and have plenty of time to change that. I didn't have the SAT services or country clubs or private schools of your article. I went to an excellent school on a merit scholarship and not from entitlement.
You need to provide evidence for the middle class dying off. And you need to provide more than an opinion piece of rhetoric to substantiate your claim of a "10% aristocracy". Finally, you need to provide some evidence of why someone having more money than someone else is bad.
One thing I do agree with in your article: medicine and law are two state-sanctioned monopolies. I absolutely agree that the government ought to stop preventing competition. I also agree that the government should not prop up the financial sector or bail out any company, ever. Inflation is the biggest tax of all; great for finance and lousy for Americans.
From your article: "Let’s suppose that some of us do look up. We see the iceberg. Will that induce us to diminish our exertions in supreme child-rearing? The grim truth is that, as long as good parenting and good citizenship are in conflict, we’re just going to pack a few more violins for the trip."
I agree with removing government, but what's wrong with the way the top 10% of Americans are raising their children? What's the iceberg?
> My grandparents never lost faith in the limitless possibilities of a life free from government.
Yes, good.
> But in their last years, as the reserves passed down from the Colonel ran low, they became pretty diligent about collecting their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Unfortunately true. Everyone wants his handout, just take away the other guy's. Cut medicaid and increase farm subsidies, says one side; remove agricultural tariffs and more food stamps from the other. Let's get rid of both. Nobody gets to steal the wealth of another.
> regressive sales and property taxes.
You'll have to sell me on why "regressive" taxes are bad. As far as I'm concerned, here's how to fund the gov't: total expenses / number of adult citizens = each citizen's bill. Send it to everyone and everyone pays the same amount. This makes a lot of sense: within the stuff government ought to do (keep the peace, uphold property rights, and enforce contracts), no one gets significantly more in services than another.
> The income-tax system that so offended my grandfather has had the unintended effect of creating a highly discreet category of government expenditures. They’re called “tax breaks,” but it’s better to think of them as handouts that spare the government the inconvenience of collecting the money in the first place.
This is disingenuous; stealing less money is not an expenditure.
> None of them can afford to live around here... In 1980, a house in St. Louis would trade for a decent studio apartment in Manhattan. Today that house will buy an 80-square-foot bathroom in the Big Apple.
Move elsewhere. I choose not to live in an uber-expensive metropolis of the "coastal elites" because I don't want to spend that much. Sounds like St. Louis is a fine place to start looking, especially with the advent of remote work.
> Local zoning regulation imposes excessive restrictions on housing development and drives up prices.
Yes. Zoning is stupid. The state has no right to tell a citizen what he may or may not do with his property.
All this amounts to roughly a hundred pounds of fine whine. One having more than another is not an issue except for envious people who wish to steal their wealth through the club of the state.
Well, the demographics themselves might be elsewhere (or not), but the graph in the article does show the 90% doing worse. Especially if one equates "middle class" with "being able to afford health care and to go to college without being saddled by crushing debt".
> And you need to provide more than an opinion piece of rhetoric to substantiate your claim of a "10% aristocracy".
No, I don't think so, this isn't a research paper.
> Finally, you need to provide some evidence of why someone having more money than someone else is bad.
I don't, if only it was so easy !
> Send [the government bill] to everyone and everyone pays the same amount. This makes a lot of sense
No, it doesn't, I'm surprised that there are still people that would even think that - and how exactly are you going to tax homeless people that way, huh ?
Lawyers aren't doing that great anymore thanks to so many people jumping on the bandwagon and I'd be very wary of AI not completely revolutionizing court anytime soon, considering most of it is rule evaluation. Regarding doctors, aside from dedicated specialists and dentists, they also aren't doing that hot given the effort and sacrifices they make. The other jobs are self-explanatory: they have a long history with money, so money should be the least of their problems. If anything, I'd wager a self-employed tech person working as a senior dev or a consultant will do much better than any of those at an earlier age, and self-employment as a tech person would be much easier than any of those (aside from maybe a lawyer?). Aside from that, most of these people I'd generally consider upper-middle class. Moving to the upper class only seems to happen if you invest or become an entrepreneur / self-employed, and even then its unlikely. Most people in upper class were born in that state, raised with a huge advantage and require less effort to stay upper class than someone else getting into the upper class.
Alternatively I could highly increase my chances (and quality of life) by jumping the border to Switzerland.
This is so reductive of human relationships. You’re basing your entire worldview on what happens on Tinder and Instagram. That’s not the world, not even close.
Basically, I suggest that you watch this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fD2briZ6fB0
In the real world pretty much everyone I know (say early 20s through late 30s age group) might have had the odd partner from Tinder or similar but the majority came through interactions in the real world like interest groups, work, the pub, extended friendship groups, etc.
In my experience of having used Tinder for a few days to see what it's all about it feels like a shitty digital version of going to a nightclub, which aren't going anywhere soon.
The answer to "I'm bad with social things" is to go and do social things, not to move about pixels on a phone.