what type of personality is big tech grooming its users to have?
No.10273
Anonymous
2026-05-30 21:25:44
Goycattle
No.10324
Anonymous
2026-06-01 09:46:00
The intellectual equivalent of obesity.
People often offer this line of reasoning up but I have always found it lazy. "They want us to be obese", well no, they want you to consume the product, and they'd prefer if you continue consuming the product, but whether or not you are obese is irrelevant to the machination.
>>10328
Well, I take obesity as a sign of being physically sedentary along with overconsumption. I imagine they want the same, but for the intellect. They want people intellectually sedentary (anxious, reactive, distracted, not thinking) along with mental overconsumption (endless scrolling and content).
Well, I take obesity as a sign of being physically sedentary along with overconsumption. I imagine they want the same, but for the intellect. They want people intellectually sedentary (anxious, reactive, distracted, not thinking) along with mental overconsumption (endless scrolling and content).
>>10329
This gives far too much agency and independent will towards "them". Let us take the subject of this thread as an example. Do you really think the head of some banal service app is sitting in his office, fingers tented, thinking about how the direction of the plebian masses has shifted, how average people are changing fundamentally, and all the other crap we're going on about? No, he's looking at daily user metrics and return on investment numbers. The problem is *precisely* that there is a disconnect between those who create products for the market and the consequences of those products. Recent discourse about Peter Thiel and rationalists and so on has encouraged this lazy thinking about "those at the top that want to ruin us". What's really happening, and what is scarier, is that there's no one steering the ship, and all the negative consequences of our consumption happen unsupervised and apathetically.
This gives far too much agency and independent will towards "them". Let us take the subject of this thread as an example. Do you really think the head of some banal service app is sitting in his office, fingers tented, thinking about how the direction of the plebian masses has shifted, how average people are changing fundamentally, and all the other crap we're going on about? No, he's looking at daily user metrics and return on investment numbers. The problem is *precisely* that there is a disconnect between those who create products for the market and the consequences of those products. Recent discourse about Peter Thiel and rationalists and so on has encouraged this lazy thinking about "those at the top that want to ruin us". What's really happening, and what is scarier, is that there's no one steering the ship, and all the negative consequences of our consumption happen unsupervised and apathetically.
de-politicization (whether its through sportsball/looksmaxxing/drugs), isolation, mental illness, weird kinks and poverty.
That's the path we're on right now
That's the path we're on right now
>>10332
good to know someone else understands this too. I find myself sighing when people say "the capitalists/"powers that be" want us to..."
which gives them too much credit. they just care about profits.
the one fingers tented thing I have learned of is when the tobacco industry made it seem that women smoking cigarettes a feminism thing effectively capturing the half of the other population. which again proves, profits. that's the end goal.
similarly I find scoffing at new money and feeling old money things classy stupid. this is an example from an episode of succession but since there were wealth consultants involved and I've seen people who have been around ultra wealthy people attest to the accuracy of the show in depicting their idiosyncrasies well I'm going to cite it: nan (the matriarch of an old money family) didn't mind selling out to the roys (the new money family). she was willing to sell her left leaning news establishment to this republican family. initially the negotiations fell off when she discovered the many skeletons in roy families closet but later when the roy kids wanted to buy her establishment anyway to piss of their dad they reenter into negotiations with her, offer her 9 bil. and she goes "number numbers! what's more" (or something to that effect implying that she finds the ordeal of talking money distasteful or annoying but really waiting for the kids to up the figure). and one of the kids go "what comes after 9? 9b" (again I'm recalling these dialogues from memory so excuse the mistakes if any) indirectly calling her out. nan makes the sale, showing that it doesn't matter what money people come from they're just gonna follow the money. everyone follows the money.
maybe there was a time when people held ideologies dearer to them, some people still do but at the end of the day it's all about the money.
good to know someone else understands this too. I find myself sighing when people say "the capitalists/"powers that be" want us to..."
which gives them too much credit. they just care about profits.
the one fingers tented thing I have learned of is when the tobacco industry made it seem that women smoking cigarettes a feminism thing effectively capturing the half of the other population. which again proves, profits. that's the end goal.
similarly I find scoffing at new money and feeling old money things classy stupid. this is an example from an episode of succession but since there were wealth consultants involved and I've seen people who have been around ultra wealthy people attest to the accuracy of the show in depicting their idiosyncrasies well I'm going to cite it: nan (the matriarch of an old money family) didn't mind selling out to the roys (the new money family). she was willing to sell her left leaning news establishment to this republican family. initially the negotiations fell off when she discovered the many skeletons in roy families closet but later when the roy kids wanted to buy her establishment anyway to piss of their dad they reenter into negotiations with her, offer her 9 bil. and she goes "number numbers! what's more" (or something to that effect implying that she finds the ordeal of talking money distasteful or annoying but really waiting for the kids to up the figure). and one of the kids go "what comes after 9? 9b" (again I'm recalling these dialogues from memory so excuse the mistakes if any) indirectly calling her out. nan makes the sale, showing that it doesn't matter what money people come from they're just gonna follow the money. everyone follows the money.
maybe there was a time when people held ideologies dearer to them, some people still do but at the end of the day it's all about the money.
No.10338
Anonymous
2026-06-01 14:12:43
>>10337
And there we loop in the Frankfurt School thread. Capitalism (as in, the society preoccupied with dealing with surplus, capital) has changed our way of thinking and we now look for efficiency through reification. We count metrics, cases, KPI... whatever your workplace uses as a name for people.
And there we loop in the Frankfurt School thread. Capitalism (as in, the society preoccupied with dealing with surplus, capital) has changed our way of thinking and we now look for efficiency through reification. We count metrics, cases, KPI... whatever your workplace uses as a name for people.
No.10339
Anonymous
2026-06-01 17:01:53
>>10332
>Recent discourse about Peter Thiel and rationalists and so on has encouraged this lazy thinking about "those at the top that want to ruin us"
I'm the person who made this thread. No I don't think elites are purposefully trying to ruin society or have anti-social goals. But I do think a lot of them are impulsive and say "it's better to ask for permission than ask for forgiveness"
If they want people to consume the product they will find ways to do so even if that means changing the users personality. Again, a lot of this is done unconsciously. Lots of "oops we made an addictive product" seems to happen in the tech world
>Recent discourse about Peter Thiel and rationalists and so on has encouraged this lazy thinking about "those at the top that want to ruin us"
I'm the person who made this thread. No I don't think elites are purposefully trying to ruin society or have anti-social goals. But I do think a lot of them are impulsive and say "it's better to ask for permission than ask for forgiveness"
If they want people to consume the product they will find ways to do so even if that means changing the users personality. Again, a lot of this is done unconsciously. Lots of "oops we made an addictive product" seems to happen in the tech world
No.10340
Anonymous
2026-06-01 18:51:47
vulnerable narcissism
No.10342
Anonymous
2026-06-01 19:36:46
MOBILIZED!
Big tech and big tech enthusiasts have always been very spiritually devoid people. It's hard to put into words, but there's something that fundamentally makes sense about a natural progression of basic high schooler pushed toward STEM tracks --> college major that requires few humanities courses --> STEM job that sparks absolutely no intellectual curiosity or respect toward humanity. The products produced by big tech and the culture perpetuated by the employees and tech enthusiasts who haven't read a book since they were 18 is just endless progress.
I also don't think it's anything intentional. Big tech prides itself in removing as much humanity as possible in the name of constant efficiency and progress. The average person has no problem with this because they also never read a single assigned book in high school. So the consumer already lacks any sense of philosophy, and the enthusiasts and employees lack the same, and so big tech itself lacks it and makes products that lack it to sell to the consumer.
Overall, big tech isn't grooming anyone. The makers and the purchasers both already lack spirit. Probably when university started being seen as the natural "next step" from high school rather than for people truly interested in pursuing knowledge of something. Universities and the school systems had to start performing as businesses that offer diplomas rather than actually trying to teach something.
I also don't think it's anything intentional. Big tech prides itself in removing as much humanity as possible in the name of constant efficiency and progress. The average person has no problem with this because they also never read a single assigned book in high school. So the consumer already lacks any sense of philosophy, and the enthusiasts and employees lack the same, and so big tech itself lacks it and makes products that lack it to sell to the consumer.
Overall, big tech isn't grooming anyone. The makers and the purchasers both already lack spirit. Probably when university started being seen as the natural "next step" from high school rather than for people truly interested in pursuing knowledge of something. Universities and the school systems had to start performing as businesses that offer diplomas rather than actually trying to teach something.
>>10334
>sportsball/looksmaxxing
nice try fatty, these two things are not comparable to your other examples
>sportsball/looksmaxxing
nice try fatty, these two things are not comparable to your other examples
>>10343
>spiritually
>humanity
>curiosity
>spirit
You have nothing to say SHUT UP
>>10348
On the contrary, looksmaxxing is far more depoliticizing than sportsball. Every big sports guy I know is a trotskyite, and not even in a super engaged way, they're just passively a trot. The same way that white moms will just casually advocate for killing the president, half awake, just the passive musings of their internal monologue. While they're watching Doug Jennings tackle Mick Sandman (having a hell of a year) they're muttering to themselves "protracted people's war... in Iowa and Colorado..." If it's supposed to be a depoliticizing force, it's doing a terrible job.
Looksmaxxing is about dropping idealism and meeting the standards of the world where they stand. Simultaneously an apolitical and a right wing ideology. It recognizes that ugly people are treated poorly, but instead of forming the National Association for the Advancement of Incels it advocates "ascension" -- an Exit of an individual from the impacted group. It provides a path for the de-politicization of 1 person.
>spiritually
>humanity
>curiosity
>spirit
You have nothing to say SHUT UP
>>10348
On the contrary, looksmaxxing is far more depoliticizing than sportsball. Every big sports guy I know is a trotskyite, and not even in a super engaged way, they're just passively a trot. The same way that white moms will just casually advocate for killing the president, half awake, just the passive musings of their internal monologue. While they're watching Doug Jennings tackle Mick Sandman (having a hell of a year) they're muttering to themselves "protracted people's war... in Iowa and Colorado..." If it's supposed to be a depoliticizing force, it's doing a terrible job.
Looksmaxxing is about dropping idealism and meeting the standards of the world where they stand. Simultaneously an apolitical and a right wing ideology. It recognizes that ugly people are treated poorly, but instead of forming the National Association for the Advancement of Incels it advocates "ascension" -- an Exit of an individual from the impacted group. It provides a path for the de-politicization of 1 person.
>>10379
(not the person you replied to)
looksmaxxers consist of the less intellectual part of the unfortunate looking segment of the population. "blackpilled" about what, that good looking people are treated better? they needed a youtuber to tell them what is known to any human being on earth? I do understand why they are this way though. it's a result of too many movies that perpetuated this school of thought: "it's okay if you're not good looking, if you have a nice personality she'll pick you" but that's just romcoms by that demographic for that demographic.
and the answer to the problem is not exit from the impacted group (ik this is an observation you made rather than arguing in favor of it so I'm not disputing that, im making another observation) because they're perpetually scared of reverting to their old looks while simultaneously trying to look even better because you can't stop once you're on that path. clavicular is insecure as ever. women who are looksmaxxing are just surgery maxxing at this point. they're terminally dissatisfied. we'll see more people join this movement however because what else is there in life for young people now? im a zoomer and 2 things I do have total control over is my body and my eating habits. i remember someone pointing out that this is why there's a rise in people getting tattoos. less ownership and control over the external will lead to more of those things directed toward the inward. which also explains people retreating to spirituality, "manifestation" etc.
the more intellectual part of the unfortunate looking have realised that they need to be the change they want to see in the world, so they try to treat people the same regardless of how they look save unconscious bias. these people will be happier. less afraid to age, less afraid of food. hopefully more people will realise this is the better path.
(not the person you replied to)
looksmaxxers consist of the less intellectual part of the unfortunate looking segment of the population. "blackpilled" about what, that good looking people are treated better? they needed a youtuber to tell them what is known to any human being on earth? I do understand why they are this way though. it's a result of too many movies that perpetuated this school of thought: "it's okay if you're not good looking, if you have a nice personality she'll pick you" but that's just romcoms by that demographic for that demographic.
and the answer to the problem is not exit from the impacted group (ik this is an observation you made rather than arguing in favor of it so I'm not disputing that, im making another observation) because they're perpetually scared of reverting to their old looks while simultaneously trying to look even better because you can't stop once you're on that path. clavicular is insecure as ever. women who are looksmaxxing are just surgery maxxing at this point. they're terminally dissatisfied. we'll see more people join this movement however because what else is there in life for young people now? im a zoomer and 2 things I do have total control over is my body and my eating habits. i remember someone pointing out that this is why there's a rise in people getting tattoos. less ownership and control over the external will lead to more of those things directed toward the inward. which also explains people retreating to spirituality, "manifestation" etc.
the more intellectual part of the unfortunate looking have realised that they need to be the change they want to see in the world, so they try to treat people the same regardless of how they look save unconscious bias. these people will be happier. less afraid to age, less afraid of food. hopefully more people will realise this is the better path.
>>10380
False dilemma -- you don't need to take some evil faustian bargain where you're forever hooked on roids or surgery revisions to look better. There's a pareto effect here. It's cope for the moral injury of someone trying to better themself. Similar to how people salivate at the thought of ozempic having some undetected side effects that will ruin their users' lives sometime in the future. People feel that there needs to be an equivalent exchange -- no free lunch -- that will leave people back at the place they started.
In short, I agree that people should try to treat ugly people the same as hot people, but acting in this way does nothing to help me.
False dilemma -- you don't need to take some evil faustian bargain where you're forever hooked on roids or surgery revisions to look better. There's a pareto effect here. It's cope for the moral injury of someone trying to better themself. Similar to how people salivate at the thought of ozempic having some undetected side effects that will ruin their users' lives sometime in the future. People feel that there needs to be an equivalent exchange -- no free lunch -- that will leave people back at the place they started.
In short, I agree that people should try to treat ugly people the same as hot people, but acting in this way does nothing to help me.
>>10389
what you say is true enough for ozempic. people have been on it for decades and there have been no side effects or not any significant ones at least, barring immediate weight gain as soon as they're off it. but do you really think the same is true for plastic surgery? it seems to me that plastic surgery is a slippery slope. some boxtox here then some filler there then some tightening here some lifting there etc
what you say is true enough for ozempic. people have been on it for decades and there have been no side effects or not any significant ones at least, barring immediate weight gain as soon as they're off it. but do you really think the same is true for plastic surgery? it seems to me that plastic surgery is a slippery slope. some boxtox here then some filler there then some tightening here some lifting there etc
No.10391
Anonymous
2026-06-03 18:12:00
>>10390
It's a hacky book for hacky people but there's one thing I heard from it secondhand that has been immensely useful in my life: "make your accomplishments seem effortless". It's always the game theoretical best move. If you get work done, keep it subtle and deny deny deny and it will work (unless ur doctor botches it)
It's a hacky book for hacky people but there's one thing I heard from it secondhand that has been immensely useful in my life: "make your accomplishments seem effortless". It's always the game theoretical best move. If you get work done, keep it subtle and deny deny deny and it will work (unless ur doctor botches it)