I’ve noticed that sometimes there is an idea or framework that seems great to me, and I also know plenty of people who use it in a great and sensible way.

Then I run into people online who say that “this idea is terrible and people use it in horrible ways”.

When I ask why, they point to people applying the idea in ways that do indeed seem terrible - and in fact, applying it in ways that seem to me like the opposite of what the idea is actually saying.

Of course, some people might think that I’m the one with the wrong and terrible version of the idea. I’m not making the claim that my interpretation is necessarily always the correct one.

But I do think that there's a principle like “every ~social idea[1] acquires a corrupted version”, and that the corruption tends to serve specific purposes rather than being random.

Here are a couple of examples:

Attachment theory. People with insecure attachment read about attachment theory, and then what they imagine secure attachment looking like is actually an idealized version of their own insecure attachment pattern.

Someone with anxious attachment might think that a secure relationship [...]

---

Outline:

(03:12) Emotionally selective reading

(05:42) The effects of vibe and my own corruption-complicity

(09:52) Conflicted authors

The original text contained 4 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.

---

First published:

Source:

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.