Skip to content(if available)orjump to list(if available)

The Decline of Deviance

The Decline of Deviance

74 comments

·October 28, 2025

keiferski

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.)

uvaursi

This isn’t true and hasn’t been true fifty years ago either. A handful of the most well-known books regarding getting wealthy and having a high status were written almost a century ago. The practice of wealth accumulation was already established by anyone who was above room temperature IQ for as long as we have existed.

Deviance is all around, the author is too trapped in a bubble to see it.

keiferski

There used to be much more tension between creating culture (art, music, etc.) and making money from it. I think that tension has pretty much evaporated.

moritzwarhier

There is a term for this, at least some people used to use it, I think it would appear as tied to certain kind of "ideology" to most though:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry

I also guess it is just a wordy description of the combination of commercial entertainment and industrialization.

I like your point, although I feel that in some contexts, it was probably _easier_ for people to create something they feel is valuable as art and also can earn them money, a few decades ago.

I don't think the tension has evaporated, it's just the difference between "art" and "entertainment". Sure, you can always say that entertainment is art. No matter if you're Christopher Nolan or a street musician who knows what to play to get some money.

The tension is still there, there's just a mass-scale production of commercial art that hasn't been there before.

But I'd say that probably, with these products that have giant budgets and are feeding thousands of people, there are just a few people involved who consider themselves artists in a sense that isn't the same in that a baker or sewer is also an artist.

No coincidence we're discussing this in a forum that has software development as a main subject.

Christopher Nolan's movies are "art" the same way Microsofts UI design is art, IMHO.

I didn't bring Nolan into this in order to be smug about him, his work just feels like it symbolizes this kind of industrial cultural production well, especially because many people might consider him a top-notch _artist_.

mihaic

I think you're missing that deviants have to interact with people in the normal sphere for them to count socially, and the fact that you're arguing that the author is in a bubble pretty much is making his case actually.

GuinansEyebrows

> The practice of wealth accumulation was already established by anyone who was above room temperature IQ for as long as we have existed

i can't tell if you're trying to make a point about people who don't practice wealth accumulation. probably because i have a room temperature IQ.

rkomorn

In Kelvin?

pfdietz

> Deviance is all around, the author is too trapped in a bubble to see it.

Let's send the author to a furry con.

omnicognate

Furry conventions have been going for 40 years. There are more than 50 of them catering to a worldwide "furry fandom" of millions. Is there a boiling cauldron of innovation there that I'm not aware of? From the outside it looks almost mainstream at this point.

readthenotes1

I wonder if you were to plot out the costume variations if they would be increasing or decreasing over time.

reaperducer

Deviance is all around, the author is too trapped in a bubble to see it.

Show me the modern counter-culture movement. Show me the modern Firesign Theater. Show me today's National Lampoon. Show me the modern Anarchist's Cookbook.

No, 2600 doesn't count. It's a toothless parody of what it once was that you can buy on the shelf at Barnes and Noble next to Taylor Swift magazines.

Heck, even the 2000's had hipsters.

Where are the protest songs? I think this is the first generation that doesn't have mainstream protest songs.

lubujackson

Give me a break with this "where are the protest songs" stuff. I'm an old fart, but even I know stuff like Childish Gambino's "This Is America", a bunch of Kendrick Lamar songs (not to mention his Super Bowl performance), Beyonce's "Ameriican Requiem", etc.

And let's not forget that protest songs aren't usually promoted by those in power...

foul

Mainstream protest songs?

jderick

Bo Burnham

ericmcer

compounding gains has also become the only strategy to stay afloat.

Look at the performance of broad index funds since 2008. You either dumped everything you had in the market over the last 15 years or literally lost out on 4Xing your money.

That kind of dynamic is pretty shitty for risk, why would I sink my money into any kind of risky venture when the market keeps spitting out 15% a year returns on safe investments.

All expenditures also get warped by this, move across the country? Buy a new car/house? Better to play it safe and keep the wheels spinning and watch the numbers go up and to the right.

keiferski

That’s a good point too. You increasingly need to participate in the system or you get left behind and can’t afford the things you could 5-6 years prior. So doing something crazy like wandering the country in your car or working at a cafe to fund your artist lifestyle is a constant ticking clock.

pixl97

Also you could wander much more easily in the past. These days digital surveillance has creeped in everywhere. Stay in one place over a day and you'll get a ticket. Pay is better monitored so you cant easily do under the table work. Your customers probably use cards so your transactions are monitored and will be taxed. It's a different world from what us older people grew up in.

ahartmetz

Let's do the traditional thing and blame it on music! US hip hop videos of the early 2000s were full of garish displays of wealth.

brazukadev

But the people trying to show off weren't actually that rich it was a genuine counter-culture movement. Today they are rich af.

reaperducer

Being shamelessly focused on wealth accumulation seems to be socially acceptable in a way it wasn’t fifty years ago.

In the 70's the expression was "He who dies with the most toys wins."

Today, replace "toys" with "dollars."

People seem to be using raw money as some kind of measure of success, as if life was a big video game, trying to rack up the highest score.

It's part of the gamification of everything: Politics, dining, shopping. Everything is a game now, and everyone is expected to keep score.

delusional

> 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.

I think about that in the complete opposite direction. I think the dollar displaced traditional values. The cause I'd attribute would be our increasing reliance on "reason", especially short term cause-and-effect "reason".

Most of my perspective on this comes from "Dialectic on enlightenment", which I can recommend if you can stomach an incredibly dense and boring book.

armchairhacker

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.)

keiferski

Weirdness isn’t really deviance. Punk was deviance, anti-system. Modern internet weirdness is mostly just having weird consumer tastes and sociopolitical opinions.

10729287

Punk is still strong. The internet destroyed Geek tho.

ianbutler

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.

jrm4

Interesting; for what it's worth, as a black person who grew up in a relatively privileged environment, the "one bad fight" rule was subconsciously our entire existence in a way that it wasn't for many people around us.

rightbyte

What does that mean? One is enought to ruin your reputation and chances later as an adult?

RichardCA

More likely to get hit with a Zero Tolerance punishment for a single isolated incident, which derails your entire trajectory through the school system.

https://www.reddit.com/r/lansing/comments/1no5rtl/lansing_pa...

AvAn12

+1 for the Lead Hypothesis. Apart from negative health effects, lead exposure leads to more impulsive behavior and reduced inhibition - which kind of covers nearly everything here.

Have to say, I am glad that the world is safer and less wild, but I do miss the creative energy and "real world" social engagement of 1980s-1990s

card_zero

That generation were a bunch of mindless, selfish dicks. Free from poisoning, the new generations can think clearly about how to be selfish dicks, and plan it out more deliberately.

hrimfaxi

> 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 learned yesterday about the skull breaker challenge, where you and two friends line up and jump at the same time to see who jumps highest, except the outside two people conspire to kick the legs out of the middle one. Is that being a kid? If anything, the proliferation of social media is enabling the normalization of deviance in the form of these meme challenges. People are going around spraying bug spray on the produce at the grocery and posting it on TikTok.

tstrimple

I'm sure you never heard "if your friend jumps off a bridge would you?" question growing up. But it seemed to be very common saying in my family and in others at the time. So it seems like kids were making bad decisions based off of peer pressure well before social media. It's only that it goes "viral" that anyone pays attention at all. Just more ammunition for the "kids these days" type of people I guess.

aj_hackman

> People are going around spraying bug spray on the produce at the grocery and posting it on TikTok.

One single person did this, and was sentenced to a year in prison for it.

ianbutler

Yeah I would be willing to bet serious money that this is a few kids and that the number is not even greater than a fractional fraction of a percent.

You're seeing point wise incidents, chosen to generate outrage, and trying to apply them like all kids are doing these things, which per all trends they are not.

Sorry some fraction of people will always be stupid, we shouldn't apply constraints on the many to save the few stupid ones.

hrimfaxi

How many of these trends are we seeing and how much of a fraction of a fraction do they represent in sum? The article discusses specific declines but doesn't look at data regarding increased incidences of social-media-driven acts of deviance. That's like pointing at the declining use of the saddle while ignoring the rise of the automobile. I guess I should revise my previous hyperbolic statement as I don't know if the deviance is made up for in other ways, I would just have appreciated a broader view.

RajT88

I would suggest that another trend which contributes to this "one bad fight" is the growing personal disposable income in the US, which allows parents to be highly litigious, demanding things like arrests of kids their kids get in fights with:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DSPIC96

Anecdotally, teachers have been talking about fear of getting sued by parents for a long time now. I suspect this is a big driving force behind the "everyone gets a trophy" mentality and not at all liberalism. Teachers have been kowtowing to moneyed tiger/helicopter parents in ever more egregious ways.

My own pet theory anyways.

digitalsushi

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)

MattGrommes

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.

opwieurposiu

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.

null

[deleted]

wolframhempel

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…?

datameta

I'd also argue the culture of "digital degeneracy" has permeated the internet and is no longer locked away in, say, the bastion of mid/late 2000s 4chan. What used to be violent NSFL liveleaks content is now easily accesible by anyone with a phone. Softcore content is completely widespread on "clean" apps like IG and Tiktok.

If we measure deviance only by the metrics that existed before social media, we will of course find what is expected.

munificent

Consuming niche stuff isn't really deviance in any meaningful sense.

There's no risk-taking there, no producing something new for the world, and very little personal actualization beyond getting to consume a thing you like.

pixl97

Maybe we're looking at this wrong. Maybe 'new' stuff just isn’t that interesting to people any more. I mean the amount of 'new' things out there are huge and we are constantly exposed to them lots of them. Then when you couple that with the massive amount of advertising that is everywhere on every surface and site, people start to brain adblock and focus on patterns they recognize.

superconduct123

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

pixl97

>They over-analyze and overthink everything a lot more than past generations

Maybe we're just used to past generations that were poisoned by atmospheric lead from gasoline making under thought decisions.

echelon

> Whereas now its all about RT scores, review megathreads, unboxing, reaction videos

Is that them or is that content and algorithms seeping into every possible nook and cranny of the human experience? Creators seeking to tap value off of popular brands and fans trying to find more content and falling into a long tail?

We're making more content, taking up more time, resulting in people who are stimulated all the time. Busy all the time.

ksymph

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/

stronglikedan

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

xorvoid

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".

pixl97

The internet isn’t some PC sitting in your house these days. It's with you on your phone, and it's on every phone and device around you, pretty much everywhere in the world. Even if you 'turn it off' everyone else can make it your problem.

chemotaxis

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.