Cultural Convergence Drives Decline in Societal Deviance and Innovation

Our culture feels increasingly stagnant, a phenomenon Adam Mastroianni argues is not mere nostalgia but a data-backed trend toward cultural convergence. This conversation reveals a hidden consequence: the decline in "deviance," both positive (creativity) and negative (rule-breaking), driven by increasing societal stability and risk aversion. Those who understand this shift gain an advantage by recognizing that true innovation often arises from the very non-conformity that society is systematically dampening. This analysis is crucial for anyone seeking to foster originality, understand scientific progress, or build institutions that can withstand the pressures of conformity.

The Unseen Erosion of Originality: Why Stability Kills Creativity

The pervasive feeling that creativity is in decline, that culture is converging into a bland sameness, isn't just a lament for bygone eras. Adam Mastroianni, an experimental psychologist, presents a compelling case, backed by data, that this is a tangible trend. He points to the stark increase in remakes and franchise films since the year 2000, a clear indicator of a culture leaning heavily on existing intellectual property rather than forging new paths. But this isn't just about entertainment; it's a symptom of a broader societal shift.

Mastroianni frames this phenomenon through the lens of "deviance." Some deviance, he argues, is the engine of creativity and progress, while other forms are simply detrimental. He notes a significant decline in risky behaviors among young people -- smoking, drinking, early pregnancy -- starting in the 1990s. While this might seem unequivocally positive, Mastroianni posits a critical downstream effect: the "kids smoking in the bathroom" might also be the ones who later produce groundbreaking art or scientific discoveries. By reducing all forms of deviance, we might be inadvertently stifling the very sparks of originality that drive innovation.

"some deviance is good we call that creativity and some deviance is bad we call that crime if you look at surveys of what young people are doing in terms of smoking drinking getting pregnant these things just go down and down and down starting mainly in the 90s and i think we can all agree like that's a good decline of deviance but i think it has this uh this negative ultimate outcome which is the kids who are smoking in the bathroom ultimately go on some of them maybe some of them were closer than you might think some of them go on to do some interesting things as well and so if you don't have that deviance at the beginning maybe you don't get it down the line in both positive and negative forms"

This decline, Mastroianni suggests, is rooted in increased prosperity and a sense of safety. Unlike previous generations who faced the immediate threats of war, disease, or deprivation, modern society offers a greater degree of stability. This encourages a "long game" mentality, prioritizing security and predictable milestones over impulsive or risky endeavors. The implication is that as society becomes more stable, it naturally becomes more risk-averse, and this risk aversion extends to cultural and scientific output. The challenge, then, is how to cultivate creativity in an environment that increasingly rewards predictability.

The Paradox of the Internet: Amplifying and Dampening Variance

The digital age presents a fascinating paradox in this discussion. On one hand, the internet acts as a powerful amplifier of variance. Anyone can create and share content, theoretically fostering a more diverse cultural landscape. However, Mastroianni argues that the internet also acts as a significant dampener. The constant, pervasive stream of information, particularly from dominant cultural forces like major celebrities, means everyone is exposed to the same cultural inputs. This creates a "monoculture," where even with personalized content feeds, the underlying raw materials of culture become more uniform, leading to more similar outputs.

This is further compounded by the increasing professionalization of fields like science and art. While professionalization raises the "floor" of competence, Mastroianni contends it also lowers the "ceiling" of groundbreaking innovation. The incentives within established institutions often favor incremental progress and adherence to established norms, rather than the radical, often messy, exploration that leads to true breakthroughs.

"The most important ones cannot live in large institutions that have to have a bureaucratic apparatus to run them which is why i think we need a new set of institutions that are smaller and that are run differently that are not invested in their long term survival in the current status quo"

This leads to a critical insight: revolutionary innovations often happen despite institutions, not because of them. They emerge from individuals with "slack in their calendar," mistakes that open new avenues, or a willingness to operate outside the established system. The current structure of academic and scientific institutions, with their emphasis on credentialism and adherence to established paradigms, can actively suppress the kind of "weirdness" that Mastroianni believes is essential for true discovery.

Cultivating the "Science House": A New Paradigm for Innovation

Mastroianni proposes a radical solution: the "science house." This model reimagines scientific training and practice, moving away from the traditional PhD program and its inherent institutional incentives. A science house would be a more intimate, hacker-house-like environment where individuals apprentice with experienced researchers, publish directly to the internet, and are incentivized by the pursuit of "weird stuff" rather than journal prestige or tenure.

The core idea is to create environments that are deliberately "variance-increasing." These would be smaller, more agile institutions, unburdened by the need for long-term survival within the status quo. Their success would be measured by the quality and novelty of their output, not by their growth or institutional standing. This approach aims to cultivate individuals who are less encumbered by the need for external validation and more driven by intrinsic curiosity.

"The advantage of these is that they're small and idiosyncratic -- and like their success condition is that they do cool stuff not that they grow -- growing is a failure condition for them unlike university where like every additional billion dollars they get is is a win condition for them"

This model directly addresses the "permission-seeking" behavior that Mastroianni observes, where aspiring innovators wait for external validation rather than simply acting on their ideas. By creating spaces where experimentation is encouraged and failure is a learning opportunity, these science houses could nurture a new generation of polymaths and innovators. The key is to foster a culture where intellectual courage and a willingness to explore the unconventional are not just tolerated, but actively celebrated.

Key Action Items:

• Embrace "Deviance" (Thoughtfully): Actively seek out and encourage unconventional ideas, even if they initially seem unproductive or risky. This applies to personal projects, team brainstorming, and institutional culture. (Immediate)
• Question Institutional Incentives: Critically examine how current academic, scientific, or corporate structures might be inadvertently stifling creativity and originality. Consider how to introduce "variance" into these systems. (Ongoing)
• Explore "Science House" Principles: Even without a formal science house, adopt its core tenets: focus on intrinsic motivation, direct publication/sharing of work, and valuing novel exploration over credentialism. (Next 3-6 months)
• Cultivate Cognitive Diversity: Intentionally seek out perspectives from individuals with vastly different backgrounds and disciplines. This cross-pollination is essential for breaking free from established paradigms. (Immediate)
• Prioritize "Strong Link" Problems: Focus on projects where exceptional work has an outsized impact, rather than solely on eliminating weaknesses. This means taking more "weirder shots" in R&D, product development, or creative endeavors. (Next 6-12 months)
• Invest in "Free Cures" (Ideas): Support and disseminate ideas and research that may not have immediate commercial viability but offer significant societal benefit. This could involve funding independent research or creating platforms for open knowledge sharing. (12-18 months payoff)
• Develop a "Cybernetic" Mindset: Begin thinking of complex systems (including the mind) as stacks of control systems. This framework can unlock new ways of understanding personality, mental illness, and problem-solving. (Ongoing investment)