BANNED USER: temperamental dysregulation
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
Tell me about it.
User ID: 745
Banned by: @Amadan
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
To be honest I don't think your position here is deeply reasoned, it looks like generic kneejerk «anti-globalism». Dollars have more staying value than Argentinian exports, much as I love me a decent steak. I won't go all NATOwave here, but it is necessary to recognize that nations can fail overwhelmingly for their own fault, even when Americans happen to be fairly graceful with their influence. This also isn't about right- or left-wing in the myopic tribal sense. Lastly, I am not trying to sell you on Milei's policy proposals, but just to explain Argentinian perspective. They don't feel like they can afford more of this bullshit.
Decades after the war, Argentina is peppered with ressantiment-filled Malvinas memorials (very much a «Crimea ours» vibe, only it feels safely toothless). This coexists peacefully with an already enormous share of dollars in cash, and socialist politics. It's a very populist, very short-time-preference society, that takes «kicking the can down the road» principle to its limit while the rich and well-connected enjoy prosperity (or comfortably emigrate) and the poor get poorer. Over 100% (more like 200% now? USD:ARS is at 670 right now; it was below 400 in May) YoY inflation is not an inconvenience but a catastrophe, it makes people unable to save and invest, it actually tests how much poverty you need to increase crime rate, it kills hope. @2rafa had some interesting notes on this topic.
Of course, I believe Argentinians will be unable to take the triage-like measures necessary to salvage the economy (even if Milei is elected, which is unlikely, and gets to execute on his plans, which is implausible) and flinch back to Kirchnerism, which you will probably approve of as a brave stance against the GAE.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I think it's vastly more "libertarian" than anything else, at least if we are taking him at face value (and there's some reason to do so given his career). Still probably goes nowhere. Eagerly waiting for @Soriek's writeup.
Have you ever lived in a country with hyperinflation? This is my third one at this point and let me tell you, it got old the first time.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
and these disgusting(visually ergo personally) fatsos will get help to adapt their brains evolved for completely different circumstances to the food abundance of current time.
I actually wonder how it'll go. Just like plastic surgery can't really make you younger but instead gives you a distinct post-op look, and Adderall doesn't just restore executive function to baseline, chemically fit people may become a very intriguing new phenotype. Are fat people today unjustly maligned for their looks? Or do they really have systematically different characters which will largely remain even without all the extra adipose tissue? We shall see.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
king von being a serial killer (no, seriously)
What the fuck. His rivals are about as bad.
Following months of controversy surrounding his alleged involvement in King Von's death, Quando released his sixth mixtape, Still Taking Risks, on May 7, 2021
Quando Rondo publicly remained silent on the incident until two weeks later, when he released his song "End of Story", which was assumed to be a reference to Von's song trilogy, "Crazy Story". In the song, he recalls the shooting and addresses his involvement.[39] In the song, he again states that he was defending himself and even shows support for his friend Timothy Leeks, a rapper also known as Lul Timm, who was charged for the murder of King Von.[40] In April 2021, Quando denied that the song was a diss toward Von, and claimed he did not know that Von had songs with that title.[24] Despite receiving strong criticism, Quando has continued to publicly support Leeks.[41][42]
I knew about 50 Cent, XXXTentacion, Tupac and so on but this level of systemic childishness drives the point home finally. It seems «hip hop stars» live with anime or RPG levels of disregard for mundane rules-based reality, fighting and killing each other and being let go by the guards after some modest cooldown, to compose a memorable «diss». America really is the land of endless possibilities.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I prefer using it to not feed cookie data to the Lesswrong cabal directly.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
IQ
You surely know but BAP isn't too keen on HBD and IQ-focused discourse; or rather, his notion of evaluation methodology, «racial hierarchy», desirable qualities and perhaps even the mechanics involved are all entirely different from the Sailerite school of thought (which is why I'm pissed when everyone on the dissident right is rounded up to a Nazi; no you fools, at least appreciate the vibrant diversity of other doctrines which are every bit as irreconcilable with yours, it's an honor to be hated from so many different angles!). And it's not about Nordics as such, he preaches exactly what it says on the tin – Bronse Age mindset, bodybuilders on horseback.
It's hard to think of a material way that 2020 is worse off than 1980, and 1970-1980s america didn't collapse.
I dislike the phrase "techno-solutionism" but it ought to be recognized how much of our "not worse off" depends on outracing the decline. Opinions differ as to how sustainable that is. I do not foresee or dream of a collapse, but I'm also not looking forward to this kind of dysfunctional culture being empowered by technology indefinitely.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I increasingly feel like the problem with Hanania is he's genuinely a callous, nasty person and that won't work in the longhouse culture.
I've had moments of extreme vitriolic exaggeration, so I cut him slack when he puffs his chest and talks of how masculine, disagreeable he is, how everyone's a pussy, how he's disgusted at men showing vulnerability, ungratefulness, incompetence etc. etc. I think of it as just playing to the audience of fellow tough guy meritocrats. But perhaps I'm too cynical, cynicism overflowing into naivete, and it's all genuine (like Tate is genuinely some kind of a pimp or whatever). So he'd prefer it if sterilization were sound policy, because he'd rather just genocide poor people and black Americans, basically out of spite; meritocratic equal-opportunity race-blindness may or may not be unworkable, but for him it might not even seem desirable.
It's an alien mindset for me, but not ineffable, and exactly what progressives seek to demonstrate in their enemies.
Regardless, I think if people are correct that Musk is beyond cancellation, Hanania can curry favor with him and remain somewhat relevant for this reason alone. Musk is positively seething about EFF's Malema and his "clever" borderline genocidal rhetoric; maybe he won't stop quoting a guy who used to have edgy takes about blacks.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
The actual wisdom to Hlynka's advice is to have control over your funeral's invite list.
I think there's not much to notice here, everyone knows (oh no, consensus building!) that Democrats love to hate on Palin and that rather more of prominent Democratic elite [understood extensively, a la Karlin's Elite Human Capital meme, e.g. Colbert and Stewart and even their target audience] are Jewish. Indeed it is through their mean-spirited clowning1* 2** that I still have vaguely negative associations with her name despite paying roughly zero attention to US politics at that time.*** («Sarah Palin writing notes on her hand shows she's not like those elites and their memory» – the subtitle helpfully communicates the important dimension of the conflict; no better way to highlight your claim to status than in clever dispassionate hinting at anti-elitism as ressentiment driven by deficiency, or as some naive conspiracy theory).
It is also my gut feeling that back then they've been somewhat more shrill, catty and obnoxious with that elitist hate and affected condescending mockery of Palin than generic whites, as it tends to be. I allow that maybe that's just muh Verbal Intelligence and loud NY culture showing, and their hate was driven by the same forces as in regular «self-hating white elite» rather than some genuinely tribal sense of hostility for Palin as unashamed, fecund Christian; white liberals do despise right-wing Evangelicals. Those factors suffice to casually "notice" a disproportionate contribution.
But yes, I think you're correct that he has mostly preempting that sort of akshually from the audience. But so what? I imagine those two words – «and Jewish» – get pattern-matched to dog-whistling from a much more extremist cluster, are precisely what pushes this «revelation» over the limit of being dangerous for his career, and not-so-coincidentally are the clearest, most undeniable delta from his contemporary messaging; which in itself adds the power to the accusation of witchcraft – «he's learned to hide his power level». It's one thing to begin writing more obliquely about Ungrateful Le Blacks (his recent Killer King piece), it's another to drop a token altogether.
* Amusingly, the site showed me an insanely pronatalist ad for BreastmilkCounts.com before proceeding to Colbert, even bereft of heavy-handed race-coded messaging; I guess not all is lost with liberal culture if they allow this sort of placement.
** Stewart's criticism is oddly relevant to Hanania's case.
*** I am aware that Colbert is a Catholic Elite Human Capital akshually.
Why do you want him to say his views have changed? Do you believe this to be true, do you want it to be, or do you want him to grovel in a less pathetic manner? Nothing he has said back then is substantially different in anything sans tone from his current beliefs, far as I can tell. And saying something like "In the course of my career as an irreverent political pundit, rude troll and dunker-on-outgroup extraordinaire, I've learned to eloquently pontificate on women's tears winning the marketplace on ideas and right wingers being obscene barbarians, but avoid being clearly hostile or pointing out when the Outgroup's vanguard happens to be disproportionately Jewish" is, in my opinion, worse than nothing.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I mean one can be racist in different ways and deemed racist for varying reasons. But yes, basically, if German culture is dead, then the Chinese one is as dead by the same measure, both peoples reduced to manufacturing workshops at different links of the global value add chain.
I differ with people whom I refer to here as racists in relatively minor details when it comes to evaluation of Mainland China (I don't much care about muh communism/eating dogs/other nonsensical disgust- or morality-driven attacks at them like that series of posts from @Lepidus) but they sure don't produce a whole lot of great art. It's a shame because Han Chinese are, in my opinion, great and talented and perfectly artistic people, as shown by their diaspora.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
But why on Earth would «Russia» not wait for Ukraine fatigue to set in? I don't think some evidence like a document must be shown, it's just common sense and the burden of proof is on you. Pro-Z Russians I know are very explicitly banking on it, channelling Kremlin beliefs. And of course it's expected of them – the whole thing is revealed as senseless struggle the moment you accept that the US and by extension «the West» won't stop backing Ukraine. Which they won't of course: no matter how tired proles get, how many new current things they pivot to in the attention economy, they won't become pro-Russian (not with how Putin acts anyway; @Dean details a plausible rationale, but I think there's conscious reveling in depravity too, certain edgelording, Putin has an adolescent's sense of humor); and it will remain political suicide and betrayal of the premise of NATO to actually abandon Ukrainian cause.
The US, as a geopolitical entity, actually values the loyalty of all those peoples in Central Europe/Baltics who are (more than anyone else on the continent) directly interested in the suppression of Russian imperial agenda and aid Ukrainians as their fellow former subjects of the empire, as well as their current shield.
The US also cares directly about the diminution of Russia in the context of American grand strategy (where international economic isolation of China and denial of usable allies to China is the primary objective for the foreseeable future); victorious Russia is a substantially more valuable ally to China than one bogged down in trench warfare and suffering attacks on its capital, so it must not come to exist.
For these and other reasons, whatever fatique will be felt by the NATO camp, it won't be a big factor. But yes, Russians ignore these reasons and absolutely hope it will be, and this has been a consistent theme in the commentary for the whole duration of the war (except the first delusional week or so). This has been a common theme prior to the war, since 2014 at least – «Hohols will freeze to death without our gas» and so on (perfectly mirrored in that Gazprom middle finger to the EU); protracted resource throttling (or even just threatening it) in hopes of getting opposition to yield is a staple of Kremlin playbook, informed by the foundational belief that you can win by continuously imposing costs which translate into fatique and giving up. «These Gayropeans spoiled by their democracy are not tough, they can't endure remotely as much hardship [as our slaves]» is a very typical conviction both of authoritarians and of their powerless supporters and in Russia it has perhaps been developed into its ultimate form of a pervasive philosophical attitude to life. It's wrong about the other side, and it's mostly empty posturing with regard to one's own, these people aren't prepared for meaningful sacrifices, nor do they really care about the goal such as taking Ukraine, indeed most of them feel war fatique and would've given up if it were up them. But to the extent that they have something like strategy, all pro-war Russians from P. himself do the lowest Z conscript do pin their hopes on war fatigue in the West.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Incidentally, just in: Century-Old Paradigm Overturned – Brain Shape Matters More Than Neural Connectivity
For over a hundred years, scientists have held the belief that our thoughts, feelings, and dreams are shaped by the way various brain regions interact via a vast network of trillions of cellular connections.
However, a recent study led by the team at Monash University’s Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health has examined more than 10,000 distinct maps of human brain activity and discovered that the overall shape of an individual’s brain has a much more substantial impact on our cognitive processes, emotions, and behavior than its intricate neuronal connectivity.
The study, recently published in the prestigious journal, Nature draws together approaches from physics, neuroscience, and psychology to overturn the century-old paradigm emphasizing the importance of complex brain connectivity, instead identifying a previously unappreciated relationship between brain shape and activity.
“We have long thought that specific thoughts or sensations elicit activity in specific parts of the brain, but this study reveals that structured patterns of activity are excited across nearly the entire brain, just like the way in which a musical note arises from vibrations occurring along the entire length of a violin string, and not just an isolated segment,” he said.
“We found that eigenmodes defined by brain geometry––its contours and curvature––represented the strongest anatomical constraint on brain function, much like the shape of a drum influences the sounds that it can make,” said Professor Fornito.
“Using mathematical models, we confirmed theoretical predictions that the close link between geometry and function is driven by wave-like activity propagating throughout the brain, just as the shape of a pond influences the wave ripples that are formed by a falling pebble,” he said.
Huh! The more you know! I guess phrenologists just had to sound it a little with some sticks or something, to tell the shape of the drum under the skull. Or maybe make some sacrifices… for science! They were so close…
Oh, those functional connectomics researchers with their contrived mathematical mumbo-jumbo must be getting real uncomfortable now, the silly geese!
Check this out @ShariaHeap @orca-covenant
(I haven't actually verified if the paper makes sense, but the writing is just hilarious with all those repeated metaphors, it reads like a GPT-generated shitpost for Sneerclub)
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
If something is not found despite very deliberate search, it really might just not exist. It may be the case that there really is no reason. Preferring a model where big collectives of people don't consistently do something over and over for zero good reason is, of course, understandable. It's not impossible that this principle fails here. I don't have confidence in any hypothesis at this point.
But it must be acknowledged that we have not researched this very deliberately. Aliens – yes. Alien promoters around Washington DC – not really.
I can articulate the belief again, sure. To wit:
Humans are animals like any other, with populations evolving divergently under local selection pressures by all normal evolutionary mechanisms. An important difference is that past some distant point, human cultures have began exerting even more pressure than the natural environment; so environmental cues, founder effects, cultural choices and historical-political circumstances have determined path-dependent evolutionary tracks of our groups. Relative fitness tradeoffs, and thus selection pressures, differ between populations, although the requirements inherent to having human society constrain them some; societies are just very different. For example, all healthy humans can learn to speak some language, use abstract concepts, do different jobs. Yet populations which form big settled communities with labor specialization, and practice technologically demanding agriculture in cold climates with clear seasonality that rewards long-term orientation, experience pressures unlike that of nomadic groups or foragers near equator; on all levels from biochemistry to metabolic constants to skeleton proportions to prevalent temperaments to, yes, average level of general intelligence.
Human evolution is counterintuitively fast, even without some explicit eugenics or strong bottlenecks – groups can diverge on a trait by 1 SD in thousands of years, under mundane pressures like whether a tribe practices diving or not. This happens mainly through the change in distributions of already present alleles, not novel mutations (though we also accumulate novel mutations increasingly quickly, due to population size explosion; contra popular anthropological myth, human evolution accelerates in historical time, we are all genetically very different from «anatomically modern humans» of 200 KYA or even «behaviorally modern humans» of 50KYA).
Stable individual traits, including value-laden like intelligence, are influenced by heredity and environment. It is not very meaningful to say that a trait is more influenced by one or another in some general sense. But there are reaction norms that, for value-laden complex traits, tend to resemble logarithmic curves with regard to environmental gradient: positive environmental contributions at some point effectively plateau, and remaining variance is dominated by genetics. The corollary of this is that as the median environmental quality increases, heritability of traits increases too, even in societies with significant inequality, until only small extremes are dominated by effects of nurture. In the developed world, environmental inputs are satisfied to such an extent that intelligence is roughly 80% heritable and this doesn't much or at all (there's some debate about «Scarr-Rowe effect») differ between social strata.
There's a strong political commitment to understate the progress in environmental conditions and overstate effects of economic inequality on ability, which together with American history of race relations and a few other contingent political factors makes people deny all that and suppress this knowledge institutionally.
but since you've read Murray you must already know the core thesis. There are plenty of other digestible intros from self-awowed HBDists: Sailer, Jayman 1 and 2, even some links in this library. The problem begins at the level of arguing finer empirical and methodological points, it quickly devolves into this kind of abstruse stuff
EDIT @orangecat sorry I meant to respond to OP
the supposed squalor of the modern, western physical environment
squalor
the state of being extremely dirty and unpleasant, especially as a result of poverty or neglect.
This word is not used to refer to uninspired suburbs, you know. Maybe for you the choice is indeed between suburbs and tasteful Gothic cathedrals or pretty magical houses, but that's a whole different aesthetic axis. «Squalor» is the word for Mumbai, Barnaul, worse parts of San Francisco or Paris and so on – though it's extremely prevalent throughout the «developing» world.
There is a certain aspect of spiritual squalor to tacky advertisement and ridiculous postmodern design, I suppose, but those things are overwhelmingly shaped by influences different from poverty and neglect. They are more ideological: sometimes expressing brutal utilitarianism (this unites them with the Warsaw Block brand of squalor), sometimes deliberately offending the onlookers. Perhaps clarifying terms would be of use.
Squalor is a major and entirely unjustifiable aspect of human suffering (though perhaps for some people, living in squalor would be a small price to pay for the privilege of reading Peter Scholze). It is more debatable whether recreational math and science are worth tolerating modern ugliness. I think the space of potentially useful math is so vast (even just quantum physics and computer science provide gargantuan Truth Mines, and of course much of clever math can be preserved for training/evaluations), that we might well win on making this trade. There's also bonus utility in a) disempowering people who promote ugliness and b) embarrassing glass bead champs who just can't get it up for applied disciplines nor see anything beautiful in them. In my experience these people are spoiled; their self-esteem, grounded in intellectual superiority, and knowledge of being unproductive by ordinary metrics, make for a noxious mix – they learn to perceive themselves as the chosen caste, those for whom the rest of humanity exists as mere means to an end; they insist on the distinction between «pure» and «applied» specifically to show their contempt for the cattle of no Inherent Worth. I feel the same way about haughty artists (who think the world exists to sponsor their indulgent scribbles, thus AI must be banned), and in general despise people with strong «aristocratic elite» identity, though tolerating their immature antics seems to be net positive (and granting free rein to salty anti-elitists is profoundly net negative). This is more or less a normie attitude.
But ultimately this truly is a strawman, and this kind of choice does not present itself. Ugliness is not in any way a tradeoff we must accept to maintain modern economic productivity that allows universal education and pure math departments. It doesn't enable nor pay for that. I think it does not even spuriously correlate with ugliness – in every era, prettier places tend to produce more intellectual beauty too. And pure math cannot meaningfully compensate for the lack of physical beauty. It is idiosyncratic to conflate those different realms.
P.S. I of course despise «the spirit» of the question because of how loaded it is, on top of being strawmannish. The strawman aspect is only the decoy. Can you ever write without these attempts to mislead and own the opposition? You objected to people's dissatisfaction with, basically, lack of beautiful new architecture with «but there's a lot of new math». In this survey you do not propose trading like for like – modern physical ugliness for modern math; but an eternity of future non-utilitarian math and science for contemporary, transient building codes, as if any of those buildings would stand more than a century or two. Seriously, what the fuck.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
I just think when someone claims superiority based on genetics we should expect a very sophisticated evidence base with all the causal parts in place
First, HBD is usually not a «claim of superiority» in some global sense. I find it extremely wrong that White hereditarians aren't cut any slack for admitting that they are, in terms of genotypic cognitive potential, middling relative to Jews (who are massively dominant per capita) and East Asians (who are even more numerous than White people; nitpicking about muh creative European geniuses has bearing on historical prestige and such, but is largely irrelevant to aggregate population quality). This fact is more crucial to understanding the world than 13/51 type stuff, but gets just dismissed out of hand as some bad faith gotcha. The relative advantage of those groups is also not scrutinized as problematic, but just attributed to virtues like hard work and «culture of learning» (though Asians were covertly discriminated against in higher ed). This shows that the discourse is captured by special interests which only care to assert that «underperforming minorities» in the US are the Main Characters of history, and if they underperform Whites, it can only be for external reasons.
Second, I do not agree that claims of genetic superiority are more inherently suspicious than the alternative hypothesis, which is more or less «hateful conspiracy in plain sight spanning hundreds of millions of people», that is, moral inferiority; vague theorizing about «systemic racism» and «implicit bias» can only go so far to downplay the inescapable claim that White people are, in the current year, acting in an ethnocentric manner to abuse their non-White countrymen. I think people who promote this view do not defend or caveat its wildly libellous implications nearly enough, and must be pressed to do so.
In short, I disagree with the mainstream evaluation of which hypothesis is null, which claim is more extraordinary, and accordingly the assessment of the appropriate burden of proof. And if «'science proves this about X race'» is generally problematic, we must at the very least normalize agnosticism about causes of differences – not say that Science Has Spoken and all races have equal aptitude (ergo race Y is just oppressive, since differences remain).
Of course I'm not agnostic; IMO this horse is very dead. It's been dead since 2012 at the latest. You can just search HBD on this site and get this thread or this comment. Or go through these sources.
I'm not sure you realize how annoying it is to see that the response to HBD «facts that need to be explained» has been to simply make laypeople more confused. For example you ask «what about Flynn effect». What about Flynn effect, indeed? We don't have a reason to think it's relevant to the problem of between-group differences, it happens for everyone at basically the same rate. Likewise for isolated genetic pools; it's not relevant, virtually nothing depends on their existence. How did you arrive at the contrary prior, can you carefully try to trace it? My guess: you think that intelligence, in the HBD model, is mostly dependent on some specific adaptive variants that have emerged among the «superior stock» and failed to spread (in reality, it seems that the same core set of variants is present in all major groups; lower predictive power of European-derived PGS should be due to linkage disequilibrium, as usual). But where did you get that idea from in the first place? Probably just osmosis.
I don't hold it against you, getting reasonable priors would take purposeful work. It's just a thankless job to argue a scientifically nontrivial point against priors that have not been reflected upon. I hope you skim some of the links above.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
But the Epstein thing is legitimate, there's there there. In this model you're supposed to investigate meaningless clown stuff that is established as meaningless and cringe, to undermine the legitimacy of possible future meaningful investigations. Every redneck knows UFOs were some chicken coop fraudulent stuff, it's the current consensus. People joke that Americans believe in aliens but I think almost no American would bet money on them being real.
I admit, however, that this logic is a bit tortured. They could also have gone after yeti (though that'd be too on the nose; aliens is a really good option, it's not openly childish).
Maybe there is no single motive, maybe it's really just an, ahem, a Cabal of aging UFO nerds and a cascade of independent silly mistakes.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
No offense but there is just too much material too readily available to go through this again. look it up on /r/heredity
what the evidence base is for isolated genetic pools over long history..
How long? What do you mean by "isolated"? And why would it matter, like, how do you infer the plausible rate of genetic divergence in relevant traits to say whether it's been long and isolated enough? Your questions and implicit objections carry assumptions which would be quite laborious to justify, yet you do not feel the need to do it. You should, just for curiosity's sake. Consider the issue with identical ancestors point. It is often brought up by blank slatists as evidence that genetic pools could not have been all that isolated.
In 2004, Rohde, Olson and Chang showed through simulations that, given the false assumption of random mate choice without geographic barriers, the Identical Ancestors Point for all humans would be surprisingly recent, on the order of 5,000-15,000 years ago. … considering the ancestral populations alive at 5000 BC, close to the ACA point, a modern-day Japanese person will get 88.4% of their ancestry from Japan, and most of the remainder from China or Korea, with only 0.00049% traced to Norway; conversely, a modern-day Norwegian will get over 92% of their ancestry from Norway (or over 96% from Scandinavia) and only 0.00044% from Japan.
Okay, so over the last ≈180 generations, the Japanese human has been overwhelmingly molded by selection pressures peculiar to Japan. Is that a lot or not? Suppose that over that time the Japanese have improved their genotypic cognitive ability over baseline by 1/3rd of a standard deviation (5 IQ points), 36 generations per point. Assume intelligence is only 50% heritable (this is a very modest model) and intelligence in that environment over that time span has an average +0.1 correlation with number of surviving offspring. Is that too little or not? Is it plausible that in Siberia there was only a +0.05 correlation?
When is G not useful in an environment.
If you think about it, there are many traits apparently useful in all environments – perfect immune system, height, muscle power, running ability and so on. Yet we do not have invincible immune systems nor are we all maximally tall and strong, and there are clear differences between groups (when was the last time a Japanese bested an Icelander in a competition of strongmen?). The most important drawback for all such traits is opportunity cost; and most differences in human phenotypes are not due to evolving new adaptations but simply due to different tradeoffs when preserving beneficial alleles across traits.
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Ah, but culture isn't all that amenable to change; and depriving a people of their culture is a genocide too. Even if it were entirely cultural, what makes you believe a policy can be devised and implemented which processes the bulk of Black in the US people (since they can't be removed like ill-fitting Russians from the Netherlands) into culturally-White-enough that the racial conflict mellows out? Do they want to be so changed? What would be the form of a legitimate political process which ends up with them accepting this influence?
DaseindustriesLtd
late version of a small language model
3yr ago
Perhaps of my favorite type of a commenter is one who keeps a poker face but is genuinely pissed and eager to cleverly snark so he just lunges and misses by a mile. No, I do not predict American demise. In some form or the other, the US will keep prospering. I have literally never bet against American success. Congrats on your American salary, you keep bringing it up so it must be really good.
Covid will ≈always be a thing if it leaves permanent damage (see "long Covid"). I am mostly convinced it's real, though evidence is conflicted and the mechanism is dubious.
The other two points are actually fruitful. The conspiracy of neocons/MIC is such a normalized theory I'm just perceiving it as part of the polite consensus. Of course, it also is concerned with «systemic» behavior of legitimate actors, unlike bona fide conspiracy theories.
But I believe it's more interesting how popular a trope Cabals are in discussions of American proles. There's Pizza Cabal and loosely associated Epstein Cabal, Alex Jones studied the Bohemian Grove cabal, and there are Round Earthers and secret CIA experiments, and the Cabal of people who force depopulation vaccines that respond to 5G, while Russian and Democratic Cabals are stealing elections left and right. Q is even about a positive Patriotic Cabal fighting the Globalists Cabal! Sure, in my opinion there are more plausible candidates (here's one that's not жидомасонский: an uncovered, clumsy Cabal of virologists who have been hoodwinking the whole of mass media for what, two years?) It's just not something that is valid to investigate systematically, except on a meta level, as a phenomenon of mass delusion – Paranoid Style in American Politics and all that.
In a complex relation to the "Germanic idea" stands Nietzsche, who in his spirit and blood was not a pure German. The Germanic spirit, a very strong spirit, wants in the end to produce a kind of Germanic religion of Germanism, which comes into antagonism with Christianity. There is no Christ's spirit in this religion. Now Drewes is an archetypal exponent of this religion of Germanism, as well as Chamberlain. Р. Wagner was its prophet. It is a purely Aryan, anti-Semitic religion, a religion of smooth and unleavened monism, without mad antinomianism, without apocalypse. There is no repentance and no sacrifice in this Germanic religion. The German is least capable of repentance. And he may be virtuous, moral, perfect, honest, but he can hardly be holy. Repentance is substituted with pessimism. Germanic religion attributes the source of evil to an unconscious deity, to the original chaos, but never to man, never to the Germanic man himself. The Germanic religion is the purest monophysitism, the recognition of only one and one nature, the divine, and not of two natures, the divine and the human, as in the Christian religion. Therefore, no matter how high, to all appearances, this Germanic religion elevates a man – it, after all, in the deepest sense denies man as a distinctive religious beginning.
In such a purely monistic, monophysite religious consciousness there can be no prophecies of a new life, a new world epoch, a new earth and a new heaven, no quest for a new city, so characteristic of Slavism. German monistic organization, German order do not allow apocalyptic experiences, do not tolerate feelings of the coming of the end of the old world, they fixate this world in a bad infinity. The Germans leave the apocalypse entirely to the Russian chaos, so despised by them. And we, in turn, despise this eternal German order.
The Germanic world is Central Europe by and large. German ideologists recognize the Germans as the creators and custodians of Central European culture. They consider France, England, Italy, Russia to be the outskirts of Europe. The fate of Germanism is presented as the fate of Europe, the victory of Germanism is understood as the victory of European culture. The religion of Germanism recognizes the German people as the only pure Aryan race, which is called to establish European spiritual culture not only by the efforts of the spirit, but also by blood and iron. Germanism would like to consolidate forever the global supremacy of central Europe, it seeks to extend its influence to the East, to Turkey and China, but it prevents the genuine transcending of Europe and insular European culture. Everywhere Germanism, obsessed with the idea of its exclusive cultural mission, carries its insular-European and insular-German culture, enriching itself with nothing, recognizing no one and nothing in the world.... And these claims of German-European centralism are a great obstacle in the way of connecting East and West, i.e. of solving the main task of world history.
These exclusive claims of the Germanic spirit are exactly that which cannot be borne by the rest of the world. German ideologists even turned the racial anthropological theory about the exclusive advantages of long-headed blondes into a kind of religious Germanic messianism. Instead of "Aryans" they introduced the term "Indo-Germans". The spirit of Teutonic pride has permeated all Germanic science and philosophy. Germans are not content with an instinctive contempt for other races and peoples; they want to despise on a scientific basis, to despise in an orderly, organized and disciplined manner. German self-confidence is always pedantic and methodologically sound. We Russians can least of all endure the domination of the pretensions of the religion of Germanism. We must oppose it with our own spirit, our own religion, our own aspirations. This does not prevent us from appreciating the great phenomena of the Germanic spirit, from nourishing ourselves with them, as with all the great things in the world. But the pride of the Germanic will must be opposed with our own religious will. Central Germanic Europe cannot acquire world domination, its idea is not a global idea. In the Russian spirit lies the greater Christian universalism, a greater recognition of all and everything in the world.
Published in June 1916
Didn't work out well for either party (well, Berdyaev himself did okay, first in Berlin, then in Paris). But Russians got their minute of fame as the standard bearers of the new worldwide Messianic delusion, making full use of German-Jewish faux-materialism.
There is nothing to his «counterpoint» but speciousness. «How could you say Germans don't produce beautiful art any more, they have Scholze!». They used to have Gauss, but they also had Beethoven and Caspar David Friedrich in the same era, and it is not through the former that they had accrued the reputation of people who can do art. We understand that mathematics is a very non-central case of artistic or aesthetic achievement. Worse yet, by cheekily claiming that the mainstream understanding of beauty is «idiosyncratic» (that is, somewhat unusual), he lies and gaslights.
you conjure up some bizarre racial slippery slope whereby lack of aesthetic compatibility is leading to the decay of civilization
Not decay of civilization as a whole, I admit this would be a stretch, but as for the decay of aesthetic standards assumed to be common sense, the causal relationship is trivial enough. South Asian (Indian, really) culture is amazingly tolerant of squalor, dirt and ugliness, not only by White/European/First World standards – nowhere else, in no destitute hellhole, do people care so little to maintain cleanliness and tasteful sights. this has been discussed to death here and elsewhere (I would also say they are near-universally tasteless, more so than Germans, but that's more objectionable). It is reasonable to expect that transplants from this culture, ceteris paribus, will be less demanding aesthetically, and prioritize some other stuff.
I feel deep disconnect with Lind and with what appears to be your beliefs. It is not, in fact, good to lie. It is worse to congratulate yourself for your lies on the basis of some is-ought confusion. The self-servingly populist, paternalistic – no, probably even maternalistic – posture of a portly mother hen shielding her simple-minded salt-of-the-earth «electorate» from «shock jocks» with their nasty statistical tables, which Lind adopts, is despicable; hypocritical, condescending, emasculating and evokes every sadistic impulse I have. So it's a bit hard to engage in good faith.
But, just to remark on one strategic detail.
Turkheimer at al (see e.g. the discussion about HBD trutherism as x-risk factor here) imagine themselves arguing from a place of wise pessimism: they cannot let this infohazard be mainstreamed, the risk of degenerate social developments from its implications in people's minds is too great, thus white lies are necessary. Naturally, this is optimistic about the counterfactual development in the condition of HBD denialism. But more than that, this is wildly and irresponsibly blithe with regard to eventual failure. That Mitchell and Webb Look sketch comes to mind::
Sailer gibes at liberals for the attitude mocked here, and I believe he's literally correct about a fraction: the predilection to High Modernist social engineering schemes plus callousness toward muh inbred Flyover Country hicks and badly hidden fear of «urban youth» (or what's the term now?), if reinforced with a theory of biological differences between groups, would make at least a minority de facto genocidal. But the rest are just making a foolish mistake. Pegging your ideological commitment to a contingent practical fact which does not inform that commitment is bad praxis; is egoism. Do you just double down in on rhetorical suppression, burnishing your Respectable Person creds in the process and hoping it never fails? What if it does and you've cleansed the debate of any principled opposition to that which you're trying to prevent? Your side gets routed. I won't go so far as to say that «anti-eugenicons» create a self-fulfilling prophecy, modern Americans at large really won't be willing to «kill all the poor» or some such. But they are sowing the seeds of chaos and conflict greatly surpassing the current culture war, and they cannot credibly take responsibility for those seeds never sprouting; indeed they cannot even legibly discuss the issue.
I've been observing the AI safety debate lately, and it irritates me there as well: in contrast to doomers with their bizarrely abstract takes on «the space of Optimization Processes in full generality», many AI optimists only have weak arguments contingent on minutiae of engineering and overconfident physical estimates, like «the brain is near Landauer limit already» (it's not, Yud is 100% right it's OOMs from the mark). E.g. George Hotz seems to believe we shouldn't air strike datacenters because AI just can't get that much smarter than George Hotz, certainly not soon. He'll crumple like tissue paper when this is falsified. The creationism debate comes to mind as well.
Denying facts is morally wrong and strategically wrong. You can only do that when your side is so overwhelmingly advantaged, there's no point to caring. Well, this is the case sometimes.
Probably not for American anti-immigrationists, though. Good luck proving to some Vivek Ramaswamy that, since Sailer is a poopyhead and HBD is not true or at least not handshakeworthy, America shouldn't grant citizenship to millions of qualified third Worlders.
More options
Context Copy link