KnotGodel
1yr ago
Obviously bankers have a vested interest in this - and guess who runs central banks?
I just randomly checked half of the FOMC committee members' Wikipedia articles. None ever mentions them working at a bank besides the Federal Reserve Bank.
Am I missing something here?
KnotGodel
1yr ago
You could solve the above problems. Just let people vote multiple times, only counting their latest vote.
These theoretical thugs make sure I vote for Alice. They leave. I vote for Bob. They come back - there's no trace of my previous Bob vote. I guess they could make me vote for Alice again, but, once they leave, I can again vote for Bob.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Those are the "zero-sum peer-effects" I reference.
The literature is mixed on whether they exist. For evidence contrary to your intuition, see https://doi.org/10.1086/666653
Even if they do exist, they're not a good reason to support non-public schools from a policy perspective, because peer effects are zero-sum. They're merely a reason to support private schools if you're rich/white/etc.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Please speak plainly. What point are you making here?
My theory is that as the population turns over from immigrants to second generation and black immigrants move into Markham and Richmond they'll become a very reliable conservative voting
All the reasons you gave for the first generation to be conservative will be weaker for the second generation as they assimilate: weaker family values, weaker in-group bias, less upward mobility. Meanwhile, they will probably be more educated.
Doesn't that all point to the second generation immigrants being more liberal than their parents?
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Is it reasonable to expect company F to grow 2% this quarter, 3% next quarter, 4% the quarter after that and so on to infinity?
No, but literally no one expects that of any company. If you want illumination, not straw manning the beliefs you have trouble understanding is a good place to start.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
A society without growth might be possible
Just want to throw out that this is effectively what existed for almost all of human history. Otherwise, I agree with your comment.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
I think one point you’re downplaying is how much longer people are unmarried compared to the past and or poorer countries. For instance, the median age of first marriage has increased from about 20.5 in 1950 to about 32 today.
During the dating years, romantic inequality is more salient, and many people get burned in various ways, which makes them angry at members of the opposite sex.
The amount of time people spend obsessing over this scales linearly with the number of years spent dating. So, for instance, if we start counting from 16, that’s grown 3.6x.
Also, anger => clicks => ads, which has probably driven a lot of polarization more generally.
Finally, now it’s the media people themselves who are experiencing singleness (due to the marriage age increasing well past college). This gives even more voice to sex-based frustrations.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
The people running the place would likely end up dead
Why on Earth would Putin lose his life if he lost the war?
If you meant people besides Putin, whom do you mean? Who is this class of people who both have the power to perpetuate the war and not the power to keep themselves alive should it end poorly?
KnotGodel
1yr ago
They are saying
-
Such changes would impact a small number of species
-
Such changes are common
-
Therefore, this doesn't matter that much.
They even agree that the motivation is "very dumb" and "creates needless work".
You simply rounded their answer to the nearest meme argument (X is unimportant, so why are you complaining) and responded with the appropriate meme response.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
You're not disagreeing with them... They even say
Obviously the motivation for doing so is very dumb, it accomplishes nothing and creates needless work
KnotGodel
1yr ago
You are conflating two different theses:
-
Historical discrimination is the primary driver of group outcomes
-
discrimination does necessarily lead to lesser outcomes
I believe both are false, but you only disprove the latter claim, despite claiming to disprove the former. The latter is much easier to disprove.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
IIRC, literally no Soviet or Russian leader has ever been killed in modern times (e.g. post WWII). This despite Russia being involved in quite a few wars. Even just looking post-collapse, we see exactly one leader who lost a war: Boris Yeltsin ordered a ceasefire just a couple months before an election - he won. He survived 7 years after leaving office, and (afaik) didn't suffer at all for having lead Russia to its first military defeat.
You might be right that losing a war is theoretically a potential cause of a coup. But, from what I've gathered, Putin has significantly more power than Yeltsin, so why should he be worried about literally being killed for simply not winning a war?
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Ok, but, again - if literally nothing bad happened to Yeltsin, why would anyone expect something bad to happen to the much more secure Putin? Heck, a literal economic depression occurred under Yeltsin, and (afaict) this didn't see him forced into retirement or killed.
Like, it seems like we have one comparable historical event and one far worse historical event - both under someone with a far weaker grip on power. An no "dissatisfied elements" did anything as far as we can tell...
I mean, I guess there's a chance Putin gets removed from power because of this, but it seems like a pretty remote one.
Ok, so, first things first, this is simply not mathematically true.
Suppose two variables: X and Y cause outcome Z:
X = Norm(0, 1)
Y = Norm(0, 1)
Z = 1.1 * X + Y
X is the primary driver of Z, but, given two groups (i, j), P(Z_j > Z_i | X_j > X_i) ~ 77%
This gets exacerbated by the fact that the "doing worse" groups are much larger than the "doing better" groups: black and hispanics outnumber asians and Jews 4:1 in the US. So, if you believe discrimination led to blacks and hispanics doing worse and had a small negative effect on asians and Jews that it counteracted (and exceeded) by large positive effects (e.g. "culture"), then it is still entirely true that you think discrimination is the "primary driver" of group outcomes. Indeed, I think this is the accurate summary of the liberal position.
[Edit: to clarify, I believe most liberals believe the first point, but not the second; I believe this is wrong but perfectly consistent; which means, I don't think you've really debunked them ]
KnotGodel
1yr ago
The most likely way is similar to what he did last time he "stepped down": he anoints a successor. Life goes on.
Dictators who lose wars in their home country that result in the toppling of their government tend to get killed. You've given no examples of dictators losing a war on foreign soil being killed; so, even by the standard of cherry-picked anecdotes, you've given no evidence that is relevant here imo. You've already responded to my preferred way to reason about this topic, but, suffice to say, I think my collection of comparison events is far more relevant than yours.
You didn't say "not protect themselves from the backlash" you said "likely end up dead" - that answer is not a self-answering question.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
I acknowledge the main difference I saw: Putin has a more secure grip on power. This is evidence that my examples are too charitable.
If you think something else is different that points the other direction, could you share it instead of gesturing vaguely?
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Those are good points. I still think him living is much more likely; but you've given me significant pause.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Exactly. Additionally, you need to demonstrate anger at the idea of a compromise to signal to Russia that you will Never Surrender™, so that, when a compromise does happen, you'll be in a stronger negotiating position.
KnotGodel
1yr ago
Why is it that every time you respond to me, you have to engage in putting-down behavior?
I am extremely unconvinced by this logic. Those rankings mostly reflect the pre-existing traits of the students and their families. No one has provided any evidence that these rankings reflect anything causal and, to the degree they do, that these causal effects aren't purely zero-sum peer-effects. There is some evidence that specific inputs to rankings like this (e.g. class size) might have causal effects, but even there, the evidence is typically quite mixed.
More options
Context Copy link