Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
Hello back frens
User ID: 2022
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1d ago
The phenomenon is not limited to christian lands. And many peoples have been barred from many things; most of them do not become the jews.
It also seems like you agree with me that the early versions of the pattern where not caused by intelligence; I think this suggests the later versions, seemingly following a very similar script, also werent. You seems to think youve countered my argument if the jews werent at fault, thats not the point.
Pretty good for having the handicap of being located in the Middle East. And having all those non-Ashkenazim around too.
Yeah, I dont think it works like that. For all the attention given to their security issues, they seem to have it pretty well under control, and money spent on it counts to GDP anyway. And the rest of the West has plenty bad demographics at this point, and the non-ashkenazi jews are still comparable to europeans. This should be more or less proportional. You can also see it in other measures, eg nobel prices to diaspora vs israelis vs born israelis - which would even be less affected by the lower percentiles, still collapse.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1d ago
Fair, for some reason the other jews are usually compared to western populations also. Still, the versions of selection Ive heard for central/eastern europe kick in late relative to the history of persecution - often, with parts of that persecution as a cause. And I would guess the MENA version went similarly.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
2d ago
As an HBDer, this is easy to explain: there exists group differences in intelligence between the races, and Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is very high. So you should expect Jews to be overrepresented in all positions of economic, scientific, or political prestige - even overrepresented within the institutions that are doing work that you hate.
This looks plausible when youre only looking at that one question, less so otherwise. For example, the pattern of jewish overrepresentation in certain jobs and the majority getting mad at it is found broadly in space and time, which cant be explained by Ashkenazi selection in the middle ages. And the state of Israel, while certainly better than its neighbours, doesnt seem especially impressive compared to other western countries.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
3d ago
It was a zero-risk bet. She has her "career" here, her parents, her tangled web of dysfunction. She wasn't going to Glasgow. But by offering, I get to be the Savior. I get to be the "One That Got Away." I get the credit for the gesture without having to buy the extra plane ticket.
This may be the least Autistic thing Ive ever read on here.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
27d ago
the effectiveness of the teasing relies on its plausibility
Nah, we used "gay" as a universal insult before we knew what it meant also.
or one of the girls would tell her friend to tell you that she liked your friend
That did happen a couple times. At least half those times I know the middle friend made it up to troll her. I do/did think some of them were "real" but... idk, the girls had a lot of vaguely romance-coded social activities, most of which obviously werent that serious. Also, no boy made an admission of any kind.
when you were a kid what internal response did you have when you happened upon risque images
I dont remember anything. Im sure it happended but it must not have had much impact.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
27d ago
Let's say puberty begins around 12, that's plenty of time to pick up on the memeset around sexual attraction and compare it against what does and doesn't resonate with your own feelings.
Maybe you misunderstood the question. That doesnt explain why you think they already have those feelings.
All common behaviours in my experience
Huh. In my experience, elementary-school boys and girls rarely play with each other. We did tease each other over "liking" someone (in the later years), but those attributions where made up on the flimisiest of pretexts and really just exist for the sake of the teasing. I think that is just imitating the older kids where the first ones who do start to like are, understandably, made fun of.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
28d ago
Yeah, I meant this in the sense of "doesnt especially promote", because if it did, that might explain why something weird shows up.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
28d ago
How did that tweet end up sticking in your memory, o lorekeeper?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
28d ago
Well, I dont have to imagine. I mean, I "knew" that I would like girls because thats how all the adults ended up, and I did, but it sure didnt feel that way at the time.
And I mean, in what sense would you "like" them? Social groups are a lot more sex segregated before puberty IME, which is not what Id expect if they liked each other to a significant extent. Is there any non-introspective observation that makes you expect that?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
28d ago
Just semi-randomly encountered this:
Prior to that moment, the sin I wore on my sleeve was that of a lesbian: a label I had the courage to give myself at age 17. This label described an affection I noticed before I knew how to spell my name. When it happened on the playground, I didn’t know what it was.
Wut? I dont remember hearing any claims of sexual orientation manifesting pre-puberty. It doesnt seem like it would fit a christian narrative either. Is there some background I dont know?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I meant that the argument quoted in my first comment is weird, for the reasons Ive outlined. This doesnt really say anything about the sleeping beauty disagreements, except by pointing to the difficulty of establishing probabilities for "its Monday" and "its Tuesday" without indifference.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
if somebody had "a reason that applies", you can swap Monday/Tuesday in it and it would give the opposite result
That would be true if all your knowledge where symmetric about them. But you know that heads/Tuesday is impossible, that Tuesday comes after Monday, and much more. You only have that its subjectively indistiguishable which one youre in in the moment.
Im also a mathematician, and not arguing towards either result. The halfers dont even object here. I just thought this argument is weird.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I know the principle of indifference, but youve talked about mathematicians who know what probability measures, and the indifference principle isnt a mathematical result, or obligatory to use them. Its something we use to come up with some probabilistic model when we dont have any better idea. It doesnt really make sense to use it to refute someone elses probability claims. Either they have a reason that applies, in which case indifference doesnt apply, or they dont have one, in which case that is what you need to argue.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
Im wondering if Im having a brainfart because noone else has pointed it out, but:
If the coin is tails, Sleeping Beauty can’t distinguish between Monday and Tuesday. So the probability of Monday/tails is the same as Tuesday/tails.
I dont think thats valid as stated. For example, if I throw a weighted coin and dont tell you the result, you also cant distinguish between the different outcomes, but it doesnt follow that the coin was fair.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
Yes, just recently ran into another hobby drama, and learned that about half the super-mega-permaban-list was for saying a nono word on unaffiliated discords. People have been announcing the death of wokeness since... well social justice started maybe 4 years before Trump was elected, and its been 9 years since then.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
Because I have on many occasions asked claimed utilitarians how utility can be assessed in principle, and gotten either synonyms that dont explain anything, or "heres an approximation in practice, but Ill totally make an exception when I feel the heuristic breaks down" combined with not seeing the point when I ask what impractical thing the approximation approximates. They just walk around with an is-utility gap, and dont see how thats a problem for utilitarianism.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
If election day bumps are sometimes correct and sometimes wash out, you could predictably make money selling into them. There need to be some cases where they underestimate the real change to balance things out.
I take it that you dont like the efficient (or as I prefer, inexploitable) market thesis, but this is a relatively strong case for it: due to the political connection, many will have considered the question.
And the most considered question in this field is whether there is mean reversion. There isnt, except sometimes with very large drops, where its really about credit prices. A change from one day to he next means just as much as that same change if it takes a month.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
As per my links, average effective tariff rate was 22.5% based on April policy, and is 17.9% based on current. Before it was 1.5%. That is a big increase, and not that much of a walkback, though they were selective with that. Still, if the current ones are invisible, the old one cant have been that bad either.
I think if the market were banking on singularity, we wouldnt need to interpret it out of stock data, we would hear it quite clearly from the humans doing that trading. The AI hype is still well short of that level.
the stock market did incredibly well, and the tariffs didn't have that much of a negative impact
No, I dont think it did "incredibly" well. In fact, the more incredible a given level of performance is, the less likely it is - and the argument is that that limits how bad the tariffs can be, since they need to balance.
My prior from past reading is that presidents generally don't have much measurable effect on the economy one way or the other
The election day change in previous years was: 2008: +3.2% (but back into the negative the next day) 2012: +0.8 2016: +0.1% 2020:+2.1% (due to the fraud saga, the one day change may be insufficient here).
To some extent, I think just the fact that tariffs disappear in the "other stuff" is a downward adjustment on their importance compared to how Ive seen people talk, irrespective of what the "other stuff" is. Basically, for this balancing-out to be likely, the true effect of tariffs must be small compared to the yearly variation in growth. And again, all this has to come out of things we newly learned this year. At least to me, the tariffs seem to be the only events here with a visible effect size. Ruling out bubbles is stockmarket-complete, but this problem applies to any other methods you might use to assess politician performance equally.
The take that all of policy is a small part of the development... certainly its possible that the kind of variation in policy that you actually see in a given country over some time period is that small, but broader claims quickly run up against much of conventional development economics.
My initial intuition is that in the real world you could have genuinely bad policies (say, New York doing rent control) being overwhelmed by all the positive economic trends in a society.
Thats what I would expect. Rent control is bad, but ultimately a small part of the economy. Im not a housing-theorist-of-everything. Putting tariffs (even order-of-magnitude increases relative to previous variation!) into the same category as that is basically my conclusion.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
Today is a good day for a non-p-hacked evaluation of the stock market under Trump. I had discussed this with someone during the initial tariff chaos, and wanted to return to it at some point. That conversation ended up using euro prices due to worries about dollar inflation; in the following the brackets always show the data based on euros.
The day of the election, the S&P 500 made +2.5(+4.1)%, from which we can impute between -2.5(-4.1)% and -1.1(-1.8)% for a hypothetical Kamala win, depending on what odds we use for he election. Given the spirit of the exercise, I think we should use the prediction market prices for this, giving the second set of numbers. In reaction to the tariffs, it dropped strongly to a low point of -13.8(-15.4)%, on April 8(21), and after various takebacks recovered quickly to +3.1(+0.7)% on May 16(16). Since then it has shown a relatively linear increase, ending the year at +17.5(+11.1)%. Inflation that year was 3.0(2.1)%. Despite these seemingly similar inflation numbers, there is a significant gap in the final return, and its probably better to use the lower number.
Historically, annual returns were +10.5%, or +6.7% after inflation (those are for dollar only, the euro wasnt around that long, but probably irrelevant over those time scales). So going with the more pessimistic euro numbers, this year was slightly above average in total, or moderately below relative to the post-election price. I think we can take this mostly at face value; because expectations are priced in with stocks, there is much less risk that credit goes to anything that happened earlier, and I dont know what windfall looks like a linear increase. It doesnt seem like the market significantly misjudged Trump on election day.
The most interesting point here to me are the tariffs. Essentially since Trump revived this topic, Ive seen a never ending stream of takes about how very bad they are, an entirely new kind of economic terribleness, etc, and not a single one has claimed a numerical effect size. After asking around for one, the only thing Ive gotten is this, estimating GDP to be -0.6% in the long term based on policy in April (the have an update with more current policy to -0.35%). That seemed low, but from a non-trumpy source I figured thats probably a good sign. And it certainly seems in line with the numbers above now. Overall, I still think tariffs are bad for the economy, but it seems the effect size is still small relative to everything else going on, even with the drastic measures weve seen.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I think he always was pro-israel, even before the break with Trump.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
Whats that supposed to mean? The movement right after the election, together with the election odds, gives you the imputed market predictions for different presidents, ie what they would have used to decide whether lobbying is worth doing. Middling performance since then just means that they were mostly right so far about how good Trump would be for Bitcoin. If it hadnt been "front-loaded", that would mean Trumps benefit to bitcoin was largely unpredicated, and so would not explain political donations.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
On Nov 4, BTC was 68K, a week later it was at 88K. Depending on whether you gave Trump .5 or .7 odds, you get that BTC was expected to be 47% or 83% higher under him than if Kamala won. (Im a bit surprised that it would take this long to price in the election, but its by far the steepest rise of that length in the year, which would be quite the coincidence.)
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1mo ago
I understood you as saying: "This author prides himself with being center-left and not a woke psycho, but he still demands a formal cancellation by an institution for personal moral shortcomings." Was I misinterpreting?
Yesnt. I think a lot of left-leaning people arent "actively woke", but will go along with it, for various reasons - no enemies to the left, "but come on all the people agruing against this are bad", etc. They say they dont have the woke beliefs, and they dont, because those decisions arent made based on those. They would/could not, themselves, start it, but they will be one the woke side, when it starts. And that case seems to me like that programming triggering somewhere non-political.
The manchurian candidate is not a secret agent hiding his true beliefs, he is sincere but can be mind-controlled with a passphrase.
I dont think that plays such a role in the latter ones either. I think very few of the people complaining about (((bankers))) and (((Hollywood))) where interested in careers there. And even if it did play a role, they are still clearly similar to each other relative to the full range of prosecutions experienced by ethnic groups in general, and the breadth in time and space of those prosecutions remains unusual. It would be a strange coincidence for these not to have a common mechanism, and just proposing that the first mechanism caused the second does not by itself reduce the coincidence. The evidential bar for this is a lot higher than "can tell a reasonable just so story", and data on jewish intelligence only supports one step.
Also, as a general rule, "Were worse off because were better than everyone else" is copium, doubly so if its "better" in a pragmatic sense.
More options
Context Copy link