@MaiqTheTrue's banner p

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1783

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1783

They won’t be outside of hard sciences and engineering. There simply aren’t a lot of skills a PhD student has that a normal employer wants. Basically the phd programs outside of really hard science and engineering are jobs programs for the graduates of those programs. It helps hide that such programs are useless because those students do get jobs after graduating. If we didn’t have that, maybe the top 1% of those students get real jobs while the rest learn to take orders at coffee shops.

So drawing on a population that elected MAGA with half the vote, a tiny minority is pro Trump? A population that has lots of Jews yet again only a tiny group of them protesting for their brothers in Israel? It still doesn’t track. Sure you don’t have 100% uniformity, but drawing from a highly polarized population that runs 45-55% between D and R and ending up with the vast majority of students would align with the far left which in the general population of the USA is maybe 20% of the population. If there’s no indoctrination, why doesn’t a typical college campus mirror the USA ideologically?

I don’t observe the same thing in business. If you hire 100 people, they’ll generally be pretty close to the demographics of the region. If I hire 10 people from Alabama, I get probably 9 southern Baptists, most of them very conservative, and so on to attitudes about abortion, gays, and proper grits. If I hired 10 people from Alabama and four years later they were mostly pro LGBT episcopal Christians and socialist to boot, you’d probably be right to suspect that there’s something fishy going on.

I don’t think the military rank and file would refuse to shoot if ordered simply because the US military has made training such that widespread insubordination is not going to happen. You might have a few stragglers, but I would expect them dealt with in a manner that would make the problem moot. Even among the officers, they are going to obey orders because that’s what they’re trained to do as much as the rank and file do.

I’ve just never understood the weird fantasy that the military or the police were going to en mess break with the leadership. That’s not how military or police think of themselves. They don’t make policy or decide whether or not an order is “legal” or “moral” or “good”. They follow orders without question because not doing so means a good possibility of worse things for their unit or the country as a whole. A cop who’s questioning whether or not a law he’s charged with enforcing is useless as a cop. He’s attempting to do the judge’s job. A soldier who won’t follow orders is a danger to his unit. He’s also attempting to do the job of the civilians who have decided he should be carrying out the mission he’s been given.

If none of the political opinions are brought in with the students, why are students beliefs so uniform? Why are all the kids with or without green hair so uniformly aligned to the values, attitudes, beliefs and ideals of the left liberal wing of the Democratic Party? If no indoctrination is taking place such uniformity should not happen. Yet on every issue, the students agree with the far left. There are protests for Palestinians, yet you can’t find any students— not even the Jewish ones — openly saying that Hamas had it coming. There are protests against Trump, but are there any MAGA hats or signs? The dude got 50+ percent of the vote.

A very clear sign of indoctrination is agreement by the populace on major issues. And going down issue by issue, it’s impossible to not notice just how closely modern college students align with the far left, especially when compared both to the surrounding communities and the communities these kids came from.

I don’t see any settlement other than “Palestinians leave forever” working. Israel/Palestine is simply too small as a territory to have two hostile populations live there without near constant fighting. The Israelis are too powerful to lose any territory, and because of long history Jews are simply not going to tolerate random terrorists killing their citizens without a serious military response. The Palestinians have no desire to accept the situation as it is without resorting to terrorism against Israelis.

The choices as I see them are 1). Palestinians expelled to somewhere else. 2). Kill all the Palestinians, or 3). Continuous stalemate and terror attacks followed by IDF killing lots of Palestinians while the rest of the world bemoans the situation. Given that 3 over a long time frame will eventually reduce to 2, I don’t see any better option than to find a new place to put Palestine. Maybe there’s an island somewhere.

I mean I disagree. The reason people think of Harvard as a top tier school is because of the faculty it attracts and the work they do. If they all leave for greener pastures, the only thing left is the name. Sure you can coast on that for a while, but other schools who get the great professors and scientists will see their stars rise against Harvard’s downswing. If you can’t argue that you’re doing the best research, or developing minds under the best professors, on what, exactly is the prestige based? Name brand can help, but if it becomes obvious that Harvard graduates are not as good as in years past, they lose.

It’s not even that. I’m thinking of people who are opposing Trump, protesting, or even members of Congress opposed and it’s a weird disconnect. It’s like they think verbal opposition is magic, or that legal letters by themselves change things. It’s a completely different mindset to what happens in almost any other area of life.

The people doing this never seem to care if anything is effective. They’ll say things like “im doing my part! I stood outside with a sign (on the sidewalk) for a couple of hours yesterday.” I’ll ask them if anything happened because of that and they’ll be disappointed that cars are driving past them and people are ignoring them etc. but it’s like the question of whether the needle is moving in a positive direction, or if something else might be more effective, or even what “success” actually looks like and it’s just me “being negative.” But, these are pretty normal things to ask about any project, especially in the business world. If you do something that has absolutely no effect on the thing you’re trying to change or fix, you just wasted your time. That’s how the world works in most domains, especially politics. It’s not just numbers of people and slogans, it’s about power, and if you don’t understand how to turn the levers of power you have access to, its not doing anything and you are wasting your time.

To be honest, they have very naive ideas of power. It’s just mind blowing to me just how often they think that simply saying things and goin* through channels is going to produce the changes they want. And I just don’t see anything that suggests they think that they need to do more than speak to the manger to get things done.

France hasn’t been a superpower since Napoleon. I mean im pretty sure 1900s France was doing the “stop or I’ll send a letter to the League of Nations” up until they got invaded in WW1.

There seems to be a weird phenomena among formally powerful people and nations where once they no longer actually have the power they once had, they fall back on formality, legalism, and ceremonial trappings. It’s really funny once you actually see it, or at least when it’s not happening to your side of the argument. Countries that once had a military presence that the world feared now politely go about hat in hand to beg their former subjects to do something and paying them to do it. Political entities that once reshaped nations now reduced to issuing letters or rulings and impotently asking the people with actual power to listen to them.

When you start seeing groups become formal, you know they lack either the power or the will to be powerful. The UK hasn’t been much of a power since the Second World War. It’s unlikely they will hold such power this century.

I think the big thing I’d look for is the anger has to rise significantly first. Nobody on the left is really angry enough to start something. They just aren’t. We don’t even have Vietnam War levels of mass protests, no real civil disobedience like in the 1960s. I’m not even sure there’s an analogous counterculture like the hippies that exist to form the nucleus of such serious sustained protests.

In the 1960s and 1970s the counterculture was everywhere, and fairly popular among the youth. Pop music celebrated the issues hippies were into, things like Fortunate Son were plaid on the radio. Movies and TV shows talked about those issue. Woodstock was a cultural touchstone. This isn’t really true today. The poplar songs today are not even plausible as protest songs or anti-Trump songs, TV migh sporadically have a woke theme, but there aren’t whole tv series that are specifically pro-migrant, or pro-Palestine, or Woke. Musicians are not producing ant-Trump song lists, they occasionally bring up Trump during a concert.

In order to get a big spike in violence, people have to be mad enough to radicalize a weirdo. How does that happen when the crowd isn’t angry?

The last republican president assassinated was Lincoln in 1865. The last successful assassination period was JFK. The last attempt was Reagan in 1980. In general, times of massive popular unrest, highly polarized politics. Not really something that I’d worry about.

As a widespread movement, hard no. As sporadic attacks by loons, probably. But honestly I wouldn’t expect much that raises above background noise. Maybe someone will do a shooting at a red-coded event, or vandalize a building, or something along those lines. But if the protests are any indication, and I’ve said this before, I don’t even read them as serious. They’re protesting something they consider creeping authoritarian dictatorship with 2 hour weekend marches escorted by the police. Most serious attempts to do something (mostly general strike) are planned for quite a bit farther in the future. In fact the only planned date for a general strike is in 2028 which is pretty weak-sauce.

It’s just not the kind of angry mob producing level of angry

These things sound reasonable, though I would personally emphasize the need to get on with the business of living and building a life. The parts of CBT and DBT that seem to work are often very similar to Stoicism broadly understood. The idea of stoicism isn’t, as tge stereotype goes “not feeling” but “feeling, acknowledging the feeling, then going on to do the right thing.”

Wallowing in bad feelings just breeds more bad feelings mostly because you focus on them which just magnifies them. That insight isn’t new, it’s pretty ancient. If you focus on the rain, the water’s temperature will be the most salient thing you notice. And you’ll feel miserable. If you focus on the discomfort, the sadness, etc. you’ll be miserable. If you are uncomfortable while doing something fun, you will feel happy for the fun.

I don’t see feelings as bad, I see a hyper-focused fixation of the modern world on getting their feelings right first, of making decisions based on feelings, to not only be a dead end, but often make building a good life impossible because building a good life doesn’t always match up to doing what feels good. It might feel good to cut out everything that makes you unhappy in the moment often means cutting yourself off from other people (who are imperfect) opportunities (that often have trade-offs or require hard work to realize), experiences (that might be uncomfortable in the moment, but lead to better things). It just seems to be a way to end up stuck, bitter, alone, and wallowing in bad feelings. Properly dealing with your feelings does matter, but I don’t think focusing on how you feel above duty, above growth, or above being a good person is a good thing.

I’ll agree that apart from God and Godly advice it ends mostly in bad places. I think a lot of terrible things have been done because a person had become bitter about people or situations, let it fester, and turned on others.

I’ve long since come to the conclusion that modern psychology and psychiatry are not just dead ends, but actually more harmful than anything else we could have come up with. It actually seems to make whatever problems that existed beforehand and makes them worse.

On the social level, the idea of “you don’t know what I’ve been though” has destroyed the mechanism of social shame that once stood as a bulwark against bad behavior. I might well be having a terrible time at home, but why must I treat other people who have nothing to do with that situation poorly? Furthermore, why does modern society insist that those other people are wrong to object? I work in retail. I’ve apparently signed up to be an emotional tampon and am expected to accept that not only does the customer have the perfect right to treat me like crap, im not even allowed to object because “they might be having a bad day” or trouble at home or work or the moon is in the wrong astrological house. This not only doesn’t help them (honestly, bad behavior tends to make people want to avoid you), but simply spreads all of this around as other people are stuck trying to cope with being treated poorly and use their social permissions to act like jerks in public.

Personally I think it also encourages narcissism as it never seems to get to the point of saying that what’s happening to me is not the most important thing in the world. Im not the center of the story here, and other people deal with is just as important as your problems, in fact they honestly don’t see you or your feelings as nearly as important as you do. Main character syndrome is rampant though and generally the advice of pushing for boundaries and getting what you deserve, and paying special attention to how everything makes me feel has created and maintains that problem. That’s not to say you never think about yourself or stand up for yourself, but I think psychology has pushed this far beyond the bounds of reasonable that many people raised in the modern mindset have no practice in thinking about other people as people.

The worst is in personal development. Because modern psychology encourages a feelings first model, people tend to overthink those feelings and put more emphasis on how you feel. This tends to make those feelings last longer and become deeper as you turn a bad day into a bad week and on to full on depression.

It’s damning for the state enforced lockdowns which most other states were eager to implement. I think a lot of states used it as a compliance test *just how long can we get people to obey arbitrary rules and be shut in their homes without creating a backlash. Rather frightening to now understand that if you make the situation sound bad enough, you can get this sort of thing to go on for a long time. More than a year.

And other states were actually pretty upset that Sweden didn’t go along because it did provide an alternative to arresting people who dared to leave their homes.

I mean as compared to much of the rest of the world, and certainly blue tribe areas of America, and as such I think it’s a reasonable counter factual case. They didn’t have to shut down everything, rope off playgrounds or cancel schools. Yes, they limited capacity, but for the most part, you could do what you wanted to.

The counter factual is Sweden, tge country that didn’t lock down at all. And to my knowledge, they didn’t really do any worse than their near neighbors.

And the reason it’s so hard to get talking about 1.2 million deaths on the radar is just how much the lockdowns cost the rest of us. People thrown into unemployment (and in the USA, it was hard to get unemployment because the systems were overwhelmed) with a small one time “bonus”. Businesses forced out of business because they couldn’t open, but their creditors could still demand payments. Children deprived of important social development because they couldn’t socialize with other kids. Those same kids given zoom classes instead of a real education. People denied the right to socialize, and when one of those 1.2 million people died, they were forced to die alone, with their families huddles around an iPad.

I feel very much the same. Hedonism is problematic because it means that the cultural, social, and economic commons get raided rather quickly as people choose to defect every single time they can get away with it. Such societies tend to end up being very low trust very quickly as people learn they can’t depend on others to keep themselves from overusing welfare systems, cheating the system, creating moral chaos, bribing people, etc. when you realize that you get screwed by people maximizing their hedonistic score at your expense.

I tend to favor the Confucian approach of seeing things in terms of relationships. If I owe something to you, in return it’s just expected that you likewise owe something to me. A parent owes a child safety and provision, so it just makes sense that the child ought to obey his parents.

I’ve always seen the left as very much about hedonistic urges. The idea being that freedom means freedom to do whatever you want, and that anyone or anything that restricts your ability to live out whatever hedonistic urges a person has.

Anti-natalist ideas fit perfectly well, as having a child introduces obligations, personal, financial, and emotional. A parent is simply not as free to act on hedonistic desires because the child needs things. You can’t just travel on a whim, as you need to arrange for how exactly you accommodate the little child. You can’t spend your last dime on yourself, you need to buy formula.

This is still a telos. It’s just not your telos.

The conservative telos tends to be duty. It’s told in lots of different ways I suppose, but the general idea is that you might have a technical right to do as you please, but it’s not always good to do so unless you deal with all the duties you have. If you don’t keep up your end things fall apart fairly quickly.

I think hyper palatable foods represent a real hazard to the health of tge general population , and it’s something I think needs to be dealt with on a policy level alongside providing good public nutrition training in schools. It simply cannot be good for a nation to have 75% of the food in a typical grocery store be the highly processed hyper palatable foods that drive obesity, especially if you have them in single serve ready to eat formats that are found in every venue open to the public. America is a nation of snacking, and any place you go there will be snacks available for sale, even when it should not make sense. Do you really need to be able to buy a bag of chips (that’s actually 4 servings) at a hardware or clothing store? It’s weird to think about.

But Eli Crane isn't thinking this way because Eli Crane is a SEAL. That's a hypermasculine world where everyone talks shit about everyone all the time. If there's a real problem it is handled directly and head on - "hey, bro, you and me slug it out in the parking lot." That was his professional calibration for years. And I am very happy we have thousands of other men like him on our side with their guns pointed in the other direction. But the job of "warrior" today (in the most traditional sense -- being an Air Force cyber general doesn't quite relate) is a hyper-specialized role because today's true warriors are the best in history; they are in the best physical shape, with the longest and most rigorous training, with an insane level of technological proficiency, and a support structure that costs billions of dollars.

Applied to other domains, however, they don't generalize well. So, back to the archetype, the problem here is that what the archtype assumes (at a higher level of resolution) is the JFK (and generations past) version of a warrior; a dashing young officer (because enlisted is low class, ew) who did a few years of service but not a full career, maybe saw some combat, and was in an elegant role; Navy PT boat captain, a British Cavalry officer, WW2 Fighter Ace.

I think actually this is exactly the mindset needed to fix most of our political problems. We absolutely need no nonsense leaders who aren’t afraid to at least verbally meet each other on the parking lot after work. The current crop of “leaders” have long since perfected the art of doing things that they procedurally cannot do (thus ducking the responsibility of not actually doing the things that need doing), or hiding really bad ideas in thousand page bills full of nonsense and then pretending that in order to get something done, they simply had to vote yes on a bill with “let’s shoot Taylor Swift” in it, because it had something else in there. You still own voting to shoot Taylor Swift. The mindset drilled into the elite and leadership of the military is that you are responsible. You are responsible for yourself, your team, the results of actions you took or didn’t take, and the actions and decisions of your team that you didn’t do anything about. They are not likely to pull the same kinds of things that our leadership does now.

Off the top of my head:

Computer algorithms. I consider this basically the new literacy.

Quantum Physics: I firmly believe we’ll have a pretty good idea how it all works, probably by 2050.

I’ll agree with the idea of dietary guidelines being much better than now, but I don’t think it’s that we have absolutely no idea how it works so much is that nobody actually likes the results. Food manufacturers do not want to hear and the public doesn’t like. Basically the solution is to eat mostly vegetables with meat and starches being about a quarter of the meal each. Eat as minimally processed as you can, and avoid refined carbs. It’s not that we’re stupid, it’s that we don’t like that kind of food, and billions are made catering to what people want even though we know it’s bad.

I think it’s more that Europe has the right formula as they don’t have elections that begin the moment the current government is sworn in. The campaign seasons are fairly short and unless there’s some vote of no confidence or something, the government can run things and people don’t feel the need to consume political news to follow it all.