SeeeVeee
1yr ago
I think there's a danger to putting off a problem with the view that it will eventually be (probably) solved with technology.
SeeeVeee
5mo ago
It would be difficult to relate to, but I think I'd like to pick the brain of someone that did this sort of thing regularly.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
Victor Frankl is a gem, that book was useful to me when I wasn't in a great place. Feels a lot more grounded and practical than a lot of the pop psych fluff floating around our culture
What is the value of HBD being true?
I was talking to my psychiatrist about this. He seemed amenable to HBD, he has heterodox opinions, but he was curious as to why I was curious.
I think that most people at the motte generally accept that IQ scores aren't evenly distributed among groups, but what is the counter argument to: "Why does it matter?" and "in the past, when we've focused on differences, it ends badly".
Scott thinks it matters because he believes that our resistance to using IQ tests is based on the fact that favored classes do poorly. I think he's right; we have our (heavily discredited, but still used) hypothesis of multiple intelligences. And the Nazis developed their own hypothesis of multiple intelligences, "practical" and "theoretical", because they realized that their favored class "aryans" performed more poorly than their hated class "jews".
What do you think of the idea that multiculturalism needs a "great lie" in order to function? Subconsciously, progressive whites know that black people broadly aren't as intelligent; they downshift their speech around black people more than conservatives do. I don't think this is because conservatives are less "racist", but because they aren't willing to make themselves less competent to cater to black people. But what if it goes mainstream, and from subconscious to conscious? My most honest thought is, I don't know what comes next. Because I don't know, it could be worse. I have to admit that's a possibility. But I don't think we'll ever get a satisfying conclusion by lying. But I would like to harvest some thoughts here. Are we setting up for another holocaust if we push this mainstream, or is that just more nonsense?
I think that recognizing that IQ differences are a thing would open the door to separating classes by aptitude. I think the primary resistance to this is that you'd see the wrong concentrations in the high aptitude and low aptitude groups. Currently, in CA, the new (old) thrust is that talent isn't real, aptitude isn't real. I think that a denialist approach will probably do damage by not challenging each type of student appropriately. And we have a tendency to be willing to disadvantage higher performing students, like cutting AP math classes because of "white" (asian) supremacy. We know that students learn best when around other students who are their peers in terms of academic ability. I don't think this would be persuasive to a hardened woke, though. I think that even if they knew IQ differences were real, and genetic, they would resist this because they would see it as harmful to low aptitude students.
Group differences in IQ being genetic could be a strong pro-welfare position. But that also makes me uncomfortable. Should we really make it even easier for the low IQ to further outbreed high IQ people? But I'm just rediscovering eugenics. Should that be a bad word? In the past, strong selection (cultural, and biological) probably led to Britain escaping the malthusian trap (see "Farewell to Alms" for more details). What could we accomplish if we again constrained reproduction to push for the kinds of traits that get shit done? Where I'm sitting, it looks like we're caught in a sort of trap. What problems could we solve if we tried to create better people? Maybe intelligent species die in their planetary crib because once they reach a level of sophistication supported by their biology, they engineer ways to decouple reproduction from the stuff that matters, and as a result, they fail to achieve anything more. They maybe succeed in creating a comfortable way of life, but not an innovative one. So, a society like ours, that favors Nick Cannons over Von Neumanns. Still working through this line of thinking, any thoughts?
White and Asian kids are being raised, from my view, to be sacrificial lambs. I see it as a modern, woke retelling of the White Man's Burden. If Black kids weren't raised to blame White kids, and to turn their feelings of inferiority into weapons, I think that would be good for them. And it would certainly be good for White kids to not grow up internalizing that any disparity is their fault. Same with Asians, they aren't even White but they get hit with this shit the most. But again, this isn't going to be convincing to a woke. Can this be framed in a way that they will understand? Or is that structurally impossible? My view of things is that the White guilt narrative allows White elites to outmaneuver other Whites by allying with non-Whites. If this is true, being completely correct means nothing as long as this alliance is paying dividends.
More generally, a principle I believe in is: it's much harder to solve a problem when you're deliberately ignorant to the cause. We didn't solve anything in the '60s, I think we put off the problem, and we'll have to pay, with interest, but I'm not totally sure the form this will take.
You think this is the chief value? Or is this just your own hangup? I almost married a black chick, even though I believe in hbd. I can see a lot of cultural and political effects that are far more important than snark snark autism snark.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
Please save us from our marseyless fate. Imagine how much more compelling ten pages of text could be if tastefully punctuated by cartoon cat emojis. I can't tell if I'm joking
SeeeVeee
8mo ago
I go to AA. For a lot of people there, I get the sense that religion is a LARP. But it's one they cling to desperately, and they are strongly supported by others in the group. I've seen people flat out become something entirely different. A guy who would lie, steal, cheat on his wife, and then suddenly, BAM, different person. I think that the AA structure is more effective than the church structure, you are compelled to interact and share deeply personal things, I think that's probably only the tip of the iceberg.
But for this reason I think it can work
I did, but I was in the third richest public school district in the country, locally recognized as a stealth private school.
By the time I graduated, I could see that bad times were ahead, even there.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
I could believe that the special treatment that women receive is patronizing and demeaning if feminists didn't demand it
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
I agree, but I'm not the one saying it, it's something I hear a lot. I saw a YouTube comment on some race vid, and the guy's point was "so what if it's true, bad things happen when we notice". I wanted the strongest argument against that.
When you acknowledge hbd is true, they can stereotype you as "clearly they want bad things to happen to xyz". I think it's important to not inhabit our enemies stereotypes of us, and I genuinely believe that suppressing hbd leads to worse outcomes for black people.
I believe that much of the resistance to tracking students differently based on ability is based on the idea that if x percent in the advanced or remedial track doesn't match the gen pop, then it must be racism. Therefore, we must not individuate. If it was common knowledge that hbd was true, then we could allow kids to be grouped by ability in a way that would allow them to be taught more effectively.
Or, maybe they're just rationalizing, and they'd be against that regardless. But they'd have to be honest.
I wanted to ask about Farewell to Alms. It's about how Britain escaped the malthusian trap through industrialization. The idea is that it took centuries of selective pressure to shape culture (and possibly biology) to create the kind of people capable of doing so. Also, inheritance laws among nobles meant that the first born son got everything, and the other sons were pushed to the middle/upper middle class, bringing elite culture with them. Apparently, the author thinks we're fucked and that we're running on momentum. Was curious is anyone knew anything. It's the kind of book that I'm surprised Scott hasn't reviewed
SeeeVeee
6mo ago
You have to do your due diligence, but I've met people who got started like that. What you said is more or less true of buying any business
SeeeVeee
6mo ago
If you have money, become an entrepreneur. Buy a laundromat, or buy housing and rent it. Get multiple, independent streams of income. Landlording or laundromat (or whatever) stuff doesn't have to be full time; you can work while getting your footing.
Damn, I think you're right. I've searched and searched and found nothing that has the kind of setup they do. I was having nightmares about it, because I'm a pretty socially anxious person, but I don't know that I have a choice. It's this or the trades, and starting a trade at 36 is rough.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
They stopped recording this? I haven't heard that. Do you have a source? That's awful, I hope it isn't true/there's still a way to know moving forward
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
Fair enough, I do find pair programming the best way to learn. It does help me to concentrate quite a bit. I haven't had as much of a chance to do that as I'd like, but when I can, I do.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
He's well aware. I've been seeing him for a long, long time, and he trusts me somewhat at this point.
When he's going to talk about something that he knows could get him in trouble, he says it in a way that I know he's saying it against his better judgement. But he isn't telling this to most patients, he's told me that he knows he can't say this stuff with most of his patients.
But he has a history with heterodox stuff, and I think he likes it.
In the beginning he didn't tell me this kind of stuff, and he didn't share much about himself. But I think he ditched the typical psych stance because he thought he could better reach me by being more honest. And I think that was the right call, it's a large part of why I feel I can trust him
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
There is an argument I'm using it wrong. Sometimes I talk about myself, but sometimes I'm in something of a holding pattern and talk about nonsense. I like to test halfway formed ideas, and his responses tell me when I'm being crazy and when I've legitimately noticed things that are true. I used to have a lot of guilt and shame about realizations I've had, and when he semi confirms something, it helps to ease that feeling.
I'm entering a new field, and once I've fully acclimated I will probably stop seeing him. But right now, it's comforting
Jokes and motteposters, name a more iconic duo
More options
Context Copy link