SeeeVeee
1yr ago
I saw this post on /r/stupidpol and thought it fit with themotte. Reposted here with permission from the author, "GeAlltidUpp"
TAKING THE BLACKPILL ON CRIME:
It is estimated that 2% of all serious crimes in the US lead to convictions (Baradaran Baughman, Shima 2020 "Police solve just 2% of all major crimes" The Conversation). CBS reports that the national murder clearance rate has sunk to 51% (2022-06-01"Crime Without Punishment"). The Murder Accountability Project estimates that "at least two percent of all murders in the US are committed by serial offenders - translating to roughly 2,100 unidentified serial killers." With the clarification that "[this does not mean that] there are 2000 active serial killers but that there are at least 2000 who have gone unrecognized as being serial killers." Former detective Michael Arntfield, who has written 12 books on serial killers, puts the numbers of unidentified repeated murderes between 3,000 and 4,000. (Kenton, Lule (2021-10-16) "Up to 4,000 serial killers whose crimes rival Ted Bundy & Zodiac loose in US & map shows where they may be, experts warn" The Sun). European welfare states aren't always that much better. In my home country pf Sweden, 80% of all deadly shootings within criminal circles in the 1990s were solved, that figure has been lowered to around 25% (2022-08-24 "Så få skjutningar leder till fällande dom i Sverige" SVT). An investigative reporter who has studied modern crime in Sweden, states that "it's very easy to be a criminal in Sweden" (2020-09-19 ”Det är väldigt lätt att vara yrkeskriminell i Sverige” DagensNyheter)
Socialists, reasonable liberals, libertarians, and shitlibs, often protest against punitive efforts, due to the risk of prisons increasing the rate of reoffending. The effect of prisons increasing criminal tendencies has probably been overstated, and might even be negligible (Harding, D., Morenoff, J., Nguyen, A. Bushway, S. 2017. "Short- and long-term effects of imprisonment on future felony convictions and prison admissions". Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. Oct 17; 114(42): 11103–11108; Al Weswasi, E., Sivertsson, F., Bäckman, O. et al. “Does sentence length affect the risk for criminal recidivism? A quasi-experimental study of three policy reforms in Sweden”. J Exp Criminol).
With that said, the concern is understandable, particularly seeing as research has shown that rehabilitative efforts leas to a greater decrease in recidivism than pure sanctions (i.e fines and jail without rehabilitative treatment)
(Lipsey, M. W., och Cullen, F. T (2007) "The effectiveness of correectional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews" Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci., 3, 297-320). Prison sentences almost always entail sanctions and rehabilitation.
The depressing thing is that despite the western world having spent an enormous amount of money on rehabilitative efforts for almost a hundred years, we've moved from a criminological majority opinion of "nothing works" to "nothing works well". (Sipes, Jr, Leonard A. (2016) "“Nothing Works” in Corrections Replaced by “Nothing Works Well?”" Crime in America).
Optimistic evaluations state that the best treatment programs can reduce recidivism by between 10 to up to nearly 40% (Lipsey, M. W., och Cullen, F. T (2007) page 303). Somber analysts have pointed out that the lower bound of 10% is probably the more realistic one (Sipes, Jr, Leonard A. 2016). Even these figures are possibly optimistic, seeing as only 2% of serious crimes lead to convictions, it is possible that a substantial amount of criminals who are deemed to be rehabilitated, in fact merely develop better techniques for avoiding prosecution over their lifespans.
Some crime rehabilitative techniques increase crime amongst particular subgroups of offenders while decreasing it amongst others (Wilson, James Q., and Herrnstein, Richard J. (1988{1985}) "Crime and Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime" The Free Press: New York - First Free Press Paperback Edition, page 19; Kärrholm, Fredrik (2020) "Gangstervåldet" chapter 16 - referencing (1977) "Nytt Straffsystem" BRÅ, page 105). Knowing that you've placed the right subgroup in the right program, isn't always easy. As recently as 2016, Sweden had to disband treatment meant to increase empathy amongst pedophiles, because new research showed that it most likely increased the risk of reoffending ("Behandling för sexförbrytare kan ha ökat återfallsrisken"SR). To be fair, a similar effect exists within therapy, where roughly 5-10% are estimated to suffer more due to their treatment (Goldhill, Olivia (2016-03-20) "Therapy can actually make things worse for some people" Quartz;Snaprud, Per (2019-07-09) "Psykoterapi kan öka plågorna" Forskning och Framsteg)
Furthermore, crime can't be fought by simply increasing welfare and redistributing resources. I'm pro generous welfare, strong unions, and I even want to expropriate some businesses and move towards a planned economy or a market socialist one. So I'm not saying this to try and dissuade you from leftist politics, nor is any of this meant as an argument for cruel prisons or capital punishment. With that said, economic justice probably isn't enough to fight crime. To quote a book on the subject:
"Some people hate the welfare state, and have a tendency to blame it for crime. Others like the welfare state, attributing crime to not having more of it. I maintain that crime variation in industrial nations have nothing to do with the welfare state. In general, it is a mistake to assume that crime is part of a larger set of social evils, such as unemployment, poverty, social injustice, or human suffering. I call this the Welfare-state fallacy.
It is interesting to see partisans on this issue pick out their favorite indicators, samples of nations, and periods of history in trying to substantiate their assertions. We see all the economic indicators rising with crime from 1963 to 1975 [...] We see the same indicators changing inversely to crime in the last few years in the United States. We also note that most crime rates went down during the Great Depression.
I first realized that the welfare crime linkage was mistaken when studied crime rate change since World War II. Improved welfare and economic changes, especially for the 1960s and 1970s, correlated with more crime! I next recognized something was wrong with the hypothesis when I learned that Sweden's crime rates increased 5-fold and robberies 20-fold during the very years (1950 to 1980) when its Social Democratic government was implementing more and more programs to enhance equality and protect the poor [...] Other "welfare states" in Europe (such as the Netherlands) experienced at least as vast an increase in crime as the United States, whose poverty is more evident and social welfare policies are stingier. [...]
This is not an argument against fighting poverty or unemployment. Rather, it is an attempt to detach criminology from a knee-jerk link to other social injustice, inequality, government social policy, welfare systems, poverty, unemployment, and the like. To the extent that crime rates respond at all to these phenomena, they may actually increase with prosperity because there is more to steal. In any case, crime does not simply flow from other ills.”
A government report from Swedish crime prevention agency reached the same conclusion: "Developments in recent decades with significant efforts put into, for example, social- and labor market politics, taking place parallel with a strong increase in crime — gives a clear indication that improved economic and social conditions generally does not reduce crime." (my emphasis, SOU 1986:13 - translated from: "Utvecklingen under senare decennier med betydande insatser
I don't think the argument is over capacity. Everyone knows Jews are smart. The questions are, are they nepotistic? Do they agitate as a class?
I think they do. I think they behave the exact way wokes claim whites do (but whites don't).
I don't have much in the way of an anti-Jew bias and don't care about it very much. But I think it's interesting, especially after seeing what happened to Kanye for being, essentially, the modern equivalent to Marilyn Manson (Kanye is as much a genuine Nazi as Manson was a genuine satanist).
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.
Anybody else here have pretty bad concentration issues? I'm near the end of a coding camp and will be looking for a job in tech soon (timing couldn't be worse, with the tech job market as it is).
I've been messing with various stimulants. I used to take Dexedrine or Adderall, but I don't tolerate amphetamine well. Currently I use coffee, but I'm also sensitive to caffeine so I can only handle about half a cup currently. I sometimes use provigil, I used to take a full 200mg pill, but that made sleep too difficult. I switched to half a pill, 100mg, and that seems to work. But it isn't something I can take daily, again because of sleep. I still need to experiment more with a quarter of a pill, 50 mg. I've only done that a handful of times, but it seems like it might be low enough that I'm thrust into the comedown after two or three hours, which would be a problem.
I used to smoke, and vape, and use snus. Nicotine seems to work well for me, but I don't want to mess up my lungs, get gum disease, or obviously cancer. So I've been using tobacco free nicotine pouches, a ten pack of 15mg nicotine pouches will arrive today. I don't have a comedown or anxiety with nicotine, so that seems to be the winner so far.
Does anyone have advice for managing this stuff? I'm so much more productive with it, but I'm so sensitive to anxiety and sleep disturbances that it's hard to imagine that I could do it long term. Maybe a day with 100mg provigil, then a day without, repeat? Provigil's half life is so long that daily doesn't seem possible, at least not long term.
Edit: Does anyone have experience with khat?
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
So, I'm trying to do another coding camp. I've completed one, but it was very basic and I didn't really learn much.
I was thinking of epicodus, but before I start, I have to write a pro DEI affirmation, we will have weekly guided small group discussions on DEI concepts, several weekly large group discussions, and homework on DEI topics throughout the course. I can't just nod my head, I have to actively participate and affirm this stuff on an ongoing basis. At the end of each day, we even have to rate our pair programming partner on whether they made us feel "unsafe".
I understand that I will have to bite my tongue wherever I work, but this seems oppressive to me, and I don't know if I'm socially adept enough to make it in an environment like this.
Does anyone here know anything about Epicodus?
I live in PDX, and if anyone can suggest a rigorous boot camp, preferably with a focus on pair programming, that would be great. And if there isn't one in PDX, are there any I could take online? Are there strategies I could use to get through Epicodus or will I just be banging my head against the wall?
At this point I'm half considering the trades, but if I want to immigrate to another country, and I might, then working in tech will be an advantage in a way that plumbing might not.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
I'm sure that they pandered to me in some way. But nothing so crass as "you're a man, so you kick ass, unlike those dumb women". That people can read that shit and genuinely like it baffles me. I used to use the hugo awards to find sci fi worth reading, but now I just don't read it much. Or I read old shit.
SeeeVeee
3mo ago
Does anyone know of any smart, young(ish) Christian thinkers with interesting perspectives? Been listening the This Cultural Moment, about being Christian in a post-Christian world. It's excellent, but I'm having trouble finding more.
How do the few motte Christians manage their faith? It's something I really struggle with. I had a religious experience where everything clicked, but my brain is not good at this sort of faith and I inevitably end up in doubt again. I hate it.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
I'm locked into starting a career in tech, in one of the wokest cities in the nation.
I need to make money. I'm hoping to start a family in the next few years, and if I'm lucky, I can make enough money that my wife won't have to work full time.
But I've heard a lot of horror stories. And while I was antiwoke in the past, I'm even more so today.
How can I survive in this field while minimizing the amount of "evil" that I have to be accomplice to? I'm not a great liar, and I do see this stuff as a form of mundane evil.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
I think my psych is an odd one. He doesn't buy the multiple intelligences hypothesis, or a lot of the other stuff he's supposed to. He doesn't see trans clients anymore, because he's skeptical of the affirmation first model, and feels that psychs are put in a no win scenario.
He told me a story about a friend of his, another psych, who works at a hospital. One of his friend's residents had a trans patient that wanted to surgically transition. The resident wasn't sure what to do, so he asked her. She said she wasn't sure either, and referred the case to their gender center (or whatever they call it now). She was informed, in no uncertain terms, that if they ask for it, they get it. Then she found her responsibilities curtailed. So he doesn't touch it with a ten foot pole.
He believes in hbd, and believes that the black community has been taught to externalize their problems.
He's also really critical of feminists, after he clashed with them on campus because of sex based research into the brain that he was doing. He buys into red pill-lite ideas.
He's still mostly a NYT liberal, but he has to keep his mouth shut about a lot of topics (and has plenty of stories about how he's gotten into trouble because he couldn't)
I think you're right about the trajectory of the field. If I had to get a younger psych I probably wouldn't bother. They won't let guys like that in anymore.
Sometimes when I'm researching random shit I'll tell him about it.
He can be a useful sounding board. Basically an NYT liberal, but heterodox enough to be able to have certain conversations. It helps ground me.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
I'm not a troll. I've been in the rationalist world for almost a decade.
Do we avoid talk like this? What was the point of leaving reddit, then? Should we self censor based on some fringe loons who hate read us? If someone wants to paint an awful picture of us, they already can.
Tell me why I'm so wrong and crazy, then. That's the point of the post
I don't believe in some grand Jewish conspiracy. I would expect them to interbreed with white elites. As Yarvin says, the story of Jews in America is a story of assimilation, not domination.
But the upper crust whites are a hell of a lot more Jewish than the bottom tier. And as such, they have more power. And because of the Holocaust/Jewish advocacy, they're still capable of agitating as a class when they want, in a way that upper crust whites can't or won't.
"They interbreed with other elites" isn't much of a gotcha for what I'm saying.
SeeeVeee
5mo 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.
SeeeVeee
6mo ago
Is our society actually less religious? Or has religious energy been shunted toward more destructive political religions?
I think that conservation of religiosity is a thing, and I'd rather have people believe in something with a track record of success than.. what we have now.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
Kanye has said a lot of wild shit about a lot of different groups. But when he went after Jews, everything changed. They rapidly coordinated against him, and took him from billionaire to millionaire over night.
Hilariously, even his bank kicked him out. And his talent agency. I'm sure that will go a long way in terms of proving that Jews don't have disproportionate power in Hollywood, banking and law.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
Man, those links are a trip. If I showed those to anyone back in the '90s, they'd think it was something a White supremacist put together.
SeeeVeee
4mo 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
I think they're much less opposed to it than white progs, frankly.
Saw a recent poll, 82 percent of black dem voters consider crime to be a high priority to them. For white Dems, the number is 31 percent. They live in wildly different spheres, totally disconnected in terms of exposure to the ass end of these high minded but out of touch policies.
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.
More options
Context Copy link