SeeeVeee
3mo ago
When they teach kids that pulling out doesn't work, it's 99 percent a lie. They just don't trust people to not fuck up
SeeeVeee
4mo 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 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
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
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
5mo ago
Children are more likely to stay in the religion if their father practices than if the mother practices. It isn't obvious to me why
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).
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.
SeeeVeee
5mo ago
It won't make you less interesting, and it's cool to subject yourself to things like this. That having been said, I'm not sure you want to create a narrative where something like this is just going to change everything you don't like about yourself. It can, however, be the start of that, if that's what you want.
Edit: All that said, I think we'd be better off if more people did crazy stuff like this. Go for it, have fun, learn something about yourself, and try not to die like the dumb kid who poisoned himself in Alaska
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.
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
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.
Does this mean that we need to waste another 60 years on interventions that will at best make things not worse, and then blame White kids (and punish Asians) in perpetuity?
But, you're right of course. White and Asian kids are on the hook for our current order, for the foreseeable future
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
What makes you think progressives want to dismantle capitalism? Those are just kids on reddit. Real life progressives are heavily integrated into capitalism, and progressivism's big cultural wins align curiously well with capitalism
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.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
These kinds of articles have been common for years. Two types of authors: woke sympathetics who recognize some of the insanity but want to tone down the opposition, and anti-wokes who confuse what they want to happen with what will happen.
I believe we are still in the early stages of our woke cultural revolution. I think that rising inequality (imagine what AI, automation, and climate change will be able to do in terms of disruption) will create more rage, and the rage will be shunted into wokism, because it has been able to effectively market itself as in opposition to inequality. Unfortunately, wokism provides cover for, and is a tool of the drivers of modern inequality.
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
The grey tribe has very little actual power, though. Even if they're the ones pushing the development, the rewards will be reaped by the blue tribe. Just look at how grey tribe preferences got effortlessly pushed aside the moment the blue tribe took an interest in tech
SeeeVeee
1yr ago
As a guy that did steroids, I gotta say you're overselling them. They will make you a better athlete, but they will not make a bad athlete into a good athlete. Not really.
I think adderall is more effective based on my own experiences with both.
SeeeVeee
7mo 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
"Obviously I'm smarter than this guy, therefore there's zero danger when I play his game, on his turf"
More options
Context Copy link