ShariaHeap
1yr ago
I like the idea of this place, I really do, but why do people write such long posts. It strikes me as quite obnoxious. Don't you get bored of writing and reading so much text?
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
My guess is hereditary biological determinism...
I admidettly only scan over this material but the best examples are Askhenazi Jews are inherently smart, in it's worst guise Black people are inherently stupid.
As far as I can tell, the low-IQ version of this argument starts with a racist mindset that then uses a naive attribution of IQ to genetics, and constructs an elaborate just-so story to justify any inequality of black people as a natural consequence of the world.
My guess is that the high-iq version has better arguments and data but is just another elaborate just-so story like evolutionary psychology or blank-slate cultural constructionism or marxism or whatever other thought system that lacks sufficient epistemic humility and likes to draw long-bows.
The inquiry is fine and there may be the beginnings of a genuine science taking shape but easy answers are a lot more fun to post than the complexity of the real world.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
Smarts can be hereditable for sure, but in daily life there's lots of types of smarts in terms of success for environment, and there's not just genetics, there's epigenetics - culture can affect genetic expression.
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
Well perhaps I took the wrong meaning from your text. I projected a shame aspect, as Jung or Jordan Peterson might say.
I like my text though and think it could apply generally.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
It needs to end so that it can begin again as it's just rainbow propaganda for the TQ+. LGB were sidelined long ago and the function of pride now is just authoritarian mind control.
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
My first guess would be 'psychologically wrong' given the setup. Perhaps they have mother issues and secretly hate women (though it's not always a blocker for success)
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
This is not a ban worthy post whatever patterns you're seeing. I personally think moderation should be uber-light. It is the overall community we need to trust in maintaining standards, not moderation. There should be a ban line at explicitly inciting hate, but not at allusions, dog whistles etc. I may be naive but I just don't see how a broad base community like this will get swept up in a descent to all out racism or whatever. People will counter till they will get bored and then disengage. A small minority will feed off each other's posts potentially but I think it's worth being radically open here given what is happening internet wide with censorship.
ShariaHeap
6mo ago
It wasn't an intent, merely an afterthought and in the spirit of trying to demonstrate sovereignty I'll do it myself thanks.
ShariaHeap
6mo ago
Well, I've put more sauce around it in a reply, but fair comment. I'm actually looking for an escape out of my internet habits at present so I might try a voluntary ban for a period once Ive addressed any comments that arise.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
It was provocative I admit and I welcome harsh criticism of such a lazy post. But I have read some of the posts here and I stand by my gut feeling of a lack of sufficient nuance for the topic.
As far as I can tell it traverses the full complexity of human complexity - genetics, epigenetics, phenotypics, brain science, interaction of culture with genetics, study design, statistics, intelligence measurement, long history, short history, local history, global history, evolutionary biology, education, development...
Ie, partitioning off causal effects based on aggregate numbers on IQ across partly socially constructed population categories feels 'fraught'. I'd engage with it more (currently reading Charles Murray) if it wasn't for the fact that most posts don't seem to show the slightest glimpse of epistemic humility or acknowledgement of the gaps, difficulties in causal analysis.
But it's an intuition - I could be way off, can you point me to something enlightening and I'll make a start on the topic. I'm picking this would need about 1000 hours of research /thinking as a starter given it's complexity.
ShariaHeap
6mo ago
Well I have no idea of that scenario obviously, not having been in it. I've done some minor karate/Kung Fu sparring to know my skills and strength are negligible on the curve and on the street I've come off second best in several encounters though usually extremely drunk and in my youth. I suppose I have a quiet confidence that trained and with weaponry I would stand my own under fire but it's completely hypothetical. My theory is there's some advantage to calibrating your actual skills and courage to reality, rather than some wishful ego conception, so that way when it comes to crunch you don't find yourself unable to bridge to reality.
Now of course, instigating war doesn't require the instigators to have courage, they can pass that on to others, as well as the moral torments of having directly killed innocent people.
I just think I'm tired of the over-confident manner of mottizens in general. Talk is so cheap, and real thinking so expensive. So little on here has any relevance, interesting as it may be, because there is no reality test. As far as I can tell a lot of commentary just reinforces the position and ego of the commenter without persuading anyone else one way or another. On average people just like the friction of their position relative to others rather than being willing to actually adjust their position or acknowledge epistemic deficits. I'm worried that the tendency for over confident takes is actually psychological compensation and that the motte is actually riddled with a bunch of right brain autists metaphorically jerking off in their parents garage.
I think if you advocate genocide in a hot take you need to justify your bona fides. ie you should have murdered someone, or been a war veteran, or had your family murdered or something.
This site is resembling Reddit with the confident geopolitical hottakes.
ShariaHeap
4mo ago
But if you make all the low IQ people slaves again, most of them would be white men.
Is that really what white supremacy is arguing for these days?
ShariaHeap
9mo ago
Can you point me to a name, link that does the genetic proof for HBD. Most of the content I see here already assumes this axiomatically or is low resolution. What id like is something where I can start to 'cleave the arguments at their bones'
Eg, I'm curious what interpretation people have for the Flynn effect, or what the evidence base is for isolated genetic pools over long history..
ShariaHeap
9mo ago
All doctors still have to pass the requirements don't they, regardless of how they get into medical school? Also I don't think it's necessarily linear between SAT and being a good doctor. My guess is you would want a minimum (higher than average) threshold and people at the top would probably specialise in any case. In between hard working, curious, empathetic, life-long learning could circumvent a lot- I don't know how these characteristics distribute but I don't think the average white doctor is that high a bar in the 10 min pharmaceutical dispensing slot I experience them in. Mostly they're just passing on the received wisdom of the medical model.
ShariaHeap
10mo ago
Apologies, environmental, I mean, though culture overlaps with environmental.
ShariaHeap
5mo ago
Even if racial divergence may have ended, on net, around the Neanderthal age
What is your basis for this claim? That is do you have stats, human diversity measures, genetic maps, local histories to back it up?
An evolving system will always be diversifying (that is what the mutation does) and there's also surely a lot of racial mixing. Are the Sumerians a distinct racial, ethnic, cultural grouping now? Are the famous English local rivalries really between Picts, Angles, Saxons, Norman's, Vikings?
Please enlighten me.
ShariaHeap
5mo ago
A secular education is such a no-brainer for successful civic outcomes. I'm not sure on some of your other points - I'm not sure it's 'been always thus' as you seem to imply at the end, because indoctrination has varied in kind and degree quite a lot.
America, through people like John Dewey have articulated clear visions of education, and have presumably had their influence. Now, I think we face a deeper issue with regard to post-modern ideas, break down in research academia, new technologies impacting etc. I think the conditions are for indoctrination to be unusually bad currently, over an arc say to the beginning of the 20th century.
If the rebuttal is that we've always taught propagandising myths around national identity, history etc, I'd entirely agree with you. But I think it's a different kind of situation because the basics of pedagogy/child development were still prioritised. With the postmodern morass we are losing our actual orientation to learning.
ShariaHeap
5mo ago
I can see what you mean, and agree with the drawn out nature of many wars, especially proxy wars. But Im not sure previous wars where fighting was less restrained necessarily resolved issues such as contested land, though might-is-right was certainly understood well by the loser in heavy defeats. But these memories stay until fortunes change presumably and then the chance to even the score presents itself. I'm thinking regions like the Balkans - I mean they had a decent war not so long ago, but it hasn't resolved the tensions.
ShariaHeap
5mo ago
Oh right, see no evil, hear no evil...
Given that lives are on the line, a countries foreign interventions should ethically be of great concern, both for the lives of their own citizens but also foreign citizens. Even if you hold your own nationals as being more important, it would still be important to want to limit unnecessary foreign deaths where there are no strategic gains.
The idea that you would be happy just for innocent people to die, would put you in a pretty small set of people. Some people speak rhetorically in such a fashion but I question whether they would actually be able to kill an innocent person themselves if they knew there was no justification. As you point out, the key is not to know about it or to be in the fog of war.
If you're looking for relevant examples, think Iraq war. Lot's of innocent civilians dead, no strategic gains beyond regional chaos perhaps. This sort of thing is only possible when the truth is hidden. Otherwise people tend to understand that it's bad, because most of us value self-consistency and aren't psychopaths.
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
Yes, I agree with the denial of self as a part of the new cohort- that makes sense. With the fetish I was actually talking about society generally, seems to be many people see it as the next cab off the rank as a lifestyle+ option...
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
To mark yourself as someone that is interested in 'the thing', rather than a particular agenda. The specifics of death count estimates are fine, pick your number and justify it with evidence but point out underestimates as well, point out that it's hard to retrospectively figure it out. Point out the work of established scholars and point out differences in methodology that are relevant so the person can make up their own mind. Find the common ground and then be fair minded about data gaps, not being able to track every individual doesn't definitely mean they weren't part of a camp execution does it? Do you expect every death to be recorded in camp records that have survived to this day.
Or, if your concern is about depictions of German's in media, focus on that. I probably agree with you about parts of this. I think people can become complacent when they view Nazis as an other. The next Nazis will not be called Nazis.
Or point out the Jewish network as controlling the world if you can do it in a new way without tropes.
But don't do it all together. Actually I haven't read enough of your posts to know much so feel free to ignore anything I say that's not relevant.
ShariaHeap
8mo ago
Yep, there deserves to be a top-level post (perhaps there have been several already) but the alt-right definitely steals from the worldview of the progressives.
Ie there's this big hegemonic cultural force that is imposing a progressive view of race and inhibiting the success of whites. Gee, that sounds an awful lot like structural racism a la critical theory.
ShariaHeap
1yr ago
I like your take, we always have to dig deeply into accepted ideas to see how much myth-making. It's something I will 'lean-into' over the next while to see where I land.
However, I was already aware that females contribute a good portion of partner violence - although of course, tending to be less serious harm than male on female violence. I was also aware that key males had been written out of the suffragette story.
I also don't view it as man beating wife with stick through human history. The past is a different country as they say, so it's mistaken to project the modern idea of agency blindly onto previous eras Obviously women have always had agency and our history is shared, there must have always been accommodation of needs in the shared goal of child rearing and woman have been honoured and had certain priviliges over different cultures etc, depending on class. However, and bearing in mind I'm no historian and I shudder to think how little I know of it, but I'd say it's a given that among human hierarchies, women would tend to be lower than men in terms of power. The church asserts this explicitly, and clearly there wasn't even a thought to consider women as distinct entities legally until modern times. So I suspect that while revisionism against some of the myth-making of feminism may be due, it's not going to upend it to the point of there is 'no thing there'.
Feminism fits within a modern liberal view of freedom and opportunity. Here I think it's clear that there was a patriarchy, as evidenced by the efforts required for women to do things that men had always done-get a degree, occupy professional positions of power, own things, receive benefits as single parents etc. Now most women probably didn't object to this world, it was the water they swam in, but for some women it was a grave injustice under the modern liberal terms taking root. Now that doesn't subsume women to some powerless servitude but it is pretty inarguable as a real patriarchy.
I have also observed patriarchy first-hand, though as an outsider, when living in Japan. Again many women have power, many are happy with the status quo, but the hierarchy is plain to see. I'm given to understand that effectively the wife sits underneath her sons in the power structure side of things (though probably worth checking) and language itself reified this in the honorifics etc used when addressing then. Men have a mixed position there, often as salarymen that might only see there children on weekends, and of course are wedded to their own work heirarchies, but equally, are clearly top-dogs as far as society goes. Again this is under the lens of modern liberal values. Japan is a very civil society and there are many great things about it. And if course it's changing. But if you're a young woman wanting to progress professionally in male-dominated fields, you're going to put up with a lot of unjust shit, by virtue of being a woman.
Anyway I take your broader point and I have gone on too long. One of my first posts here was complaining about long posts and here I am....
ShariaHeap
1yr ago
Replying at the tail to these comments, which I've appreciated. Obviously nothing wrong with people's preferences and of course nuanced and complex ideas take time. I mean I write out some fairly lengthy ones myself, just if most of them lengthy walls of text, then quite intimidating. Maybe sometimes less is more, might it be just a habit of the community, as alluded to?
As a meta-comment on all the hawkish hot takes, I'd love it if we could gather all motte hot-takers in a no-holds barred cage fight so we could distinguish between the psychopaths, veteran fighters and pissant weaklings who try to compensate for their inferiority complex with words. I think we have to be alert to the possibility that people that talk a big game could easily wet their pants in real world life and I'd love to see who those people are.
More options
Context Copy link