Shrike
12hr ago
To take your narrative seriously one would have to imagine that a post-war government program that lasted 9 years in the 1860's which gave resources and education to a group of people was always going to lead to that people being welfare dependent.
In the conservative narrative you are trying to identify (not necessarily my narrative), the Freeman's Bureau would just be the start of a much more persistent and long-running government-led effort specifically designed to target black Americans (and other minority groups) with various types of benefits.
The 'monocausal' foe is the nature of human beings, the differences between them, the widely divergent population groups humanity is composed of and the wide variety of circumstance they find themselves in.
If you hung out around conservative Americans long enough you would hear some of them say something along these lines, perhaps with fewer five dollar words.
Most people find it easier to learn how to read than to have 5 children with 5 different men, collect child support, become obese and claim medical benefits on top of that.
In the United States, African-American out-of-wedlock births have increased dramatically since World War Two. This is despite the fact that measured African-American IQ scores have also increased over the same period of time. Why?
Shrike
17hr ago
That doesn't explain why blacks are drawn to it more so than other races.
The origin of the American federal welfare state traces its way back to the Freedman's Bureau, established during the Civil War. As you might guess from the name, blacks were "drawn to it" because the Bureau was specifically established for them.
A sociological theory that hangs it all on "IQ" and doesn't account for the facts of the historical case is less fixing the problems with lefty sociological theories and more embracing them, just swapping out "IQ" for "racism" as the Great Monocausal Foe.
I think some people assume that accomplishing this swap will lead to closing the welfare state tap off, perhaps unaware or forgetting that the tap was turned on at a time when (functionally) that very belief was widespread.
Shrike
1d ago
Primarily the welfare state making them dependent and ghetto culture that glorifies violence. They never explain why blacks move towards this sort of thing
You answered your own question here!
Shrike
2d ago
Just wanted to circle back and apologize for not getting you back a response worthy of the effort you put into this! I appreciated the time you took, just got somewhat busy. But I'd be happy to get into this more in the future.
Shrike
8d ago
So consider this - Moses, Elijah, Abraham, these people are uncontroversially saved, right?
They all preceded the formation of Christ's church as current constituted, so it doesn't really seem applicable at all, one way or the other. If you can show me some Jews, pagans, heretics or schismatics who existed after the ascension of Christ who are uncontroversially saved, I am all ears.
What the Catholic Church believes herself to be is the most important obstacle to understanding what she means when she utters statements like this.
I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this!
Shrike
8d ago
Let's keep reading:
Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two. A Council of Tours desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against the usurper of the goods of the Church, that he may fall into the curse of Judas, and "that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven". [...] At a late period, Gregory IX (1227–41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.
So according to my source, anathema is excommunication, and furthermore to the extent that there's a difference it's that anathemization is extra bad.
If you can find a contrary source, I would be happy to read it.
Not that many, especially centuries after the initial break.
This is a fair distinction, but Florence, in context, says that anyone outside of the Church ("all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives") is damned to eternal fire, correct? This makes it hard to believe it was referring merely to those who caused schism.
You can (and my understanding is that the Catholic church in fact to some degree has) lawyer away the meaning of the words into little if anything, but I think you can understand why this raises its own set of problems for literal-minded Protestant types.
Overall I welcome Christian unity and certainly hope you don't feel attacked in this discussion; I'm more trying to show the mindset of Protestants here rather than argue for the Protestant position, if that makes sense.
Shrike
8d ago
Sure. The theory is pretty simple: executing the wantonly violent and prohibiting incest is good for society and culture (and likely eugenic).
I would need to do more research on the execution of violent criminals, but my VERY superficial impression is that Catholic Europe did, fairly frequently, use execution as a way of dealing with violent criminals. This would, logically, curtail violence in a way that, say, weregild might not. To the degree that there's any genetic component to violence, executing impulsive, violent criminals could be expected to be eugenic. As I understand it, there's a theory that in the distant past, humans "self-domesticated" - which plausibly was at least in part the result of consistently executing aggressive members of the community. A civilization that takes seriously Genesis 9:6 ("Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man") is likely to continue this process.
The impact of banning kinship marriages arguably led to individualism triumphing to some degree over tribalism culturally, but cousin marriages are also bad genetically, so banning them likely had an impact on all of Western civilization, at least culturally but probably genetically as well.
I am not, personally, a "genes are everything" kind of guy, I think culture is very important and I think genetics and culture play into each other. But it seems pretty clear to me that rigorously applying Judeo-Christian culture over civilizational timespans is likely to deal with what Opt-out terms the "pit-bull" problem (not the term I would use). You can pick up some of the Icelandic sagas and then compare the behavior therein with the culture of Iceland today to get an idea of how quickly culture can shift away from violence. (Arguably some cultures have shifted dangerously far from violence, but that's another rabbit hole).
Shrike
8d ago
Anathematizisation is not Excommunication.
The Church does not "claim that [our] denomination is the only path to salvation." We say that outside the Church there is no salvation, that all who are saved will be saved through the Church Jesus established, including many people who are surprised to discover that this Church was the Catholic Church all along.
This is a very agreeable sentiment, and one in line with more modern (if rather ambiguous) Catholic...vibes statements from e.g. Vatican II, but doesn't Florence explicitly say that "schismatics" are damned unless they join the church, even if they are martyred for Christ?
Regardless, the fact remains that the Catholic church closed the door to debate on a lot of topics, and as far as I can tell, can't really re-open those debates without severely undermining its claims to an unbroken and correct tradition.
Shrike
9d ago
Hilariously, while drumming up my earlier reply to Nerd, I had done a quick Google and BAM!
There are some really funny ways to reconcile what you're saying and the first page Google result (people forget that married couples have more and often better sex than single individuals) but none of them sound particularly worth the hassle.
Not that I am trying to dunk on male ballet dancers, but I wouldn't go into the profession purely for the sexual opportunity.
Shrike
9d ago
I don't think that this is logical, because something can be not taught for a period of time and still remain true.
I think the real sticking point for lots of Protestants is that that is considered a dealbreaker. The issue is less that it might be true and more that they would be forbidden from arguing that it is.
I say this while being aware that Protestants also often have weird dealbreakers, but the Catholic church has periodically forbidden viewpoints that were held throughout church history. For instance, my understanding is that Nicaea 2 anathematizes iconoclasts, which would excommunicate Catholic saints like Justin Martyr (who wrote that Christians did not crown their images, which is one form of icon veneration.)
This is compounded by the fact that while Protestants can be picky about who they let into their congregation, most Protestants* do not claim that their denomination is the only path to salvation and explicitly would say the opposite.
This doesn't mean Protestants are correct, but the intellectual world for Protestants is much more open and doesn't bind you to as many positions that were historically, at best, points of contention within the church. (For instance being Catholic might not be very appealing if you have doubts about the current understanding of the Papacy, which the Catholic church itself agrees was one that developed over centuries and was never held by large portions of the church.) Although obviously in practice plenty of Catholics believe in all sorts of non-Catholic doctrines and disbelieve all sorts of Catholic ones, it's much easier for a scrupulous Protestant to, say, believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary than it is for a scrupulous Catholic to question it.
*to include those who would profess to be Special Non-Protestants Actually, such as Baptists and Anglicans
Shrike
9d ago
Agreed, and I while I don't think waving one's hand and saying "jobs programs" is particularly likely to suddenly solve marriage rates, I do think jobs program education is more likely to have a positive effect than art sensitivity programs.
Shrike
9d ago
I'd like for them to realize that you can be more than just a thug.
When presented with the alternative of "ballet performer (non-remunerative)" it would hardly be surprising if guys (regardless of race) chose "thug."
I'm also skeptical of your case (though I haven't heard it yet). I think creativity and softness can help with women, but I can't help but think you're barking up the wrong tree: as far as I can tell women are, generally, into pretty masculine men. Relevant both to my suggestion and to the question of "what do chicks dig?" military service members are more likely to be married, not less, than civilians.
Shrike
9d ago
Have them do ballet, painting, and heavily emphasize soft and social skills. This should be done in combination with rugged stereotypically masculine activities such as wrestling or football. Good men have strong elements of masculinity, with some healthy doses of feminine attributes on the side!
This seems like it could backfire considerably. Why not just take whatever resources we would use to fund this and instead promote manly-man masculinity, by which we mean a stint in the armed services followed by a wholesome career as a firefighter or police officer?
This is also considerably more useful to society than teaching people ballet.
Shrike
9d ago
how do you build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth if it is filled with pit bulls?
Isn't there some research suggesting that, specifically, Christian influence on
- execution
- cracking down on incest/cousin marriages
is part of what led to European civilization operating at such a highly functional level?
Backing up just a bit:
From a theological perspective what’s a good argument that human races have much different rates of grave sin? You can deal with sin at the individual level thru a need for free-will, but to say God created some humans that like to sin more feels very bad.
The biggest disparity in grave sins when dividing by immutable characteristics, it seems to me, is in gender, not race, so the question of the moral impact of immutable traits is not some new problem for Christianity, I don't think. Ditto for really pretty much any other religion or ethics system. It just seems particularly vexing because of contemporary social mores.
Shrike
16d ago
Disclaimer: I am a poor pleb with Sonnet 4.6, which might explain 100% of the divergence. I tested your second link with an identical prompt and Claude struck out. In fact, it first told me it wouldn't be able to guess, and I had to lean on it for a bit and tell it to spit out a top 5 list.
In case you are curious, here are its guesses (the second 5 with the adaptive setting turned on). I don't know who any of these people are so, uh...congrats, maybe, I guess?
Vathara — The multi-fandom range, the interest in broken/rehabilitated characters (especially Sample 1's Tai Lung angle), the dense sensory worldbuilding, and the flat acceptance of strangeness all feel consistent with her style.
Magistrate — The deadpan humor, the clipped dialogue, and the ethical weight placed on unglamorous details feel like a possibility here.
Ruskbyte — Prolific, multi-fandom, with a tendency toward darker characterization and unconventional takes on canon.
Luan Mao — The Pratchett influence and the dry, economical prose feel like a match for writers in that orbit.
Sueric — A long shot, but the interest in physical damage and personhood threads through some of their work.
Vathara — Still my strongest guess. The rehabilitation arc, multi-fandom confidence, and flat acceptance of strangeness are consistent with her body of work.
GoblinCat — Known for serious KFP work specifically, with real philosophical weight. Could the range extend to Pokemon and original fiction?
YsabetWordsmith — The disability specificity, ethical framework around personhood, and multi-fandom range feel plausible here.
Copperbadge — Craft-conscious, literary, genuinely multi-fandom, and the dry humor fits.
Lisse — A longer shot, but the tonal control and interest in damaged characters feels familiar.
Shrike
16d ago
This one surprises me, since I have no idea what is motivating it. It also does not necessarily make sense.
From a purely pragmatic standpoint of an American elite (and I don't have a good read on Karp so this might not be his perspective) intolerance towards religious belief is basically pure self-ownage. (Keep in mind that in the US, religious behavior is correlated with higher education levels.) There are a lot of smart, motivated religious people who will happily serve in the military and then work in your munitions plant afterwards and if you are intolerant of them you're running the risk of losing their talent or, worse, making yourself their enemy.
Shrike
16d ago
The idea that AI would need a detailed world model seems to run contra to the "It became self-aware at 2:14 AM Eastern Time" doomsaying.
Can I suggest in a relatively nice way that perhaps the world model of lot of the doomsayers could use some refinement?
Shrike
17d ago
I wasn't alive in the 1970s, but I think .45 ACP wasn't more popular because there weren't really smaller handguns made for it. You can carry a .38 revolver in a coat pocket in a way that you can't a 1911.
Additionally, the .38 was specifically in widespread use by police and military, so the 'cool' factor associated with the military/police was absolutely there, and if I am not mistaken plenty of law enforcement agencies were still packing .38s in the 1970s.
Shrike
17d ago
Toy model to illustrate:
Let's say that I need to make 100 PowerPoints per year, and I use AI for this. And let's say that when I use 4.6, it costs me $1 in token costs to make a PowerPoint presentation based on a prompt. I now have to spend 10 minutes correcting the errors.
Now supposing we bump up to 4.7, and suddenly the PowerPoint a bit better, I only need to spend 5 minutes correcting the errors. But it costs $2 because the token cost is less efficient.
If Anthropic is making margin on the token costs, then the demand for tokens has increased even though the demand for work has not (I still need to make 100 slide decks annually). And while we've saved me some time, we've increased my cost to $200 instead of $100. If Anthropic is making 10% margin, they've now made $20 instead of $10. And since suddenly the token demand has doubled (in this toy world with static demand for PowerPoints which now cost more tokens) Anthropic can likely use the increased demand to raise costs on compute further.
Some disclaimers:
- this is a toy model
- I am not sure to what degree and in what way "benchmark improvements at the cost of more token use" translates over into real world applications. Does 4.7 now use more tokens to do the same work (e.g. answering "what is 2+2") or does the allegedly less efficient token cost only kick in with more involved prompting? I can imagine a world where "benchmark improvements at the cost of more token use" in the real world means you can 1-shot an app instead of 3-shotting it, so even if it uses twice as many tokens, it's actually saving compute.
- from what I understand the financials of compute are all over the place: some people or services have something closer to a cost-per-token, many do not
- Furthermore as I understand it companies like Anthropic own some of their compute, but not all of it, meaning that if costs of compute increase due to this it might be bad for their bottom line if they are renting a lot of their compute and their providers decide to jack prices up on them
Possibly there's something (else) I am missing here, would be very happy for feedback. I don't use LLMs to code so my lack of experience with the most-common use-case means I have little personal insight into the trade-offs between increased demand for tokens versus higher performance. If people are complaining, though, I assume it's because they feel like they are able to get less done (IOW, the model is less token-efficient). If anyone has a better model for how this works in the real world, particularly in more common use-cases, I would love to be filled in.
Shrike
17d ago
My mind went to military stuff, with the context of Ranger's post.
But when it comes to innovation, obviously when it comes to rocketry the running joke is that ultimately the American Germans beat the Russian Germans...
(Although on the subject of Russian copying, it's worth noting that Buran, despite looking like the space shuttle, had notably different design features.)
Shrike
18d ago
It seems to me this also has financial implications. If you are paying per token, and the model's benchmark performance increases slightly, but its token cost to reach those higher benchmarks increases tremendously, suddenly you're paying a lot more to do, at best, slightly more.
If Anthropic is making margin on the token cost, then this is an improvement from their financial point of view, right?
Shrike
18d ago
As a model of Iran, consider Gaza. Both the IRGC and Hamas are militant Shiite extremists.
Epistemic status: Twitter, so buyer beware, but it seems that at least one IRGC radio broadcast has been referred to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi as an "idiot" and defying his announcement that the strait is opened. I've seen reports that Iranian television (which I do not watch) has criticized him as well.
Aha, well, surely Abbas Araghchi is a moderate? Within the ranks of "Iranian regime officials," maybe, but he was a member of the IRGC during the Iran-Iraq War and participated in the revolution against the Shah. As far as I can tell he's not exactly a secular squish.
Obviously I am very open to the idea that there's some sort of good cop-bad cop routine being enacted here (to say nothing of Twitter just being wrong) but so far there seems to be some directional evidence that the economic sanctions are causing rifts within the ranks of the regime.
Again, I don't blame anyone for a "wait-and-see" approach, I think this is a relatively low-quality information environment so far. But if the Iranians are already fighting over whether or not the "close the strait, make the US feel the pain" strategy is worth keeping up, what does it say about the economic situation of Iran?
Shrike
18d ago
I definitely think the algo has something to do with it (perhaps even a lot to do with it) but I also think the influence of social media would be tempered by much better economic conditions. The ideological terrorism in the 1970s happened without the algorithm, but I would hazard a guess that the mediocre economy helped fan the flames more than a little.
On the gripping hand, though, the worse economic conditions would be tempered by a better algorithm (or none at all). In particular, it seems like gender relations are really poisoned now in a way that they weren't in, say, the 1970s. And I think that's insanely radicalizing, people can handle being relatively poor if there is still a viable path to marriage and family formation, and it seems to me that right now the algorithm and the socio-cultural trends it amplifies are harming that more than the economy.
Lots of people who probably don't know what a paleo-con is still vote R and can express similar sentiment.
Yes, out of wedlock births are an anti-social behavior that correlates with bad childhood outcomes (at least in the US of A).
In Iceland, though, this only translates to about a quarter of children being raised in single-parent homes - quite possibly, the parents being married in all-but-name, you're right that it doesn't cause significant problems. It's something like twice the rate among African-Americans - which, relevantly to my point, has risen since the 1960s. Why has this negative behavior among African Americans risen with their IQ score?
And we can ask the same question about violent crime: what's the HBD explanation for why African-American crime rose massively in the 1960s even as they grew more prosperous (in the 1940s, when African-Americans were poorer, crime was much lower)?
More options
Context Copy link