@Unsaying's banner p


Lord, have mercy.

2 followers   follows 3 users  
joined 2023 February 15 19:59:17 UTC


User ID: 2188


Lord, have mercy.

2 followers   follows 3 users   joined 2023 February 15 19:59:17 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 2188

You don't seem to be taking nutrition into account. Meat is very good for you. Pea protein blended into a seed oil slurry isn't.

Go easy on him; he's German

Not the person to whom you are responding, but, as a parent sympathetic to what he said, that's already priced in. The question is not if the fire is coming, but when and how. Better sooner, I'd say, for many reasons -- not least that right now I'm around to protect them, which will not be so true in a few decades. Cynically kicking the can down the road is not a loving action, as it only generates a future which is even harder to survive. Though I suppose it might be done out of a sense of (imo, misplaced) hope that things might get better on their own.

if it all gets burned down there's at least a chance something better will arise and my children won't have to raise their children in an enclave in the hinterlands to prevent their corruption and alienation.

So, a bit off-topic, but DAE feel like it's time to get building enclaves in the hinterlands? I wonder if anyone's studied how this has gone in South Africa and what we might learn.

I think mapping personality/behavior to race/ethnicity is iffy . This is entering into 'big 5' levels of vagueness here.

I don't. I think it's obvious on the face of it. Genes and culture co-evolve. The question isn't if there are differences, the question is how significant they are on average.

Traits like aggression, impulse control, parental investment, fidelity, industriousness, cleanliness, and aesthetic preferences are all present in animal species, vary among subspecies, and are clearly genetic in origin -- especially in species without culture to speak of. Can branches of humanity, having been split off for hundreds if not thousands of generations, which evolved in very different environments (and very different cultures), possibly not have some substantial drift here?

A common sentiment around here is how silly those are who imagine that evolution stopped at the neck. Sure, (specific subspecies of) black people can run faster or have more fast-twitch muscle fibers, and that's because of genetic divergence, but no way could they be less intelligent!

But one of the weirdest things to me about many of the people on this board is that they will then go on to do the exact same thing with neural architecture. Sure, different populations have vastly disparate levels of intelligence, but no way could the same factors which cause that have substantial differences upon personality!

Let a collie be raised by cats, and it will try to herd things.

No idea, but I bet it would be interesting to break that down by the net worth of the people involved. I suspect that maybe only about ten percent of men getting divorced are worth shearing, as it were. I do know that divorce is often initiated (by the woman) upon a man losing his job or suffering some other substantial curtailment in his earning potential.

Then again, I'd expect high-earning men to also have good legal teams and/or hidden assets, so, who can say, really? Maybe a wife who can afford her own good legal team and competently prosecute a divorce is also more interested in getting her slice of assets than hounding him for alimony, as she'll more often have her own solid income.

Are they smart-but-passive rule followers, or smart-but-sociopathic rule breakers?

Just winging an answer here, but I think the idea is that when it comes to personal gain they don't feel guilt and will ruthlessly defect against norms to get what they want. If caught, they will feel shame, which is distinct. C.f. the staggering rates of academic misconduct right down to cheating in university, which afaict is much more a Han problem than anyone else's.

OTOH, when it comes to official dogma, they don't seem interested in questioning it much at all. Much more conformist. This is a difference on average and there will be exceptions. But, they're two different things. Conflating both with 'rule following' is the problem here.

Scandinavians seem the same way re: conformity. It's interesting to wonder why and how. Again, the off-the-cuff supposition would be that Scandis are that way because they evolved in high-trust societies with low corruption and could generally benefit from believing the authorities, who were generally correct and benevolent. Whereas the Han evolved in a low-trust environment where people questioning authority tended to have their families exterminated to several degrees. Point deer make horse. Not questioning authority is beneficial either way, but for very different reasons, and so will play out differently.

Right, but the point is that anyone at the time who made an HBD argument using that as evidence was laughably wrong.

Strong disagree. What happened here, I think, is that there were several decades of brutal selection in an environment with a much weaker social safety net. Some substantial portion of the 'worst' Irish (etc.) simply failed to reproduce, and the ones left over are, naturally, closer to the Hajnali average. Plus intermarriage.

As for Italians, 'Italian' is not a race and Italy as a nation is a pretty new idea. Northern Italians are white. Southern Italians are something else. And to this day you'll see huge disparities between the two, modulo the same process as befell the Irish above. C.f. the Hajnal Line.

See also, http://www.anechoicmedia.org/blog/european_politics/

In short, it's a good takedown of the default, overconfident narrative of American migrant assimilation. If your idea of 20th century immigration is wretched refuse coming ashore, moving their way up, and merging economically and politically into the uniform White America we know today, that pretty much didn't happen. By most measures, identifiable European ancestries are still differentiated within America, and in ways that parallel their differences in Europe. The story of white America, then, is less one of assimilation, and more of selection bias and attrition.

European races were and are different from each other in important ways, as breeds of dog or any other animal subspecies differ. This extends to all areas of life.

And yes, we can bring in large numbers of high-IQ non-Hajnalis and they will be perfectly capable of keeping their noses clean and contributing productively to society. But do they want to live in the same sort of society we do?

Right, and, making transportation more expensive is going to have economic ripple effects that are hard to predict.

I believe tech companies are meritocratic in the hiring process

Hopefully without doxxing myself, I work as a contractor for several of the top-5 tech companies (however that is construed it is true). So I'm privy to a lot of their internal communications, culture, etc. And I can tell you that these people are simply falling all over themselves to worship the dark and the lame. The gay, the fake, the trans. It's pathological and it's clearly a very high priority.

at least for the tech positions

Yes, but this is doing a lot of work. A serious skilled employee (i.e. white or asian male) generates enough productivity to support maybe 10-20 others. But this is being utilized. I go to a lot of sales meetings, etc. with the 'big guys' and it turns out that almost everyone in a position to function in other-than-coding-or-facilities is a woman of color, and they (mostly) have no idea what's going on.

I like to ask people questions. E.g. I was once at the Udvar-Hazy museum, where resides the actual Enola Gay, and was fortunate enough to chance upon a veteran who had flown the same model of plane. I asked him one of my favorite questions, which is, "If you could change anything about it, what would you change?" This is, more broadly, a great question to ask of anyone about his industry. But the guy's response was, "The head." Apparently people at one end of the plane had to crawl through a long, cramped, dark, very cold tube to get to the bathroom. Fair enough and good answer; precisely the sort of insight for which I am fishing.

So anyway, given what I do, people very high-up on the corporate ladder like to meet me and have a conversation. Executives, etc. And I like to ask them, "How did you get into this?" Up until about 2017 it was mostly white men with blue eyes and they had interesting answers. Long life histories, fascinating twists and turns, happened to be in the right place at the right time so as to illustrate broader trends and forces. These guys were enthusiastic about describing their journeys and, frankly, grateful to tell someone who clearly wanted to glean what wisdom he could from their examples.

Now it's all girls with names like Roselia and they have no idea how they got where they are. Not only that, but they perceive that they don't belong, and suffer terribly from impostor syndrome, and hate me for asking. So, after a couple years of bad sales, I stopped asking, started emotionally supporting them, and am doing just fine. Except inside.

If I had to choose one group to occupy the streets I’d certainly prefer the migrants than the aggressive “native” homeless in progressing states of mental decay. The migrants are clean, accompanied by well behaved children, and don’t bother you when walking down the street (in this way I also prefer them also to the third inhabitant of Chicago streets, lanyarded young workers of some nonprofit that will accost you with any question they judge will trick you into attention). The regular homeless population of Chicago smells terrible, yells, and makes the city feel dangerous enough that no women I know will take the train at night. In contrast, a relatively dignified family looking for work at least has motives that are comprehensible to me, even if I think they’ve made the wrong choice.

It's funny how much this feels like an argument that "the migrants aren't so bad really if you think about whether you'd choose them over what we already have," as though that were a plausible scenario and we won't just have both now. This is interesting rhetoric.

"If you are a person with triggers it means other people can provoke a panic response in you against your will. The severity of the response is frankly immaterial. The point is, they have power over you. And if you're going to operate in this world as equals, you need their word that this power will not be invoked."

(Disclaimer that I know you're not making this argument.)

This seems to map 1:1 with mental illness. Through that lens, anyone could have a powerful and irrational response to anything and of course we all understand — I hope — that global civilization can't entirely rework itself to cater to every individual's specific needs. If the common-sense part of this argument isn't enough, it could be pointed out that those needs are contradictory. The reality is that people are different, and different is inherently unequal, and thus different people cannot operate in the world as equals. This is plain as day to anyone who isn't way up on some kind of blinding ideology.

He also summarized the viewpoint of the Didoer as follows: "Yes I do have power over you... and you should just let me have it."

This is interesting because it makes protecting the experience of the, uh, entriggered person the responsibility of anyone seeking to express themselves at all. A message of "It's your job to improve your life" makes a lot more sense than "It's everyone else's job to improve your life." People with these issues are free and, in my book, even encouraged to agitate for themselves. And the rest of us are free to do the same. The chips fall where they may.

If someone has actual power over you, and that power is intolerable to you, the solution is historically violence. As you suggested earlier, I think, my concern is that something like this ends up being enforced by violence via the state. And, as you say, some people aren't going to be happy with any kind of reasonable compromise.

As always I worry about the power of women's tears in politics.

Can't find it but there was a SSC or LessWrong piece about how the optimal number of motoring deaths is not zero unless we decide it's worth banning motoring altogether.

Speaking of trigger warnings, I can think of a few (admittedly not well thought out) reasons why I may not want trigger warnings that are different from the strawman he used at the start of his video.

Spitballing here (and also I don't care) but given that we're talking about digital content, maybe someone could write a bot that uses AI to review the item and add some reasonable (low-hundreds) list of triggers as metadata, and then the consumer can set their pertinent triggers and automatically receive a warning that they want, whereas everyone else is unaffected.

Again I don't have a horse in this race but this seems workable pretty soon.

In fact, though, I side with those who argue that it's on the consumer to decide what they wish to consume. If there's a market for trigger warnings, well, the market will provide solutions.

I also side with those who suggest that avoiding things which make one uncomfortable (or 'open up' 'past trauma') is a major impediment to the healing process. Trauma-as-identity is a failure mode for human existence and getting over it as quickly as is healthy is imperative. And yes, fwiw I say this as someone with some hard things in my past.

Chinese people hang out with their hands behind their backs all the time. They walk that way too. It's just a thing.

Not the person you're asking, but, I don't think normal people think that way in general, and especially not when the facts are so nebulous to begin with. Leaked tapes and memos about lying to the American people about casus belli are one thing, but here, who's to say that people weren't just sincerely mistaken? After all, that will be the fallback position for those who bought what they were selling, and it's much psychologically easier to write the whole thing off as an honest mistake, since for the followers it was, rather than admitting that anyone was fleeced. No one wants to believe that about themselves and we will go to great lengths to invent and propagate narratives which do not paint ourselves as dupes.

Hey don't call him that. Sheesh, you big city people.

his amoral visions of conquest

What would you say made them amoral?

Well that would be a crime and could be deterred in the usual ways ("What if someone just gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car tho?") except that enforcement would be a political problem because of so many illegal immigrants who can't get insurance.

You might consider that you don't have a very solid grasp on what Christianity is, if that's your definition.

Not certain what he meant but I'm guessing white people.

I've seen several accounts of men in this position who didn't receive any interest until they got their MD at which point it was fish in a barrel.

Is there protocol for that? Is he even eligible at that point? Does he reign from prison? Is he released? Can he release himself? Seems like I should know these things.

Hold on, they subject you to audio ads on the bus?

They'd be a deductible expense for me, so I chuckled and smugly looked them up to-

Yeah, no, not a chance.