VoiceOfLogic
I happen to be, unfortunately, the first human super-intelligence.
What a sad tragedy to see what others can't see.
User ID: 1999
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
You might be interested to read my analysis regarding optimal military hardware composition https://www.themotte.org/post/317/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/56897?context=8#context
So 5x and 2.4x. Which, while not as crazy as multiple of the typical orders of magnitude is still a pretty extreme military advantage.
Right it's not multiple order of magnitudes per se currently, but semantically they are not on the same scale which is my point.
However the multiple order of magnitudes could already be true through attrition,
if we suppose for example that Ukraine has lost 2000 tanks and still has 500, and make no asymetric assumption and therefore suppose ukraine ha lost 2000 tanks and therefore still has 10,500,
10500 / 500 == 21X so one order of magnitude of difference
now the attrition continues 1 year later,
10100 / 100 == 101X, 2 order of magnitudes, see the argument?
still a pretty extreme military advantage
adds to that, that russian tanks are more moderns than the Ukraine ones
and that on frozen fronts like bakhmut or all of the last months, the offender has a major attrition advantage supposedly since Russia has 100X more artillery (let alone precision missiles, and drone superiority)
off topic but I find it kinda weird they didn't manage to make Ukraine army totally incapacited by banning their access to GLONAS.
People also fail to realize that Ukraine has better military hardware than France, UK and germany quality wise.
But quantity wise the difference is beyond crazy, the ignorance of the layman is so strong, France has 200 tanks, UK has 300 tanks
Tank wise, Ukraine could have invaded France and UK 10 times each. 10 France
Ukraine has possibly the best anti-air on earth, etc..
Finally someone on a tribe topic that can answer one of my comments through curiosity and truth-seeking driven questions rather than baseless denial and non-constructiveness.
peak maximally useful military machines are generally from the 70s + a few cheap modernisations on top such as a 1 dollar gps/glonas chip
Are you actually serious about this? Or is it some joke?
I am very serious about this, I have studied most of the Soviet hardware that exists.
Or is it "effectiveness over resources, assuming that soldiers and their training costs nothing"?
? I did not factor training costs much in my analysis but that's not the salient part and anyway training costs and training time (incapaciting inertia) have allegedly massively got up with modern (90s+) hardware especially ineptly for the F-35 and for the Abrams (22 weeks for a tank! although most of it is probably actually unecessary).
The russians tanks brought autoloaders which reduce by 1/5 the number of soldiers needed to operate them but that is only a marginal optimization.
effectiveness over resources
Yes as you've seen I am mentioning economics but not only.
Are you claiming that it applies to such types of military machines as planes, satellites, night vision, AWACS, drones and communication gear?
It applies mostly for the main two salient categories, aircrafts and tanks.
satellites, night vision, AWACS, drones and communication gear
Of course not but those are cheaps and have all mostly plateaued regarding metrics. About AWACS/radars there are still advances needed towards exploiting anti-stealth loopholes but that is a "niche" topic.
For what your claim applies? Definitely not for static machine guns (here peak is earlier), maybe for standard issue riffles. Anything else?
static machine guns
well considering Ukraine is successfully using the Maxim gun from 1884, that can be a valid point.
Little known fact is that USSR has superior machine guns because of a trivial technology, they are propelled by gaz instead of electric cable, that imply that they are transportable instead of fixed, but the main usefulness is that they start to spin and are ready to fire faster. However as with most modern weapons (my salient point) that is only a very marginal optimization that supposedly does'nt make much of a difference.
maybe for standard issue riffles
yes
So about tanks:
The T-72-B3 (from the 70s) are great tanks with an effective shielding, an autoloader which abrams lacks and a larger gun than the abrams too. BTW kinda ridiculous that Abrams lacks explosive reactive armor, which modernized T-72 are getting. However the competition on shielding and gun size has become mostly useless for most purposes, it is trivial to understand that the shielding coverage of a tank only cover specific parts, especially: the gun has zero protection, the turret is a weak point and a tank is useless without a working continuous track. Even on the parts covered with large shielding, it is generally ineffective against an ATGM.
Therefore gun and shielding have reached extreme diminishing returns. However a T-72 cost 5 to 10 times less than a T-90M/Abrams.
That makes T-72 extremely superiors to modern tanks as with the same money and closely comparable effectiveness/survivability (low in both cases) and I can assure you 10000 T-72B3 would destroy 1000 Abrams/T-90M both psychologically and effectively.
It is essential to understand that because the U.S and to a lesser but significant extent Russia fails to realize the plateauing and the non-linearity of economic costs, those countries are actively becoming weaker and weaker militarily.
The T-14 armata is a clever optimization (unmaned turret but with less shielding...) but is probably less effective than a T-90-M if I understand correctly, as while it improves humans survivability, it lowers the tank survivability, which is inept.
About anti-air:
By far the most important anti-air hardware is the S-300 (IIRC the partiots are largely inferior) from the end of the 70s. The S-400 is simply not cost effective and therefore mostly a failure.
about aircrafts:
The same goes on and even more potently,
The SU-25/27 (70s) cost approximately 10 times less than the F-35 while having 2 to 3 times larger payload and almost twice faster max speed. Of course the F-35 is stealth but with its prohibitive cost, stealth paint maintenance, very small payload, probably doable stealth loopholes (SU 27 have IRST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_search_and_track, SU-35 have L bands radars, etc.. or simply optics)
The SU-75 is an interesting development regarding costs but still very high https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-75_Checkmate
The F-35 even has a x band signature, with some machine learning/hardcoded recognition software, given its static structure, I'd bet even without said loophole it is very much doable to make its stealthless useless. Besides, it becomes detectable as soon as it deploy its weapons.
But the best way to take down a F-35 would be to deploy 1 0 0 0 0 0 loitering drones at 1000 dollars piece, after all that's exactly the cost of an F-35 and they are as much optically visible and loud as your regular aircraft.
For those reasons investing in a large army of SU-25/27 is much less risky than a few F-35 with probably soon to be broken stealthness, however given the extreme sucess of S-300 and other SOTA anti-air, one should be lucid and understand that the SU-25/27 are also obsolete and that we should mostly return to extremely cheap turboprop WW-2 style aircrafts.
Such planes can be made to have modern variants optimized for cost at aproximately between 0.1 to 1 million dollars, therefore costing less than the modern anti air missiles and having increased maneuvrability/reusable weapons vs drones.
Both drones and those planes very ironically are said to be stealth for X-rays, as they can fly low, fly "slowly" and are more stealth than F-35 X ray only stealth, as they have smaller hitboxes and low thermal signature (against ISRT). The same way birds are actually stealth.
Thus they could ironically have increased survivability against S-300 and ATGMs vs the SU-25/27, but most importantly they are so cheap they can be replenished quickly and do psychological and tactical swarm.
In that regard, at a 1000 vs 1 ratio, it is plausible that aircrafts have peaked in the 50s.
Moreover, those planes could have even better stealthness and dramatically reduced cost by making them out of wood, like many of the very sucessfull WW2 USSR airplanes.
It is important to realize though that those planes should still be modernized variants regarding avionics/radars. And that air to air missiles have not peaked in the 70s, and despite the significant cost increase putting very long range missiles on those remarkably cheap planes can be very worthwile and is trivial.
Another thing to realize is that turboprop planes can be quite fast actually, if made with contra-rotating propellers, a technology that has only seen the light after turboprops were no longer trendy see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
What I believe the most in though would be drones with guns such as https://www.businessinsider.com/israel-drone-that-can-fire-a-sniper-rifle-while-flying-developed-2022-1?r=US&IR=T
In fact it is doable and has been done to design hardware and software stabilizers for guns on drones.
Guns are disruptively superior to missiles since you can only have a very small amount of missiles on a drone but can have a lot of gun ammo.
Add to that the cheap cost of a swarm of 10000000 of those drones and you supposedly insta-win a war.
To understand that properly, one has to observe a few things:
- war performance is autistic. Nothing like on the movies, humans are rightfully afraid of dying thus they are not actively focusing on killing others but on intimidating others and reducing their exposure. People with guns, aircrafts, helicopters, it doesn't matter it's all the same, haven't you realized it yet? They all do fake shots in the background.
A couple of periodic rounds/fire all day long in a given vague angular direction. It maintains the enemy at bay but to precisely aim at others needs to expose yourself to too much risk. Therefore the reality of war is mostly dumb firing at nothing.
This disruptively change with a drone with a gun, a currently non-existent concept in ukraine. Because the drone operator mostly don't care if the cheap drone is destructed. Most videos of drones are autistic to watch, they really take their time to drop one little grenade unacurately that might kill one guy and gone is the payload the drone needs to be refueled.. despite soldiers being AFK and completely unaware their is a drone right above their heads.
With a gun and a stabilizer, you can multiply the number of kills per drone by 10X-100X, especially compounding the innovative psychological terror.
All my points, the extreme diminishing returns of military performance metrics of most hardware classes, the extreme non-linear increase in cost, and low industrial production capabilities and the superiority of cheap swarming and of non-human fear impaired aiming, each of those individual 4 points are basic and are enough to disrupt the effectiveness of military powers.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
You seriously believe Russia will run out of tanks before Ukraine?
I'd love to know where you read that, because it wasn't in my post.
You are very clearly implying that,
The TL;DR is that Ukraine has burned through
You answered originally about a statement that Ukraine is suffering major hardware attrition (implied including tanks)
if this is the level of analysis on offer, it's beyond worthless.
The fact that Ukraine will loose the war abruptly (even non-linearly) is trivial and will happen when they e.g. mostly run out of tanks.
This analysis while simple is not worthless but quite obvious and potent and also at this rate will happen in less than 2 years.
Russia too has "burned through" much of their advanced equipment
Your "too" make it seems as if the losses are proportionately comparable, they're largely not since russia has much more reserves, and not just 1960s stuff. Besides contrary to popular belief 60s tanks are still effective. In most cases even modern shielding is insufficent against an ATGMs and therefore useless. It's more a number game.
- This is not an indication that anyone is "winning" or "losing"
Russia is winning the attrition war even though at great losses, and therefore it is an indication that russia will win (if western countries do not send massive amounts of tanks)
So yes you clearly implied that Russia will not win the attrition war.
the purity thinking that modern military machines transcend the old ones is very common and childish.
Once again, you're reading things I didn't write.
You said that idea in a mild form and it is the default mental belief in online forums:
mothballed shit from the '50s and '60s. Of course Ukraine wants good weapons, rather than the outdated military
The difference in effectiveness is extremely overatted however my argument mostly stand for the 70s, less so for the 50/60s but still stands.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
So what the worlwide coalition in the gulf war managed to destroy Irak air defense quickly and that allows you to generalize from a single event to the U.S having a power that make it transcend Russia performance in Ukraine? What is this imaginary magic technology they have that disrupt their abilties? None, you are just wishful thinkingly over-generalizing.
I have not extensively studied Irak military but:
-
They had osbolete air-defense, zero S-300..
-
I have heard that the Irakis aircrafts pilots universally refused to fly, no will to fight what a joke
“When United States and coalition forces invaded Iraq in 2003 [during Operation Iraqi Freedom], they faced no Iraqi Air Force opposition. Not one Iraqi warplane attacked the invaders as they proceeded toward Baghdad,” Daniel L. Haulman, PhD Air Force Historical Research Agency.
It seems they didn't use air force significantly in gulf war either.
- probably not enough modern ATGMs and probably no GLONAS/GPS
So Irak air defense and will to fight was basically in practice a joke, not something comparable to Ukraine in any realistic way.
Note though that during the Vietnam war, North Vietnam even with virtually no air force managed to take down a crazy high number of U.S planes: 8,540 + 1,351 allied
Nato could turn Russia into a parkinglot in a couple weeks.
A groundless childish fiction based on a weak and uncomparable single event with zero a priori argument, the only one would be the 100 million dollars "stealth" F-35 on which I call bullshit as being not enough to disrupt a war especially considering their weak payloads, maintenance burden and vast detectability loopholes. Besides that point U.S and russian hardware are largely comparable in most cases.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
It is obvious colonization ironically massively sped up those countries IDH/economic growth over long term however that should not occlude the probable fact that most colonizers don't wanted to significantly invest in the growth of their colonies, especially education.
Had them significantly tried to have an utilitarian impact on those countries their economic development gradient would have been far different and with difficult to quantify but not necessarily unknowable ramifications such as e.g. say, make the third world reach occident economic and IDH parity before the 21st century.
It is interesting in that regard, to follow the increasingly war-like economic agressions the hegemonic U.S are making towards China.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Russian demands currently include destroying Ukrainian nation
I'm pretty sure if Ukraine willingly gave the rest of the donbass, made public statements about becoming neutral towards the russian culture and interests, including allowing russian to be taught again in schools, russia would make peace.
The issue with the dehumanization of the orcs and with the tribal manicheanization of russian interests that the western media and people parrot is that despite having some elements of truths, overall obviously leads to a criminal utilitarian disaster of continued intense human lives and economic attrition.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
Quite beautifully written comment :}
Would you happen to live in France? If so maybe we could meet IRL as fellow rationalists!
Personally I think russophobia, sinophobia and their dehumanizations are here to stay and existed throughout the last century.
In fact I don't see the propaganda machine turning on other civilizations, Russia and China are and will continue to be, increasingly so, the main threats to U.S hegemony.
Now a large part or maybe even most of Ukrainians and Russians hate each other
I don't think we know that. Even though population opinions should be observable in real time over the internet, in reality they're not for those countries.
I suppose that the majority of people on echo chamber subreddits like /r/ukraina are either non Ukrainian or are for the most part, Ukrainian not living in Ukraine.
The chronology of events that led to the coup and to the war is quite simple and a human living in Ukraine should be able to understand the major responsibility of the "west" and of the trivially undemocratic governments post 2014.
They have among other things seen by themselves the unilateral censorship.
I suppose most Ukrainian cannot say what they truly think without fear of going to jail.
However one should not underestimate the potent power of repeated unilateral propaganda and pressure on the layman's mind and it's possible the cognitive dissonance has become so strong that they truly developed for the majority, spoonfed russophobia despite their knowledge of the events chain.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
It is important to understand that it is trivial to cure COVID since day 1, the rationalist diaspora, like the medical diaspora are simply extremely illiterate in pharmacology. In retrospect, it seems people litterate in pharmacology are extremely rare.
You can either solve age induced immunosuppression/thymus involution via thymalin OR potently block viroporins OR potently downregulate/block ACE2 receptors OR block/downregulate any other related necessary component in the virus reproduction/action chain.
As a bonus you can also block the toxicity including cytokine storm.
That's 3 independently sufficent class of action mechanisms which all have existing pharmaceuticals.
Hi TIRM,
I believe most "incurable" diseases have their best treatment (not necessarily a complete cure but better than existing) already found 30 years ago but since then completely ignored.
It is fascinating how self victimizing (sorry for the offense but it morally needs to be said) victims of chronic disease are. They just simply believe it is a fatality and trust so called "experts" practitioners that are pubmed illiterate and don't actually give a fuck about your condition.
A victim of a chronic disease should for him and for others systematically try most of the treatment candidates and especially all the treatment that have a negligible rate of serious non-transient side effects.
A disease being considered incurable generally simply means epistemologically that nobody has yet attempted said systematic experimentation.
In many cases nobody will for the centuries to come.
So IIRC from my meta research, for tinnitus the best thing to do is indeed to prevent it, e.g. by taking NAC.
Once the damage is done, NAC does not help. However if your tinnitus is degenerative, NAC will probably reduce the long term worsening.
Now about treatments for someone that already has a (stable) chronic tinnitus:
Firstly about the palliatives:
People use benzos/gabaergics for tinnitus AKA gaba-A subtypes.
I would consider experimenting with Etifoxine (+TUDCA and look at CYP interactions) instead as an alternative with apparently less tolerance building.
Note that a benzo addiction reversal can be accelerated with (Imidazenil or flumazenil? Don't recall) but that process is possibly neurotoxic and ironically ototoxic.
Now about the real treatments:
Unfortunately for you I have forgotten about many things regarding this condition.
Tinnitus is in essence of special form of excitotoxicity.
Therefore the use or gabaergics is probably not only palliative but also to some extent therapeutic as the excitotoxicity possibility drive a worsening over time.
Unfortunately gaba A and B are subject to relatively quick tolerance.
As I said optimality in tolerance reversal and in tolerance building is to fine tune, e.g. Etifoxine.
One could also alternate between gaba A and B or between A subtypes via biased agonism. This might however not necessarily work well and induce cross tolerances although I do believe alternating A and B is not absurd.
GABA also has other receptors which is the point of Etifoxine since it target the mitochondria gaba receptor (although its upregulation of neurosteroids do agonise gaba A and (B?) IIRC)
As said playing with the half life might alter the speed of tolerance building.
There exist other GABA receptors, IIRC tofisopam partially potentiate GABA Y and without tolerance but how useful that is is an unknown.
Tofisopam while having questionable effectivenes as a gabaergic has studies showing it as useful being a potentiator, an augmentation to benzos effectiveness while allowing to reduce tolerance increase.
Also there are alternative ways to induce gabaergy, e.g releasing agent, reuptake agent, prodrug, catabolize inhibitor, etc
However the main salient thing is to look at other beyond gabaergy is the other complementary ways to reduce excitotoxicity.
The #1 to try IMHO (not by potenty but by likelyhood of being useful) would be an NMDA antagonist such as Memantine.
Then maybe concomitantly a calcium blocker.
I have no knowledge in AMPA blockers/negative allosteric modulators.
Kainate and glurs would probably be toxic.
I haven't looked into it but Glycine 4g sounds helpful since it is inhibitory.
You could also play with the secondary messenger inositol at megadoses (unsure about side effect profile), that is an atypical effective anxyolitic and possibility an atypical promising tinnitus treatment.
You could play with vasodilation e.g. Cialis.
Finally you could play with synaptotrophics such as magnesium l threonate.
However of all of that, except for GABAERGY, NMDA antagonism and maybe vasodilation, I don't know empirical studies about those on tinnitus. I conjecture those would be useful based on my expertise. Especially curious about inositol or maybe sigmaergics like opipramol or lthreonate or Etifoxine.
Synaptotrophics are the only really potentially dangerous class, which they are usually not but tinnitus is special so..
The japaneses have however beyond conjectures, empirically found ones that apparently works.
Wether those results reproduce is something you should confirm us.
I would try first Bifemelane
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jibirin1925/86/12/86_12_1799/_article
This drug is very interesting, it is a RIMA so the best class of antidepressants, with very minor side effects contrary to MAOIs, see e.g moclobemide or pirazidol.
I don't know any online seller of it.
So you best chance is a trip to Japan for a month or to convince Vanuatu international pharma to get it (good luck..) or to find a cooperative Japanese guy or to ask a japan e-pharma to get it, e.g. contact
I think it is the most interesting tinnitus treatment candidate.
I don't think that another RIMA would work though, there is probably something special about bifemelane. But maybe you could try if you have nothing else to try, moclobemide.
Then we have very ironically tofisopam, with a very high efficacy score
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jibirin1925/82/1/82_1_133/_article
You should definitely try it. I doubt it reproduce but I mean the efficacy score is record high, the side effect profile and cost negligible and the action mechanism (special PDE inhibition and GABA Y) is actually unique in the world.
Titrate dose slowly up to the study dose and if no results above up to the max dose (300 IIRC?)
Wait for 5 weeks before concluding about no efficacy.
And then report back.
I would recommend getting the official brand OTC e.g. on rupharma dot com
Then after trying tofisopam I would try the many other compounds that have positive efficacy results albeit milders
E.g. IIRC pge1
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/result/global/-char/en?globalSearchKey=Treatment+of+Tinnitus
And also not just pharmacology but behaviours such as
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/audiology1968/44/3/44_3_163/_article/-char/en
Edit:
There's also atypical non drug based pharmacological actions,
Such as tVNS
And
tDCS
https://bmcneurosci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12868-018-0467-3
BTW not a treatment but an underused palliative for sleep would be ASMR
Then if nothing of all tolerable treatments that have been empirically found over the last decades does bot work for you then I would consider actively joining clinical trials or preclinical trials or to ask for the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-try_law
You could also become an expert and conjecture yourself an priori optimal polypharmacology like I did but better than I did since I haven't studied the precise nature of the excitotoxicity/long term potentiation.
E.g if it was epigenetic then one would consider e.g. HDAC inhibitors
EDIT
this action mechanism seems potent
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17221143/
EDIT additional treatments:
for pge1
"Misoprostol"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136369/#::text=treatments%20(217).-,Misoprostol,-Misoprostol%20(Cytotec%C2%AE)%20is
"However, the combination of sulpiride plus melatonin, which interacts with dopamine receptors, reduced tinnitus visual analog scale scores significantly more than placebo (275–277). In a single-blind, placebo-controlled study, sulpiride plus hydroxyzine, an antihistamine and anxiolytic, was significantly more effective in reducing tinnitus visual analog scale and tinnitus perception scores than placebo or sulpiride alone (278)."
Edit:
Potassium channel modulators looks interesting
Vigabatrin too despite possibly permanent side effect profile
Gacyclidine could be better than Memantine
Same for neramexane and AM-101
I guess one should try all tolerable nmda antagonists to find the one that works best on him
It's possible that nmda antagonists take time to show effectiveness
See e.g this atypical one
Acamprosate had no beneficial effects after 30 days of treatment, a modest benefit at 60 days and a significant effect at 90 days.
Nice resource btw
https://github.com/aioue/tinnitus-treatments/blob/master/to-be-sorted.md
"2.2.5. Primidone"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8235102/#::text=day%20%5B33%5D.-,2.2.5.%20Primidone,-Primidone%20is%20an
"Furosemide"
"Intratympanic Steroid Injection"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8235102/#::text=2.12.9.%20Steroids%3A-,Intratympanic%20Steroid%20Injection,-Intratympanically%20injected%20steroids
With so many treatments and the obvious potent synergies between them, I strongly believe you can strongly reduce your tinnitus.
TL;DR
Start with tofisopam, Etifoxine and pge1.
Etifoxine must be taken with TUDCA and ideally liver enzymes should be monitored although optional.
Verify about the cyp interaction iirc tofisopam and Etifoxine inhibit the
saying a lot of dumb stuff yourself
Please exemplify you have shown none.
Did I approve Mao policy choices?
No.
The state of this discussion on the motte is very worrying epistemologically.
You are thinking of me as an imaginary strawman with imaginary claims.
This is beyond absurd, this thread is fictional.
I bet the "lot of dumb stuff" is the imaginary strawman of approving Mao decisions.
I could analyze (not defend) the reasoning behind the killing of the four pests, which wanted to reduce the significant amount of wasted food. It backfired for sparrows unfortunately, it was a task done too fast and with too little risk aversion/metrology and was a factor in the great famine, among drought/natural causes and the reallocation of some farmers to working in the steel industry to increase the country GDP and attempt to put it out of extreme misery.
The human errors and the natural disaster cofactors of the great Chinese famine needs not to be analyzed.
You are completely missing the outstanding efficiency of my argumentation.
The Great Chinese famine was a temporary reduction of crop yields by 15%, up to a very short lived 30% reduction at its peak.
Do you understand this is a small effect?
My initial claim is: who bears the main (and sufficent) responsability for the great Chinese famine.
Non-malicious human errors + drought that led to a short-lived 15-30% reduction in crop yields or the West voluntary ban of technology and of fertilizers on China since decades and for decades?
Is it hard to understand that fertilizers have effects on crop yields much superior to 30% and probably above 100%?
Is it hard to understand modal logic and that the criminal, coercive fertilizer ban is a logically sufficient cause that would have totally prevented the Great Chinese Famine?
The exact same thing apply for the ban on machines to increase yields, and the ban on food exports.
No, basic modal logic is not hard to understand.
The motte community is here being very dysfunctional and that is very worrying regarding its epistemic quality.
Another thing to observe:
The great Chinese famine should not hide the potent fact that millions were dying of food hunger consistently in the years/decade preceding it. No need for the great leap forward for that.
The trade embargo was sufficient
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
then it pretty much falsifies, like, this whole community.
Can you expand on that ?
I am new here so I don't know exactly what you mean and what are the main beliefs of the motte community.
You could mean that a deficit of ideologies in this era would invalidate the motte in general ? Don't think so.
I believe you might have meant that such lack of ideologies would invalidate the notion of culture wars? If so I see what you mean.
So let me constrain my initial statement:
There is no shortage of tribes/groupthink, although some groupthinks have fuzzy/approximate delineations and have not necessarily core identities.
Some tribes do have well scoped ideologies, e.g the feminists/masculinists/egalitarianists.
Some tribes have well scoped beliefs such as flat earthers, but their belief is not an ideology per se, it is not a mindset/mental framework, nor is it a theory that desire to alter society for a "greater good".
Some tribes do have unscoped/universal ideologies though, such as the rationalists/homo logicus.
There is no shortage of beliefs, especially polarizing ones.
One could have thought the advent of the internet would uniformize mankind as in since everyone has easy access to information, people would gradually converge to semi-consensus as to what constitute reality.
There are many explaining factors that explain why people tribalize, polarize and can't assimilate what others says, including cognitive biases, and that is a too rich topic for me to analyze it in this comment.
Fringe theories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_theory) are very interesting as they represent the frontier of science/knowledge.
Some do have key insights or have had scientific value, for example Lysenkoism.
So if we have more than ever, tribes, polarization and fringe theories/beliefs, what did I mean by
I think we live in an era that has a void of ideology, narratives and utopia.
As I implied, here I have a specific meaning for the term ideologies, the keyword being to ones related to utopia.
The salient message I have is a classic and relatable one, that we live in an era of disenchantment.
The previous centuries, despite all their factual horrors, were filled with a high pace of progress and strong ideologies that made people dream of a better future.
For example:
The advent of democracies,
liberalism,
communism,
and socialism.
Regarding the pace of progress, every single metric of quality of life got improved, medecine, education, transports, socialization, etc
After each ideologies came their implementations and with time, their flaws and limitations got revealed to the world.
Nowadays we have a bitter but realistic look at past ideologies, and a deficit of new ideologies to sell a new dream/utopia.
Concomittant to this is an extreme plateau regarding scientific progress. The number of patents and papers each year is increasing fast and has never been that big, and yet the reality is we are constrained by the immutable laws of physics and we hit considerable diminishing returns everywhere.
There are many reasons to be afraid of the future, so many in fact that I can't be exhaustive about it.
Be it climate deregulation, the insane coming scarcity of chemical elements, the escalation of military and economic tensions worlwide and the risk of pandemics or the fact ageing is not considered to be a disease, to say a few.
The other side of the coin is that, yes we live in a modern world that give us a lot of abilities and yet there are fundamental things technology currently doesn't solves.
Humans are not happy enough. Most lives are utterlerly wasted being dysfunctional. That's right everyone has a mental disease, the fact it's not recognized as one by the medical system is irrelevant and does not invalidate the fact we all have it.
For starters, the diagnostic for ADHD is based on magic numbers for the tresholds, I've seen papers showing that with slighly lower thresholds, ADHD can be diagnosed to ~20% of mankind.
But the real disease concern 100% of mankind. We have a lot of time and we spend it ineptly. Humans are victim of hypnosis, a lack of awareness, very deficient memories regarding their qualias, low available memory, low eugeroy, low volition and of a potent hedonic treadmill.
As such humans waste most of their lives.
Again a topic out of scope for this comment.
In addition to this, people suffer from a loneliness epidemic and a recession in friendship relatability and intensity worldwide.
Mankind needs a new ideology, a new utopia.
Not a new sect/religion, not a new unrealistic dream, but an actionable vision that would bring revolutionnary results and hope in this misery.
People wants to feel like Chaplin made them feel https://youtube.com/watch?v=J7GY1Xg6X20
I have theorized a third way, a new power allocation system (a cracy) with results not only in politics but in recommender systems too, as would underdstand the people that ask themselves the right questions. I also have theorized a successor to capitalism. I develop a pragmatic way to AGI with incremental goals, I am the only one to have a precise and complete roadmap to increasing significantly men healthspan and lifespan.
I could go on with my works, why me ? Why if anyone finds a way to disrupts the world will it be me? Because I have not stopped dreaming, and yet I am a true rationalist. Very few people on earth follow simultaneously those two requirements.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
This is a great yet very incomplete list. For starters children should be taught epistemology, cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
I strongly believe true rationalistic genius has a critical period and this is why it is so scarce worldwide.
VoiceOfLogic
6mo ago
I have no idea but one thing I always wondered is wether a person that only present so called negative symptoms should be classified as schizophrenic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia#:~:text=activity.%5B7%5D-,Negative%20symptoms,-Negative%20symptoms%20are IMHO there is great diversity in symptomatology and imho the root causes can be very different such as different brain regions being subject to damage/dysfunctions
VoiceOfLogic
6mo ago
Nobody will push the science forward the world will keep being nearly maximally inept, both this century and for the others to come. As you correctly say, the economic incentives are beyond malevolent but most importantly, the pharma enterprises are simply extremely mediocre and their complacency, like worlwide suffering will perpetuate. The insane mediocrity is simply a product of the extreme absence of education during the human's brain-formative years (so called critical periods). Only a few artifact outliers like me can contemplate the contemporary horror in its fullest depth.
VoiceOfLogic
7mo ago
The narrative uniformness and changes might seem like there is a complotist illuminati-like scheme that would dictate covertly what can medias says. This is obviously not a thing actually. I mean some investigative journalists have been killed or jailed either by Ukraine or by the West because they were too contra-narrative (e.g. covering IRL the referendum in occupied ukraine or the ukraine war crimes on dombas civilians). Despite this fact, those are annecdotal in the greater POV) Medias are also mostly controlled by a very limited oligarchy, however there exist outliers to this rule. But the main explanation is that those narrative uniformness and changes, are simply due to the extreme and universal mediocrity of journalists as human beings. They are expert in nothing and haven't even been trained for cognivive debiasing/rationality. Add to this, that very few people on earth (so few we don't see them online, if they exist at all (aside me) understand modern warfare. And no, historians are non-credible. But for the most things you report, e.g. the orc dehumanization or turning russia capabilities in ridicule, were not, I believe mostly reported by "serious" media (wapo, forbes, etc). Of course /r/worldnews is not an accurate representation of the world news and is a cringey echo chamber. The "serious" medias such as forbes have although built a narrative of western superiority and wunderwaffe which stem from many biases but most importantly come from a failure of understanding what matters in modern warfare. Currently Ukraine is inflicting 2 times the equipment losses on russia and still has large amounts of ex-soviet equipment, however the balance will quickly shift as lancet production scales up and it is a fact that ukraine will have lost 100% of its artillery in less than 8 months
VoiceOfLogic
8mo ago
There is also the excellent french yt channel Axolotl
VoiceOfLogic
8mo ago
Indeed toxicity can be non-linear with the dose. Btw I made this comment on the point that thc has less observable toxicity than alcohol https://www.themotte.org/post/658/smallscale-question-sunday-for-september-3/136506?context=8#context
VoiceOfLogic
8mo ago
But if so why are so many gays into the twink/femboy aesthethic?
VoiceOfLogic
8mo ago
Indeed men becoming gay/bi/trans will considerably increase given the male dysmorphia dynamic being set by women on the dating scene. However asexuality might increase by just as much, it is still an empirical open question IMO
VoiceOfLogic
10mo ago
what's the point of this versus reddit truerateme and similar? (to be fair true rate me has a cringe craniometric notation scheme but there are other subreddits)
I'm pretty sure research/epistemology as a service is a viable untapped market.
The reality though is that people are not looking for the next big thing, people might pretend they do but they don't, MTAs and thymus involution for example are very little talked about the same goes for KEAP inhibitors. Humans are simply too scientifically illiterate to discover them and meta-researchers like me are an almost extinct specie
VoiceOfLogic
10mo ago
IIRC some forms of magnesium are less laxative
VoiceOfLogic
11mo ago
The motte is not contrarian enough or only on few or surface topics. I continuously see ad-nauseam people here be blind to many mainstream mental attractors that trap their mind and either distort their thinking process or even make them incousiously abandon the thinking process altogether, like a brain deactivation.
Besides the level of effort, caring, cognitive flexibility and most importantly intellectual genuine curiosity is appaling, I once wished this website to be the only place on the internet where I could meet my peers but alas I am long past this delusion.
VoiceOfLogic
1yr ago
though if you search directly on the website you won't find them, you need to go on google, and do a specific site search like
Thank you so much for this!! I have been looking at indiamart for years but it never occured to me there would be hidden results, how does that even make senses? Why are they hosting results if they're not meant to be shown? Doesn't make senses to me but its true.
Then you suffer from a very potent information exposure black hole, thankfully you can see the other side of the coin on https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport
example of great footage probably downvoted to hell and therefore hidden on combatfootage
https://old.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/10muegb/ru_pov_a_single_russian_t72b3_with_artillery/
IMO that's a very great footage to contemplate how inept war performance is in the real world.
(not saying that Ukraine soldiers are more inept than russian ones, but that all are, confused, maximizing their survival and fake firing in the general direction) This observation has major implications.
but this subreddit most potent usefulness is not showing ukrainian losses but that it allows to be much more informed about issues in Ukraine, including human rights abuses, accounts of government corruption, etc.
More options
Context Copy link