aiislove
8d ago
Oooooooh this comment is so far away from my personal suspicions and understanding of things that I'm fascinated to see it written out like this. Apparently you are anti blank slatism and I am very anti blank slate as well but we seem to have completely opposite assumptions and terminal end goals in this.
the blank slate progressive is influenced to believe in the superiority of African Americans.
I don't see this at all. In my views, blank slate progressives are the ones who absolutely prioritize the "Soft Status" of my original theory over any kind of hard status. They are first conditioned not to notice ANY physical advantages of black people over whites, and this only strengthens their conviction that the poor blacks are ONLY victims in ANY circumstance because they do worse in every single category of soft status that they (the progressives) value- test scores, iq tests, academic achievement, wage payments, career advancement, you name it. This is what gives the progressive stack its power- to paint the minorities as the eternal victim. Instead what I propose is that black people have their own strengths, which are not the strengths of the PMC class, and that this is actually completely dignified on its own terms, and to try to prop up the academic achievements of a people not predisposed to these strengths is firstly humiliating toward black people, secondarily dehumanizing toward them, thirdly a waste of time, and fourthly demeaning to the rest of humanity as well. Indeed the arrogance of the white progressive that it takes to even imagine doing this makes me queazy and begin to imagine them all as Icarus circling ever closer toward the sun without an ounce of suspicion that their wings are about to melt.
An internalized ideology of genetic blank-slatism will always lead to an intuitively-held belief in the inferiority of Whites, who are historically evil
This doesn't make sense at all to me... If you believe in blank slate you believe that whites are exactly the same as blacks. On the other hand I believe white people, and indeed Asian people, intuitively hold the belief in their inferiority when they find themselves as victims of black crime or feel anxiety when black people are around, because they are bigger scarier and more aggressive etc than smaller weaker people. My family has lived in the midwest for generations and the ones who kept living in increasingly black areas were buying more and more guns and becoming increasingly paranoid of black crime because they lived with its effects every day, meanwhile my family members who have moved out of those areas simply don't live with that fear and paranoia to the same degree.
So, that variety of white progressive who loves hip hop and considers Blacks oppressed is all but forced to consider his own group inherently inferior
I can imagine becoming this person only if I was absolutely positive that my group (whites) was superior to black people. If there was a 1000000% superior race out there and I was running around telling people how much I loved them, that would be so crazy. If there was a group that I saw as inferior and I ran around telling people how much I loved them, I would be getting so many brownie points from everybody. Which describes progressivism more accurately? I think white progressives only hold their beliefs out of a deep sense of arrogance and certainty in their own superiority, and of the inferiority of blacks. Anything that would truly point to an axis of power that holds blacks as more powerful (say in sports achievement) can only shake the foundations of the progressive worldview. They need to have a perpetual victim.
This worldview can only be corrected with the science of genetics and the belief in the superiority of civilization.
That worldview can only be corrected with more real world experience, acceptance of nature, respect for humanity and differences, and less ridiculous hubris, rather than a thin veneer of science and shallow morals that teach us something outside the realm of physical experience and history.
aiislove
10d ago
My rankings are subjective and I'm not married to any of them. If we all filled out the chart with the same people we'd probably all have everybody in (slightly to wildly) different positions, especially considering different people move throughout their lives and as others pointed out can depend on the situation or social surroundings.
Also, come on. Is Ellen really more powerful than Oprah? No one thinks that.
I think that, if I was serving them in some context I'd probably give creepy Ellen whatever she wanted while I'd be inclined to openly roll my eyes in Oprah's face. I think Ellen commands more respect than Oprah based mostly on their vibes and appearances. Oprah seems more haughty and irritating while Ellen seems like she'd keep the interaction on a more professional level which translates to more soft power.
aiislove
10d ago
Lots of women have the same thing going on - they may want to be rich, clever, happily married etc. but in the moment they are far more emotionally validated by evidence that they are hot.
Are you sure about this? Do any women on this site want to share their experiences? I genuinely don't know if women think this way, because if I swap the genders it seems 100% true but I suspect women are less obsessed with being hot than men are, and are happier with soft status qualities like wealth, cleverness and happiness in marriage and so on. Personally as a man I don't really care about the secondary soft status I just want to be hot and loved for my intrinsic qualities rather than any sort of skill, virtue or prowess
aiislove
10d ago
Ah, yes, I just skimmed this page but it seems like this is very much what I was trying to describe. I was wondering if anyone else had teased it out before, I'll look into this. Thank you
aiislove
10d ago
I am not married to the quadrant names, I had considered Barbarian for that quadrant but thought the term was more politically charged than Caveman which is more politically neutral so I went with that one
aiislove
10d ago
Oops, I meant Charles III. My bad
Not all starlets migrate that way, I even said that Britney went from Princess to Whore and is either at Whore or Hag. Anyone can go any way on the chart depending on the way they move in terms of hard and soft power, it's just easier and more common for people to follow a certain path, because of age and experiences that lead to a certain direction of progression. You could say it is "the same status" in the sense that they are on the chart in the same way or you could say it is "not the same status" in the sense that it is different qualities leading to different positions in different times of their life etc.
aiislove
10d ago
Try a VPN or something? If anyone knows a better alternative than imgur I'll reupload there instead
aiislove
10d ago
The multi-dimensionality of soft status that modern society presents is a shimmering hologram that all collapses into nothing in my lived experience. I never feel truly gratified by soft status at the end of the day, whether it's through my intelligence or social class or anything else. Only the hard status power gratifies me really.
I do think that there is dignity in soft status if you can not compete at hard status- like a relative I know who suffered from cancer and lost hard power, I don't want to take away her dignity in soft status. I will admit that it is valuable in that way. I think I spent too much of my earlier life seeking soft status without seeing hard status and am overcorrecting toward hard status now.
aiislove
10d ago
Status operates on two axes, and in slightly different ways for men and women.
Refer to these two charts.
Hard status for men is measured in physical power that exists as an extension of nature. This is, essentially, the kind of power that the man alone in the jungle wields. This is measured in a combination of physical strength, height, masculinity, physical presence, muscularity, weight, aggression, age, and any other number of tangible, measurable physical characteristics.
Hard status for women is similar, in that it reflects a tangible physical reality, however the basis of judgment is different. For women, hard status is measured in sex appeal, beauty, charisma, charm, cuteness, fertility, height, size, and any other number of tangible physical characteristics.
Soft status for men and women operates the same. Soft status refers to anything outside of the physical that is useful for manipulation of others. Money, class, intellectualism, luxury beliefs, high status values, intelligence, persuasion, word and resource access and manipulation- these are many of the qualities that make up soft status.
I’ve already filled in the charts with some examples of people and where they sit. I have mostly just imagined the most extreme types of each person and then filled in with random interesting people between them- you could move the 0,0 point somewhere else and categorize people differently if you have a different set of examples but these are the people who came to mind as most illustrative of my theory.
For men, the four quadrants are labeled The Saint, The King, The Outcast, and The Caveman.
The Saint represents a man with high soft status but low hard status. The most extreme example is Stephen Hawking, a quadriplegic whose life work was entirely abstract. Religious men with modest physicalities are other Saints. Liberace, a man with little sex appeal but lots of luxury, is a Saint. Anderson Cooper and Elijah Wood are pretty men, though Anderson’s class lends him higher soft status compared with Elijah whose height and hobbitness place him lower on the scale of soft status.
The King is a man with high soft status as well as high hard status. He is best exemplified today by Prince William, who is strapping and, being next in line to the throne of the UK, very high in soft status. Trump is a King, despite the abstract hatred of him from intellectuals, because his vibe says King. King Charles II, a bit old and wishy-washy, is literally a King, but less so than others. Certain elegant men and admired athletes as well as traditional father figures also lie in the King quadrant.
The Caveman is someone who has high hard status but low soft status. The most extreme example is Fred Flintstone (or really, a stereotypical caveman might be better, but I couldn’t think of one.) He is very powerful, but his power is entirely physical, being forced to work under the higher soft status boss in his day job. Strong, violent athletes with little soft power belong in this quadrant. Handsome actors without much cache, powerful Middle Eastern men often belong in this category (from the viewpoint of white christendom.)
The Outcast is a man with low soft status as well as low hard status. The most extreme examples are Adam Lanza and TJ Lane- but any school shooter will do. Michael Jackson and Jeffrey Dahmer also fit the bill. Most trans men, short and cuddly, lie somewhere in this area. They are unthreatening to power, generally.
The quadrants for women are The Queen, The Princess, The Hag, and The Whore.
The Queen has high soft power and low hard power. She is best exemplified by Ellen Degeneres: Creepy, mannish, cold, vampiric, and really unsexual. Oprah, Anna Wintour and Tilda Swinton are similarly Queens. Girl bosses like Laverne Cox and Nicki Minaj exist as Queens. Bette Davis is a queen on account of her unfortunate looks. Betty Friedan is close to the Hag, but her luxurious beliefs in feminism push her over the edge into Queen territory.
The Princess has high soft power and high hard power. Kate Middleton is the best example of the Princess today. She is literally a princess, with beauty and soft power. Jackie Kennedy and Melania Trump are also Princesses. Andreja Pejic, a trans woman, could be in a similar position to Laverne Cox, but is more beautiful and gets less points for diversity, and is thus further to the right and further down on the chart.
The Whore is a woman high in hard power but low in soft power. Internet celebrities Danielle Bregoli (You remember her- the Catch Me Outside Dr. Phil girl) and Woahvicky (known for her bizarre accent) are the most extreme examples of the Whore- they are sexy and don’t have much soft status to speak of. Snooki, Mae West, Trisha Paytas, Marilyn Monroe- they all fall somewhere in this quadrant.
The Hag is a women with low hard power and low soft power. I had a hard time thinking of real life examples of these women, as generally, the lower a woman has in hard power, she tends to be raised up in terms of soft power by other women. Andrea Dworkin is quite ugly and I’d place her in Hag territory even though her feminist beliefs are very high status for women. Fictional characters like Strangers with Candy’s Jerri Blank and Reno 911’s Trudy Wiegel are good examples of the Hag.
Where would you place Meghan Markle? I don’t really like her. I could see her in any quadrant of the four, so I put her near the middle.
Throughout our lives, we may change position on the chart. For example, Christina Aguilera in her earliest roles on the Mickey Mouse Club, was a Princess, who then moved to Whore territory upon release of her video Dirrty, and has since ascended to Queen status as a 44 year old plus size girl boss. Similarly, Britney Spears started out as a Princess, then moved to Whore status as she was a bit older, and now is probably somewhere between the Hag and the Whore depending on how hot you find her. Pamela Anderson spent most of her life in the Whore category, but recently stopped wearing makeup and has aged in to the Queen status.
Women tend to move from right to left on the chart as they age, but men tend to move from the left to the right until they reach their mid to late 50s after which they tend to move to the left as well.
Women who marry multiple times tend to pick second and third husbands who are farther to the right than earlier husbands. They may be either higher or lower in soft status, but later partners are almost always higher in hard status. This often frustrates earlier husbands who see their ex-wives with men who may be lower in soft status but higher in hard status, and who place too much emphasis on their own soft status at the expense of their own hard status.
I am sure that, as a man, winning at hard status is gratifying, while winning at soft status feels dorky. But I want to know if women feel the same way or if the opposite is true. Do women feel more gratified being Ellen Degeneres or more gratified being Marilyn Monroe?
If I were to rank the women’s quadrants, I believe you’d want to be the Princess the most, followed by the Queen, followed by the Hag, and then the Whore. The Whore really has no dignity, she is defined entirely by the man or the view of men toward her. At least the Hag gets to retain some dignity of owning her rejection in the man’s eyes. Perhaps that is a masculine projection on my part. The Princess is more dignified than the Queen because she gets to retain powers of seduction toward men which is valuable.
I would most want to be in the King quadrant as a man. After that, I would rank the Caveman as the second most appealing. Between the Saint and the Outcast it is a hard decision- I at least view the Outcast as having some dignity in that he’s doing it his way, regardless of everyone else’s desires. The Saint seems smarmy and gross, as much as I’m drawn to be Liberace I find the quadrant somehow more degrading than any other.
Status and Homosexuality
I’ll keep this short because I’ve rambled about this enough on themotte in the past. As a younger gay man, I didn’t understand why the soft status game was so ungratifying. I could be Liberace with little to no effort on my part. But Liberace- and gay men like him- have little to no actual status among gay men. Even entirely destitute gay men aren’t charmed by the money of a rich man. Likewise, when you are the rich man, it is not gratifying to charm a man with your money. The average gay man may pay for sex once or twice in his twenties, or when he comes into money, but he’ll find that it doesn’t gratify the ego in any way that matters. It feels cheap, fake, and dishonest to wield power in this way. Only through hard power- and earning respect, love and status through hard power- can you feel good about yourself and your place among men.
Status and Trans
So, how does being trans work in the terms of my system of power? MTF Transwomen (people born as men who become women- in my opinion, they are effectively women, because as a gay man I find them as unattractive as women- and similarly I view FTM men as men, because I find them as attractive as men, and in fact having little to no external genitalia to compete with is a plus, not a minus) are men who are pumping the soft power hierarchy at the expense of their hard power. They have chosen not to compete at the hard power game of men, but rather to compete at the hard power game of women, and the soft power game of women, which operates the same as the soft power game of men. In one way, the MTF can only win when he transitions, because his soft power explodes, often placing him from Outcast on the men’s chart into Queen territory on the women’s chart. But she is doing this at the expense of her male hard power. I had trans ideation when I was younger, but the only thing keeping me from becoming trans was the sense that it would never gratify what I really was seeking, which was the hard power status of being a real man. I don’t know if the medication of MTF women can tone down this desire inside- perhaps it can, and perhaps that’s fine if you’re living it, but as an outsider to me it is sad.
Most FTM men begin as women who are in the Hag category. Upon transition they give up their status as Hags and generally swap for an equal place on the male hierarchy which is the Outcast. They have little movement and thus are not as politically threatening to anyone.
In high school I as a boy would grow my hair long and paint my nails and act effeminately because it gave me soft status. When you do this you are increasing soft status at the expense of hard status. The reaction from other boys toward me was a mixture of apathy from those boys who didn’t mind other boys losing hard status, or an irritation at the gaining of soft status at the expense of someone’s masculinity which they were protective of in themselves. I no longer act effeminate because I don’t want to degrade the hard power of myself which is more difficult and more gratifying to harbor in myself.
Status and Race
From my observations, there seem to be differences between races. If we were to chart the people of all races on my chart, it would look something like this. There are many outliers who would rank differently, and you could rank people within the races among themselves, but on average I view the relative status of the races in this way.
Asian people tend to be the highest in soft status and lowest in hard status. Black people tend to be highest in hard status and lowest in soft status. Middle Eastern people are not terribly different from white people in these terms. Latino people may fall anywhere closer to white or black or Asian depending on their particular mixture of genes and nationality, status within their own group and so on. I left out other groups because I either have little to no experience with them or their populations are very small compared to the ones I’ve charted.
The tendency in society is to collapse the nuanced, two-axis reality of status and power into just one hierarchical stack. The left believes that you can do this with race: The whites are above the Blacks, so we must raise the Blacks to make up for the systemic disadvantages that Blacks face. Meanwhile, this fails to account for, in my opinion, the more accurate view of power which observes hard as well as soft status. This is why the left’s favoritism of blacks and their attempts at raising their soft power irritates me so much as a white man- they are already on average above me on the hierarchy of hard power, why must they also be dragged above me in the hierarchy of soft power? In an ideal state of nature, they would be above me in hard power, and I could accept that as my natural talents and powers of soft power position me above them in my own way that is balanced with nature. Having my comfort of soft power dragged away is on some level humiliating to me.
Basically, I don’t think the left- or society- needs to account for any difference between races because they already average out to approximately the same and even then there is a dignity in simply respecting the differences rather than trying to account for them.
——
When I was a kid I used to wonder why my older family members would spend so much time watching nature documentaries. The older I get the more I realize that it’s because human society operates so often on the same exact level as nature documentaries do- we just have an extremely complex web of distractions overlaid on top of the underlying hard status game. Disentangling the two reveals a lot.
aiislove
1mo ago
Yeah, I went to Chiang Mai and Pattaya and it's the same way, we took a boat to a random island in the gulf and there were dozens of food vendors in the port, a beach on the coast we went to had endless food stalls. The density and variety of food options are staggering, you can't walk down a street without some woman cooking the best basil pork or whatever you've ever tried
aiislove
1mo ago
The degree to which this is the case in East Asia is like, at least 5 times more than in the west. Any random food court in Thailand has probably 12 to 20 highly specialized food places that are all cheap and fresh, you're lucky if a random mall in the US has 8 food establishments in business, let alone cheap and fresh ones... Your average major mall in Thailand probably has 30-40 businesses just for food, not even counting the special booths that usually pop up for limited events that expand the count by another 20 or more. Truly blew my mind the first time I was in Thailand
aiislove
1mo ago
I love Cajun food. I used to have a Cajun stepdad, he sucked but his cooking was the best. Thai people remind me so much of Cajuns.
Standard Japanese portion sizes are smaller than Western portions, typically, but it's very easy to add extra rice, extra noodles, extra fried chicken, extra broth, extra eggs, extra whatever you want, at every restaurant.........
aiislove
1mo ago
Yes, actually that was a point I wanted to make and forgot about. The cost of labor is so high in rich countries that the quality of life for the middle class and the rich are degraded. The luxury of having freshly prepared food made with complicated processes that are ubiquitous in Thailand- affordable even to the people who make this food themselves!- is lacking in today's rich countries.
You put it a bit more uncharitably, I don't think there's anything wrong with people being able to afford to live cheaply if they want. In America we prop this lifestyle up with welfare schemes- why is that more dignified?
aiislove
1mo ago
I don't have a strong position on this so random thoughts:
- Japan makes you walk. I regularly travel between countries and when I look at my health app on my phone I can see exactly when I arrive and leave Japan because the steps taken in Japan are significantly higher than any other country I spend time in. The cities are set up such that you must walk far and wide. Train stations are large and mazelike. (This may not apply if you have a car in Japan- I have never driven in Asia.)
- Japan is the most difficult country I've visited to eat healthy in. Fresh fruits and vegetables are very expensive. (Yes there's cheap fruit/veggie stores but you have to seek them out.) It is the hardest country to find roasted meats without added fats in. Cuts of meat that are popular are very fatty. If you like seafood you will have a much easier time eating healthy (though you'll still be dodging breading and mayo.) I have struggled with my weight my whole life, the endless bowls of pasta and sandos and uber processed snacks everywhere are hard for me to resist.
- Asian food in general tends to be less calorically dense than western foods, and spiciness has a mild laxative effect that reduces calories slightly as well. I think these two are slightly less applicable to Japanese food vs. Chinese or Thai cuisines, but the effect is still there if you're comparing rice to baguette or more calorically dense western foods.
- I believe there's a social effect on people's sizes as well. I had a black friend in America who is overweight, lose quite a bit of weight, and then she said she felt like people could beat her up. She's since gained weight back. I don't really blame her. Being around bigger people does make me want to be a bigger person, while being around smaller people in Asia makes me feel like I don't need to eat as much. People in america in the 50s and 60s were much smaller as well, the fattening of america was a sort of arms race, and why I don't think ozempic is going to be as influential as people believe- some people want extra weight to throw around in their lives. In some places you don't need it.
aiislove
1mo ago
I haven't heard that before but that makes sense. I've noticed poorer countries will often have nice, clean airports to give a good impression as well.
aiislove
1mo ago
the nations you profess are clearly superior
I'm not really making a value judgment on the superiority of any nation really, just trying to point out how things are counterintuitive to common assumptions among most people from rich countries and how things I've noticed have changed my perception
Congrats, you've discovered that the housing market is very dysfunctional[...]
Great, my post was meant to be pointing at dysfunction, so I guess you got my point...
aiislove
1mo ago
I am a digital nomad, so I guess the line between whether I'm a tourist or not is sort of blurred, but I feel like my Thai friends born and raised in Thailand are happier and more content with their lives than my American friends born and raised in America, so I don't think it's totally the tourism effect. Thai people also seem to have a greater satisfaction with their hard work, have more to show for it- my partner is Thai and he can afford a car and a motorbike, an apartment in Bangkok, trips out of town several times a month, and so on, meanwhile my friends in the midwest well into their 30s are still living with family members or barely scraping by and have much more pessimistic outlooks on things
aiislove
1mo ago
I have spent the past 5 months traveling between the US Midwest, California, Japan and Thailand. I believe the economies of the US and Japan (along with the bulk of the other “rich” countries) are very dysfunctional compared even to poor countries like Thailand.
I. Food and Services
Food in Thailand is extremely delicious, healthy, and very cheap. I am sure the average Thai person eats a healthier diet than the average Japanese. Japanese food is extremely dated in nutrition and food trends. It is so to such a degree that I suspect it’s a sort of fashion or cliquish refusal to update rather than a lack of knowledge or interest. (South Korea next door has a very modern and nutritious food culture- eating healthy is significantly easier there than in Japan.) Thai foods feature a great variety of vegetables, fruits, meats and seafoods. Before I visited Thailand, I imagined that maybe they would be behind on trends or stuck in the past, since they are poor, but the opposite is true. You can find the trendiest foods in Bangkok- anything from the latest Korean baked craze, to Dubai chocolate bars and parfaits and ice cream cones, to Burmese tea leaf salad. They have it, and you can have it delivered within an hour for pennies.
Why is Thailand so trendy compared to Japan or the US? Basically, it is too expensive to take risks in rich countries. Thailand is a poor country but their economy feels incredibly healthy. Their money converts to pennies outside the country, but inside money trades hands so easily that anything feels possible. Food delivery and rideshares are so cheap because housing is so affordable that they can afford to live on such little money. Cab rides in rich countries are very expensive, because we have to pay for insurance, the pensions of drivers, and so on.
The quality of hotels has declined drastically in the US. I typically stay at mid-range hotels and rarely do I find that maid service is provided more often than once every three days. Hotels that charge $20 a night in Thailand provide maid service every single day. Why can’t Americans afford to pay someone to clean a room?
Airbnbs in Japan, fraught with regulation, are so bad. The apartments are old and cramped and dark and expensive. I am currently paying about $50 a night for an old build in a random part of a random city, and while the host is very kind, talkative, and helpful, it is also twice as expensive as the luxury airbnb I stayed at in Bangkok a month ago with a chic pool, gym, library, and dirt cheap food within walking distance. By the way, airbnbs and hotels in the midwest are incredibly expensive lately- why is it cheaper to stay in a room in a literal castle in Europe than a crappy hotel room that smells like weed in Ohio?
II. Airline Flight
I hate the cramped cheap seats on long flights. This time I flew from California to Japan and upgraded to a full-flat seat on Zipair, a low cost Japanese airline owned by JAL (Japan Airlines.) This 11 hour flight cost me $1515. I am not really going to complain, because it was great to have the extra room and I managed to sleep a bit. But the amenities on Zipair are shockingly meager. I asked for water early in the flight and she told me I had to order a bottle from the in flight service on my phone which they didn’t make available for another hour or so. There was no food provided, your only option was to order a few packaged snacks like Pringles from your phone.
A month later I flew Tokyo to Bangkok on Thai Airways. This 7 hour flight cost me only $301. I sat in the cheap seats in the back, but it was an empty enough flight that I had an entire row to myself. They provided multiple delicious meals and snacks throughout the flight. It felt significantly less cheap than the Zipair experience.
By the way, I am concerned that the cost of international airline flight is far too cheap. The first time I traveled internationally was when I was in middle school around 2001. I believe my round trip flight between the US and London was about $1200 at that time. The inflation calculator I just checked said that’s the equivalent of $2190 today. I just checked google flights and the same round trip costs only around $491 today. The incredibly cheap barrier to entry of international flights seems like an obvious problem leading to more illegal immigration and erosion of local culture than I’ve ever seen anyone point out before.
III. Conclusion
You may be thinking- ok, this guy is rich in Thailand and poor in the US, of course he is going to have a merrier view of the Thai economy. But when I look at charts like this I am in the 95th percentile of wealth for my age, in the US. I am frugal with my money, yes, but I would like to be able to afford a life on par with or better than that of my father at the same age, and I’m not sure I can.
————
I have to add a caveat. Whenever I am in Thailand I can never quite shake the feeling I’m about to get sick or get in some terrible accident. I don’t feel unsafe: people are very kind, and it’s not the same kind of fear that I feel in, say, the ghettoes of the US, which are truly scary. But buildings in Thailand don’t seem up to code, food safety is sometimes lacking (at least enough to fuel a constant anxiety in me) and my experience with the health care system (after passing out in a northern Thai hospital a few years ago) makes me know I must acknowledge the downsides to the “healthy economy” I admire in Thailand and be somewhat grateful for the safety standards and tradeoffs we make in rich countries. But I can only imagine that as the rest of the world catches up, the decline of the post WWII rich economies will continue to progress.
aiislove
3mo ago
moral outlook
Actually I find this to be the most universal piece of the puzzle beyond any more objective measurements. For example half the world drives on the right and half the world drives on the left, but the moral fundamentals beneath which side of the road you personally decide to drive on are universal regardless. You choose depending on whether you want to safely reach your destination or create chaos and accidents around you. The moral goals and is-ought problem leads to the same or similar results whether you choose to drive on the right in america or the left in the uk. That is a simple example for illustration's sake but I believe that most problems follow this pattern as well. Treating people kindly and with love and trust is always the solution to any is-ought problem in any culture I've been to because it absolves yourself of the guilt of having acted unkindly or unlovingly and if someone interprets it incorrectly it is not because your underlying intentions were wrong. Maybe this is too much of a consequentialist view that collapses morality into the mind of the actor too far but again we arrive at the uniqueness of the self's actions apart from any others, which would potentially be overcome in an artificial universal consolidated worldview.
Other than that I agree with everything you said and relate to your experiences as well. I agree that we each individually have an inability to fully describe the capital-T Truth but a general AI with infinite knowledge and sources of data interpreted outside the frame of an individual would either be a step toward a new integrated model of understanding or perhaps just the false appearance of such.
aiislove
3mo ago
I agree with you with regards to just LLMs, but I was imagining more of a general AI in the future which would be fed infinite streams of data in every language and place on earth that would lead to some singularity or consolidation of worldviews and perspectives impossible to individual humans.
aiislove
3mo ago
Of course which reinforces my strongly held belief in linguistic determinism. Languages reflect reality only to the extent that they can describe it and their description of reality is likewise shaped/reinforced by the language it's parsed in.
On the other hand I'm imagining a general AI that could be fed infinite realtime data from infinite cameras, microphones and news sources from all over the world, it would inevitably start to bleed its understanding outside of the frame of one context and synthesize all of its input feeds into some universalist perspective that would be outside the realm of understanding of any one person who brings their own specific context to any information (as universalist as they may attempt to be or imagine themselves to be.)
The Blind Men and an Elephant
The parable of the blind men and an elephant is a story of a group of blind men who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and imagine what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the animal's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the animal based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true. [from wikipedia.]
As someone who travels between cultures frequently, I find myself thinking a lot about this parable. Everywhere I go, different people in different places have developed different views and interpretations of the world, but the underlying fundamentals of reality remain unaffected by mere human perception and interpretation. In other words, the elephant remains the same regardless of the spot we’re poking at, rubbing against or cutting into.
I find myself reorienting what I experience and perceive from the viewpoint of my background and upbringing, shaped to some degree by my current context. When I meet new people, I compare them to people I was raised around, my friends and family back home. When I try new foods I orient them in relation to foods I was raised with and are most used to. When I experience new weather patterns I compare them to the climate of my birth. Inextricably I am linked to the time and place of my upbringing.
I was raised in a chaotic home environment between divorced parents. My mother was very strict and had many rules, while my father was very lax and enforced very few rules. My mother raised me in the Protestant church while I attended Catholic school for two years, then I was switched to public school in third grade. The inconsistency between Protestant, Catholic and secular worldviews left me very disenchanted by competing narratives and viewpoints that each assert their own contradicting universal realities which I remain suspicious of today.
General artificial intelligence could be capable of synthesizing the perspectives and contexts of every place and time into one universal viewpoint. Mapping out the elephant of the world with more objectivity seems more plausible than ever before. The self assuredness of modernity and the arrogance of postmodernity (Fukuyama’s end of history, for example) are likely to be dwarfed by the self assurance of any newly synthesized panopticon of awareness that an AGI could run on.
But would an AGI be capable of synthesizing every view of the elephant into one accurate rendering of reality at all, or would it merely be able to switch from one perspective to another? The Japanese conception of reality works well enough in the Japanese context, and my basic understanding or exposure to it is amusing enough to me as an outsider, but start poking at it a bit and the construction begins to fall apart. We westerners are just as bound by the false or skewed construction of the Western viewpoint, which is difficult for us to perceive the limits and contradictions of.
I wonder if the AGI will be a Tower of Babel of sorts that could give the illusion of unity and progress but that ends up dividing us further than ever before.
Actually, the thought of a universal synthesized view of the world is what is most frightening to me because it is so utterly foreign to anything we’ve ever come up with ourselves. Either we will discover things we never wanted to know about ourselves and the universe, or we will fail to discover those things and create an even more dystopian world that further reinforces the skewed, convenient beliefs that I believe we already build our societies on.
——
Many people on the right believe that right wing thinking is fundamentally the position of believing in the power to change things: The power to make different decisions, free will, and so on. But in my years of reading right wing thought, the concept that feels the most fundamentally grounding in right wing theory is the idea that nature remains constant. That is, that the elephant remains the elephant regardless of our interpretation. This is the most reassuring concept to me in right wing thinking: that I don’t need to make the Sisyphean effort to rewire my reaction to things outside my control, that I can just accept them as immutable forces of nature and move on with my life. I also think this is a more loving, understanding view of the fundamentals of reality compared with the left’s struggle to undermine them.
The joke is that the real punishment is that he has to be with a partner who has loved and will love a man other than himself. Men are extremely jealous, we can cope when we see someone with our partner who is clearly more deserving than we are, but we don’t like it.
You are also making the very female mistake of imagining that men with higher status have higher self esteem than men with lower status. This is probably broadly true for women but is very inaccurate for men. Male self esteem correlates almost entirely on how much sex he’s getting and how gratifying the sex is to his ego. Money doesn’t matter, buying prostitution doesn’t boost the ego, having a partner who respects him does. Having a hot wife he can imagine is actually devoted to him is the best thing he can have in terms of self esteem. I’d be so much happier poor with one moderately attractive partner I feel trust and respect from than being rich with someone I know is sleeping around with other men.
Edit:
men (gay and straight, which make me think this is even deeper than just sexuality) love sluts
No we don’t (as a gay man.) We do like other men who are mature and able to be comfortable with a lot of other men and respectful toward them. Nobody really likes the depraved bottom who is a slut for his own gratification. We don’t respect bottoms who immediately drop to their knees in front of any man. Even when you get head from a man who you do respect you will have your opinion diminished slightly toward him, just as you have your opinion toward yourself slightly diminished if you perform a bottom act with even a man you respect.
aiislove
4mo ago
I've had this conversation before here, I do not agree with you, look at NFL stats, blacks have more fast twitch muscle, whites are less prone to acts of violence, violent crime and aggressive behavior. In the real world.
I had a really hard time naming the two axes. First I had "male power" and "female power" but it became so conflated when I began to imagine two different charts. Then I thought of calling "hard status" "power" and "soft status" "status" but it wasn't exactly right either. I kept changing it, ended up with "hard status" and "soft status" and thought it worked well enough to illustrate the point and just went with it.
I said as much in another comment here, I wasn't really claiming and omniscient point of view in my ranking, things are highly subjective in general even as I try to disentangle something universal
More options
Context Copy link