@astrolabia's banner p

astrolabia


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:46:57 UTC

				

User ID: 353

astrolabia


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:46:57 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 353

One of the scariest things from my point of view is watching some Jewish progressives I know choosing, after a period of internal struggle, to take the side of Hamas. I could see that something had to give when they started being attacked by what they viewed as their own side. And I would have been surprised to see them abandon pretty much their whole progressive social networks and worldview under any circumstances, even to defend themselves. But it seems like many of them chose to thread the needle by simply becoming "one of the good ones".

looking for self-actualization that will never arrive

Seems like it does arrive for them, in the sense that they get to be a part of a change in zeitgeist. I imagine it feels pretty fulfilling to get in early on the next big political thing.

I don't think it's that they're stupid, it's that talking concretely about reforms invites infighting. Everyone in those orgs can agree racism is bad / the problem, but they've learned that talking about specific mitigations is a recipe for drama.

I agree it was a spineless, worst-of-both-worlds kind of apology. It was clearly disingenuous for a polymath like him to claim that he's not qualified to even evaluate the evidence about HBD. It was worse than normal straight-shooting autism.

That said, he's a great thinker when he's in his element.

Yes, and now there's an incentive to not tell your associates that you're worried about your kid, for the same reason.

knowing he was crazy

Seems like you're vindicating Maiq by holding this against them. If they had never seeked professional help, they could have argued that they didn't know he was crazy.

That makes sense, but I saw it as a teen and didn't think that the good-looking actors were any indication of satire. After all, Melrose Place, and pretty much all Hollywood movies, have ridiculously good-looking leads without being satires. And it's played straight that the bugs are, in fact, in total war with humans.

I totally agree. For example, it's bonkers (but not surprising) to me that the recent misleading residential school graves reporting (and subsequent exaggeration and demonization of the Catholic Church on social media) that led to scores of churches being burned down didn't even pattern-match as "hate speech" in the eyes of anyone in the establishment.

Just never be an undesirable in the eyes of those with power.

I spent a while asking my well-educated peers why they were supporting censorship and politicization while also claiming to loathe our local conservative government, warning that the shoe could easily be on the other foot someday. My leading hypothesis is that they (unconsciously) are following a strategy of "endorse whatever social movement is clearly ascendant" in a way that's almost completely blind to the content of the movement, even being blind to self-interest to a large extent. So they legitimately don't expect to suffer from censorship in that setting - they'll simply switch sides, and maybe push for an exception to the new ideology for themselves. It makes sense, and seems close to the optimal strategy if you can't actually control social movements.

Sure, but that would still lead to runaway censoriousness, wouldn't it?

I've read the book and seen the movie, and while they're very different, it's still not clear to me in which sense the Starship Troopers movie is a parody, except that the director claimed it was. It seems to me that this is just a fig leaf to justify having directed an effectively pro-fascism movie.

I consider myself as belonging to an ideological wave that missed it's opportunity to have it's time in the sunlight when the broader umbrella that encompassed us still carried the day; and it's very unlikely that I'll live to see it revived again in my lifetime.

Which ideological wave are you referring to?

I think this is a reasonable point of view. On the other hand, I could imagine visibly destructive commitment to the truth could still pay outsized dividends if powerful people, e.g. Elon Musk, noticed someone going against the grain and then trusted their advice more. Didn't this kind of happen with Peter Thiel and Michael Vassar?

I think Zack agrees with you about it maybe being worth it for Yudkowsky to lie about trans issues for the cause. But I'm on Zack's side pretty much entirely, because the entire schtick of the rationalists, the only reason they have contributed anything at all and have any (minor clout) is because of all the times they pissed off everyone and were willing to hurt feelings in a single-minded pursuit of the truth.

It's the same reason why our scientific institutions (used to) have clout - precisely because they were visibly willing to cross boundaries and violate taboos is why they gained power (which then led to their politicization and hollowing out).

Perhaps it's just a predictable cycle of creative destruction. But I still think Zack is fighting the good fight.

I have nothing to add, but just wanted to say that I appreciate the writeup since I am in a pretty similar situation to you (pre-adderall). I actually have a stash that a colleague gave me, but haven't experimented with it yet because I'm expecting pretty much exactly the outcome you've had so far. Maybe the solution is to just take it on Fridays only?

It sounds like you're not even rebutting Tyre's claims? He didn't say everything is broken or getting worse.

I agree that the modern West isn't currently as bad as Pol Pot's Cambodia. But the point is that something like that is always a possibility, and there are reasons to believe we might eventually head in that direction.

What do you mean by "ground truth"? I personally don't make many sacrifices for privacy or civil liberty's sake, but I'm grateful when others do.

Where I live I already don't have freedom of speech or association, and the government recently froze the bank accounts of protesters whom the state-run news agency had already demonized.

Again, how do you think anyone ends up in a gas chamber?

I agree that some people were overly certain about the consequences of the PATRIOT act. But I would still rage teary-eyed against government overreach even if I were merely worried it would lead to tyranny, because once the government is totalitarian it's very hard to come back from that.

Also, in that time there have been various counter-movements, such as Snowden's, that pushed back against mass surveillance. But that could have easily not happened, and plus the state has presumably hardened itself against the next Snowden since then.

To these privacy warriors in the US, I'm sure we seem a quick slide of the slippery slope away from being targeted for our Chud/Woke beliefs with no time to prepare before it's too late.

What do you think preparing looks like, if not fighting for civil liberties and maintaining our ability to coordinate politically without being targeted? To me it looks like you'd mock anyone fighting government overreach right up until it's too late.

Do you think those murdered by their governments in the 20th century had "time to prepare", but simply chose to not to? Do you remember the borders being closed with no warning during covid?

the sudden flurry of "Oh, Trump wasn't that bad"-type statements from figures who previously criticized him reeks of groveling and bet-hedging

At this point I wonder how much of this is due to fashion. If even the most uncool members of your group try to rally people by bashing trump, your only options to distinguish yourself are to be even more hysterical (which is getting kind of played out) or play the nuance card.

If the administration of airlines, air traffic control, pilot training and so on was ruthlessly meritocratic, then I'd agree with you that there'd be no difference in skill between black or female pilots and white male pilots, since they would all have passed the same tests and be above a certain benchmark.

Nitpick - this still won't be true as long as there is noise in the tests or variability in skill above the bar. The groups with higher average performance before the cutoff will also dominate the top percentiles after the cutoff, and be less likely to be a false positive under noisy tests.

Canada has a much larger native population than the USA, about 5% of the total population now, who have similar life outcomes to america's blacks. They also receive a huge amount of bespoke welfare. So I think that's some evidence against your theory.

I think I prefer the way your homeland does it. Every time I see someone in the west complaining about or shaming others for offering well-intentioned advice, it just looks like shooting the messenger and poisoning the well. I would happily accept 100 wrong or offensive advices in exchange for 1 that helped me.

Makes sense, I think I agree. And AI just makes this happen faster and on a larger scale - humans will be outcompeted unless we put a stop to basically all competitive pressures.

I agree that market activity tends to reduce ideological fervor. But as you note, that doesn't necessarily happen if the government becomes totalitarian, which you also agree is a distinct possibility. So I'm not even sure what your claim is anymore. "Progressivism always wins except when it doesn't"?