curious_straight_ca
No bio...
User ID: 1845
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
Because righteousness requires total devotion to altruism, yes. If one is, say, 90% of the way to altruism, but still charges a bit more than they could to buy themselves some luxuries, that isn't 'righteous' in this sense. But
You know the option where a guy is altruistically helping others? That doesn't happen. Go with the other one.
There's no reason you can't be experiencing part of the 90% and not part of the 10%. You can be 'most of the way' there.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
I've seen it done on other forums, it's definitely cringe but it often works - just the ability to coherently articulate the mods' perspective on what the user was doing wrong is something most people who get banned for being annoying lack - and if it doesn't work the first time you just permaban them again.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
I mean, men are more aggressive and independently courageous than women, generally, and I'm pretty sure that's genetic, although I don't think I've ever seen a good study on that. Not that that's connected to the above argument, which is kinda weird.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
If HlynkaCG messaged the mods with a clear description of how he's not been engaging constructively recently and expressed an intent to not do that in the future, he'd probably be unbanned quickly. He's probably not going to do that though.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
Well BAP at least is (23&Me results and everything),
Not at all saying this happened, but I were BAP I'd absolutely fake a test showing I was jewish and post it. You can just lie on the internet!
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
I don't follow any of them closely enough to know, but the only times I remember those martin, 2cb, etc claiming to be jewish it seemed obviously ironic / a way to 'own' the wignats, so idk
Eh. Antisemitism is spreading faster than knowledge of polygenic scores, haplogroups, or high East Asian IQ, but it's more accurate IMO to say that base-level anti-nonwhite sentiment / white nationalism is spreading faster than sophisticated 'HBD'. Openly antisemitic tweets sometimes get tens of thousands of likes. But looking at this account, which very frequently gets 20k likes and sometimes more, the focus is mostly on black people and immigrants. I wouldn't really call that antisemitism having more potency than HBD, just different variants of things spreading among smarter people and more normal people. "Black people do crime a lot and are kinda dumb" is definitely the closest thing to HBD that'll get 50k likes. Musk often interacts with the iamyesyouareno account. (glancing at his likes, musk also just liked a BAP tweet, lol, as usual the tweet's vaguely something one might agree with but literally completely wrong)
Antisemitism seems to have less potency among even what passes for 'elites' on far-right twitter recently - they'll signal towards it in an edgy way but not really endorse it - reasons I've seen from people like that are: because most smart people are very socially integrated with jews at this point, because so many influential people in the scene are part or wholly jewish, because 'wignat antisemitism', when looked at objectively, seems kinda cringe and stupid, especially if you're someone who was all in on it as a teenager, and because it doesn't seem to have a path to power anyway. And among "elites" who are clearly influenced by the far-right sphere of ideas but are nevertheless more serious and less anonymous, antisemitism has very little purchase compared to HBD.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
not cryptographically secure nonlinearity
AGI is ... also "unknown linearity", and arguably in the exact same sense. The data points mostly duplicate each other and test the effects of small incremental changes. It takes a while to build intelligence out of tiny changes, as the history of the planet suggests
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
I don't think you are, most people would find this place unpleasant as is, saying nothing about my hypothetical. But I think my approach is better, and so long as you can get good object-level disagreement out of it there's no reason to be put off by anything else.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
Why wouldn't you? It's much more fun to speak to people you disagree with - you make contact with their ideas, sharpen your rhetorical tactics and understanding of the subject matter, and maybe you'll learn something or maybe they'll learn something. And those people having moral flaws like "I hate everyone who isn't me" doesn't make the conversations any less interesting! They still have object level claims and complicated reasons for believing them.
Whereas being surrounded by people you agree with is (relatively) more like talking to a mirror. You know what it's going to say, so why bother?
I do think black people have a significantly lower average IQ than whites, that this has a genetic component, and this means that disparate impact civil rights law and affirmative action should not exist.
I don't think this comes from a believe in 'fuck everyone not like me' - I'm happy to work with smart Indians, Chinese, etc. And if I see a black person who's in fact contributing at the same level as a non-black person, I'm happy to work with that person too! (Clarence Thomas, for instance, doesn't seem to be any worse of a justice than the others).
I think most pro-HBD commenters here have beliefs like that?
I don't think most trans people are pedophiles though, or that they're transing our kids in the schools or w/e. I don't think transitioning is a good choice for anyone, but there's not really any concrete relationship between the way it's bad and pedophilia or schools.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
The only thing I can think of that's related is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_developmental_framework Kegan stages, and David Chapman (rat adjacent)'s interpretation of them - https://metarationality.com/stem-fluidity-bridge
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
There's no categorical difference between quantitative and qualitative differences. "Sometimes when I talk to other people they talk back to me" is a form of "modeling the world" that dogs and even the dumbest humans can do. Everything beyond that is just more "depth and breadth" of knowledge.
But very dumb people are observably worse at all of the things you describe than very smart people, so that "depth and breadth" is all there is, really.
I guess that's a way to say I don't understand the question, or know if it's well-formed.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
One way to understand how I'm not trying to censor is that I invited OP to make a more detailed and direct defense of whatever the nazis were doing.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
No! I'm happy that we allow Holocaust deniers or the (iirc) nazi pedophile from a while ago to post if they follow the rules. But that's the kind of comment I'd expect to see as a reply to iamyesyouareno on twitter, not one I want to see here.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
I don't think this is a good comment. It just gestures at a bunch of vague right-wing ideas without providing any detail, evidence, or new information. An equivalent left-wing comment would be "America is occupied by the entrenched forces of conservatism and racism. They know what they are doing, they see our pain, yet they refuse to even let us speak. They hold all the levers of power and are not afraid to use them against us."
It probably violates the "speak plainly" rule too. Who are the occupiers? How are they keeping Germany in line with the new ideology? What would happen? Which german thinkers? Which direction? Yeah, obviously it's the nazis, but I'd be happy to read an open and evidenced defense of Nazi ideology or historical actions, but this isn't that.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
Hey, you seem to have made a bunch of decent posts before this whole drama, but posts like this are just not interesting, and also are against the rules. This is heat, not light. I think you are correct that it is bad to believe in magic and omnipotent beings who judge humans on morality because it's part of a powerful cultural force because it isn't true. But these are just insults, and they're insults that i'd downvote on the 'other site' for not being funny enough.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
The rationalist project has failed because it refused to engage with human greed, selfishness, and delusion
This is just not true, they have engaged a lot with human "greed" and "selfishness" (coordination failures), and "delusion" (bias, politics mind killer). Maybe they're wrong, but they're definitely engaging with it.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
If you're gonna reppost your substack piece here, please at least put in the effort to copy the whole contents of the post into your toplevel. If Ymeskhout can do it, you can too. And maybe less of "Remember to subscribe"?
I think that the kind of ""autism"" that shows up in very-smart-people isn't autism at all, it's (even if "unconscious" or unexamined or explicitly believed to be otherwise or learned-over-time-and-burned-into-instincts) an intentional rejection of some or many 'normal' social games because they're judged to be bad, counterproductive, stupid. This is very different from the kind of "autism" that's a neurodevelopmental disorder.
I'm not really claiming that said autists are better. The actions taken as a result of said "autism" are not uniformly good, or better than alternatives - being able to participate in the 'normal' stuff is both instrumentally useful and useful as a way to pick out the parts of the bad-social-thing that are in fact good. And if everyone's playing a game, even if the game is 'bad' in a broad sense it might still be a local optimum to go along with it, and if the rejection is unconscious or unexamined it might (and often does) lead to outcomes worse than not rejecting the thing in the first place.
But, like, the fact that a lot of very smart people and contrarian / independent thinkers seem to have an issue that makes them have trouble with social interaction is quite odd, because 'social interaction' isn't something removed from causality, it is something one could understand even without all the relevant instincts, and very smart people should be well placed to do it. So it's more likely that they, in some sense, don't want to understand it.
Most people are always trying to elevate their status, or at least prevent is from dropping. They may accept the friendship of people one step below them, but almost never two steps
It's not just 'status'. If humans didn't have 'status hierarchies', we'd re-invent something related purely out of, i guess, 'instrumental convergence'. Some people are just more ... some of useful, funnier, better connected, hotter. (there's a correlation between individual but it isn't that large). The reason I don't want to be friends with the people several-levels-below me is, mostly, that I find interacting with them to be relatively less fun, productive, (...) than interacting with my current level. And people several above me make the same judgement. And if there's someone several-levels-below me that I would get something out of interacting with, I (maybe moreso than others, but it's not rare) do it! And you can see this as 'raising that person's status a little' too, I guess.
Personally, I find I've mostly withdrawn from the game and enjoy my time by myself
Again, just instrumentally this is suboptimal IMO. Even if all I want to do is code, I'll be a better coder if I read all the latest blogs, talk with people who do similar things. I'll get opportunities to work with other competent people, either for free or for pay.
There are obviously a bunch of pathologies in social interaction that the above doesn't address, and that cause the supposed autist at the beginning to disconnect, but i've already typed too much. But I don't think it's a reason to reject 'interacting with people' in general. Plus, there are a lot of subcultures that interact in different ways. You could try befriending people more similar to you on the internet, I suppose, it's in some ways comparable to IRL and at any rate better than nothing. Discord and twitter are apparently very good for that.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
our society strongly disincentivizes honor-culture retaliation moreso than it does the initial offense, which benefits bad actors
This is by design. The initial offense here just isn't that bad. It can coexist with a society that has OpenAI. The problem with honor culture retaliation is it escalates and it's indifferent / symmetric with respect to who was actually "in the right" from the perspective of society's interest in preserving large-scale systems from interference. Allowing such retaliation if a court later judges you're in the right ... well, everyone thinks they're in the right in the moment.
If we really wanted we could set a different equilibrium where the law considers provocation a sufficient mitigating factor to reverse the equilibrium
The current equilibrium poorly with "you can't punish the underclass for being violent or antisocial because that's bigoted (not just racist, it's more general than that)", but everything mixes badly with that.
Part of the problem is that things in between 'honor-culture retaliation' and 'shutting up and taking it' are highly discouraged both legally and culturally.
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
If pursuing the truth and accurate information is the goal of any research field, then there should be no issues in acknowledging some limitations and biases of racial categorizations.
Okay, so, obviously if you're, like, writing a paper on the impact of race and IQ, you should more complicated measures of ancestry than self-reported race if you can. I don't disagree with that. However, I think "race" is close enough to "ancestry" in casual conversation.
also e.g. biobanks don't allow people to use their data for race and iq research, which is both unfortunate and ... potentially indicative of the kind of bias that would systematically affect science on the topic!
genetic differences and variations exist, but race as a category is socially defined. Socially defined does not negate usefulness (as with many systems in our society). Money is a social construct, but we don't consider it useless
This is technically true, but I think what you mean to do is imply that the social construct "race" doesn't map perfectly onto "ancestry / genetics" in a way that affects our interpretation of things like "race and IQ are related". I think "race" and "ancestry" are close enough that it's not important to clarify you mean "ancestry's effect on genetics" when you say "race".
mind most of these broad claims about IQ or even physical characteristics fail to take it a step further and discuss the numerous factors that influence such differences (socioeconomic, environmental, cultural and geographical).
The sophisticated ones don't! It is true that BasedHitler1488 on twitter has a very inaccurate view of the literature on the heritability of IQ or the association of that with race, but that's pure a weakman.
The science on the topic of the heritability of IQ and physical characteristics among individuals is extremely clear and mainstream, and directly deals with factors "socioeconomic, environmental, cultural, and geographical!"
The race-causes-iq-differences arguments are not scientific consensus. Imo this is mostly because saying 'black people are dumber because genes' is something that most existing Americans, including most smart ones, (for various reasons) have extremely strong negative reactions to. But they do directly deal with "socioeconomic, environmental, cultural, and geographical" too.
For some intro reading, check out JayMan: https://jaymans.wordpress.com/jaymans-race-inheritance-and-iq-f-a-q-f-r-b/ https://jaymans.wordpress.com/hbd-fundamentals/
Note that JayMan is black!
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
I can see this working against most offenses. But sure are we that the bottom deciles of undesirables won't just take the beatings as a badge of honor?
Also, this still requires the state to know about the offenses, necessitating cameras everywhere, even if privacy-respecting like scott's raikoth. OP's "Chinese surveillance / social credit state. Use technology and broad public support to directly manage against low level offenses.". And when you have that technology, it seems easier to manage said offenses with 'denial of access to services', rather than direct punishment, and I'm not sure punishment is even more effective for most cases.
You two have very different ideas of 'getting to know someone'. In one sense, it's understanding a somewhat complicated intellectual character, one's motives, the way one approaches one's life. In another, it's one's hobbies, the kind of simple jokes you like, little personal quirks, and which of the 10 big classes of twitter or instagram user you are.
But most people aren't primarily looking for an intellectual peer in a partner, different strokes.
More options
Context Copy link