Getting a green card currently takes 12-18 months, and if it's through marriage to a US citizen it's conditional for two years on the marriage being bona fide. Getting full blown citizenship takes five on top of that. I'm not saying that US citizenship isn't a significant attraction for people from the developing world, but you'd very much have to be playing a long game, especially since you're presumably going to be having sex with a partner (and potentially having kids). Combine that with residual stigma around divorce in some SEA cultures and their tendency towards pragmatism around marriage (it's about building a family and shared financial platform, with sexual attraction relatively de-emphasised) and I think this risk is overblown. Sure, it happens sometimes, but most SEA women who partner up with American guys are going to be entering the marriage in good faith on the assumption they can make it work and build a better life for themselves, rather than intending to bail at the first opportunity.
Certainly people's behaviour is complicated by a host of competing beliefs, goals, and interests, and people are very good at rationalising away conflicts. However, the specific class of pseudo-beliefs I had in mind are those that people don't feel particularly obliged to reconcile with their actual beliefs or translate into behaviour. Sure, you have the person who genuinely believes that climate change is a real threat, and would love to be vegetarian but feels unable to do so for health reasons. But you also have people who seemingly sincerely assent to statements like "climate change is a real threat" but don't feel any real normative pressures to make that fit in with their other beliefs or translate it into behaviour. I think a lot of our social and political utterances are like this. They're not lies, and we take ourselves to genuinely believe them, but they constitutively function in a manner quite different from canonical beliefs.
One, I think you're assuming people are more consciously aware of the logical implications and probabilistic consequences of, well, anything, than they really are.
To be clear, I'm happy with the idea that everyone routinely fails to anticipate or consider even the immediate implications of most of the things they assert. All that matters for pinning down the belief/s-disposition distinction is that in the case of the former but not the latter, in the cases where people are aware of the implications, they should (and as a rule do) adopt and endorse them.
And now, their trust in math and applying it correctly (from that point on) leads to a firm belief that the number in the box should be a 3.
A nice case! That said, what you're giving me here is an instance where someone - in virtue of the evidence at their disposal - could quite reasonably and rationally fail to draw the logical consequence that someone with better evidence would draw. That's distinct from the kinds of failures that I take to be indicative of s-disposition instances, where even when people can follow through and endorse the implications, they're not disposed to do so.
Oh no, whoops! Will fix it now.
LNG isn't as cheap as pipelines, but it's how a majority of the world imports their gas (Japan, China, India, South Korea....). And it's only a medium-term solution for Germany.
Renewables were always a joke for Germany as well, they don’t get enough wind or sunlight for them to work
You seem to be operating with outdated information. In 2021, renewables provided 250 TW/h out of Germany's electricity production of 600 TW/h, about the same proportion as fossil fuels, the remainder being made up by nuclear power. In fact wind power alone was the single biggest source of electricity production if one separates out lignite and hard coal as fuels.
Energy storage is still a problem, but one that we're making great progress on. Gas and nuclear can cover base load medium-term, and there's exciting stuff also happening in geothermal. Ultimately the answer will be integrated global energy grids and lots of redundant electricity storage capacity (maybe fusion too), but we'll be waiting a while for that.
I'll definitely try that formula! I just plugged it into Terminator: Resistance (a game that I've been massively enjoying of late, but which got mediocre reviews) and it came out at 91%, which matches my experience.
To be clear, I don’t think a nuclear strike on the Philippines is intrinsically likely, but conditional on the war going nuclear, the Philippines might well be prioritised over Guam as a first target primarily because it wouldn’t set the precedent of targeting American soil.
For example, imagine the US loses a carrier, and decides to respond with an SLCM-N strike on a Chinese command vessel. China decides it needs a symbolic strike to respond, but doesn’t want to move too far up the escalation ladder too fast, so it hits an isolated but operationally significant US base in the Philippines. Civilian casualties might be comparatively low; if you hit Fort Magsaysay Airfield for example civilisation casualties might be in the low thousands, similar to what you’d get from hitting Guam.
Iran without Russia would be a significantly diminished force, to a greater degree than Russia without Iran. I also don't see Iran as a particularly credible threat to the US's (limited) interests in the region at this point, especially with Assad gone, Hizbollah weakened, and Hamas shattered.
Fun to think what European defense and industrial policy might look like in the event of a total breakdown in the post-war transatlantic alliance system (conditional on European leaders actually growing a pair, i.e., on hell freezing over). Here are some ideas that came out of a drunken groupchat with some security wonk friends tonight and summarised by R1:
Defense
• European Defense Force with Independent Command: Phased withdrawal from NATO integrated command structure while establishing a purely European military alliance with France as the nuclear guarantor and Germany providing conventional backbone.
• Strategic Defense Technology Embargo: Immediate moratorium on new U.S. defense procurement contracts with accelerated transition plan (5-7 years) to phase out existing U.S. systems. European defense contractors given emergency powers to reverse-engineer critical components.
• Military Base Sovereignty Initiative: Formal 24-month notice to terminate all Status of Forces Agreements with the U.S., with negotiated transition periods only where absolutely necessary for European security.
• European Nuclear Deterrent Expansion: Franco-German nuclear sharing agreement with French warheads placed under joint European command structure. Fast-track development of new European delivery systems not dependent on U.S. technology.
• Counter-Intelligence Offensive: Comprehensive review of all U.S. intelligence operations in Europe with expulsion of suspected intelligence officers and enhanced counter-surveillance against U.S. electronic intelligence gathering.
Economics & Industry
• Strategic Industry Protection Act: Mandatory European ownership requirements for critical infrastructure and technology companies. Forced divestiture of U.S. majority-owned assets in energy, telecommunications, defense, and advanced manufacturing within 36 months.
• Digital Sovereignty Enforcement: European internet traffic routing law requiring all European data to remain on European networks. Complete firewall system to regulate U.S. digital services with capability to block access if diplomatic conditions deteriorate.
• Energy Independence Acceleration Plan: Emergency powers for nuclear construction in willing nations with cross-border agreements to share capacity. German solar/wind expansion with French nuclear backup through enhanced grid interconnections. Phaseout of U.S. energy imports.
• European Technology Sovereignty Fund: €500 billion fund for European alternatives to U.S. technology platforms, semiconductor manufacturing, and cloud services with preferential procurement rules for European public entities.
• Space Independence Initiative: Tripling of European Space Agency budget with fast-track development of alternative satellite networks. Security review of all SpaceX operations in Europe with potential for forced technology transfer.
Finance & Diplomacy
• Euro Primacy Initiative: Requirement for all energy transactions involving European entities to be conducted in euros. Introduction of euro-denominated oil and gas contracts with major suppliers.
• European Clearing House: New European interbank settlement system isolated from U.S. financial infrastructure with capability to process transactions with sanctioned entities if determined to be in European strategic interest.
• Anti-Dollar Diplomacy Campaign: Strategic diplomatic engagement with BICS [sic] nations to create formal mechanisms for reducing dollar dependency in international trade.
• Counter-Sanctions Framework: Preemptive legislation authorizing immediate reciprocal sanctions against U.S. entities if sanctions are placed on European companies. Includes targeting of U.S. financial institutions operating in Europe.
• European Foreign Asset Protection Law: Legal framework to shield European overseas assets from potential U.S. seizure through complex ownership structures and diplomatic agreements with third countries.
Economic Countermeasures
• Reciprocal Tariff Authorization: Automatic trigger mechanism imposing 35% tariffs on U.S. goods in response to any U.S. tariff increases, particularly targeting politically sensitive sectors (agriculture, automotive, aerospace).
• European Export Control Regime: Restrictions on European exports that support critical U.S. supply chains, leveraging dependencies in areas like specialty chemicals, precision components, and industrial machinery.
• Intellectual Property Retaliation System: Framework for suspending U.S. intellectual property protections in Europe in response to economic aggression, with particular focus on pharmaceutical and entertainment industries.
• Corporate Tax Equalization: Special taxation regime for U.S. multinational corporations operating in Europe to offset advantages from U.S. economic policies hostile to European interests.
I'd say the flip-side of that is that it's a mistake to read modern concepts of homosexual identity into historical reports same-sex activity. There are lots of contexts - from militaries to prisons to boarding schools - where a significant proportion of men will engage in some degree of same-sex sexual experimentation. This doesn't mean that those men are socially or intrinsically homosexual or even bisexual, any more than it means that the Ancient Greeks were homosexual in the modern connotation of the term.
Yes!!! This is it. Thank you!
Yeah, I think this is what I meant by making humor subject to "political analysis": not hand-wringing that rape jokes mean you're a rapist, but acknowledging that a group's perception of what's funny vs. unfunny could indicate something important about their underlying sentiments and desires, and that it's fair to investigate those sentiments by close-reading the jokes.
I'm, tempted to quote EB White's line that “analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog, few people are interested, and the frog dies of it". That said - I do understand this kind of analysis, and it's what a lot of my academic colleagues in the humanities spend their time doing. Over my time in academia, I've seen any number of articles, books, and editorials that lean into these strategies and I've come to have little patience for them. It can be a fun and an interesting exercise, but I'm less convinced that it helps us access truths in any meaningful way, at least most of the time. It's a kind of "social psychoanalysis" that just like regular psychoanalysis, is largely immune to falsification (Freudianism was one of the ur-examples that motivated Popper). You're into BDSM? Probably because you were spanked as a kid. Oh, you weren't spanked as a kid? Well, maybe that's why you're into BDSM. In the same way, you can imagine someone saying that the reason jokes about mothers are part of this humour is precisely because the mother-son relationship has such deep individual psychodynamic roots, and therefore it's funny to outrage people with it, in contrast to father-daughter relationships which come into being later in life and are parsed through a thoroughly adult lens. All of which is to say, sure, we can play with this analysis, but it will just tell us what we wanted to believe all along.
That's really interesting: when I asked the question I was thinking about a certain type of dumb and self-serious but also very athletic "jughead"-style guy that seems both common in sporty contexts and reasonably socially successful. Having known those folks in their administrative and bureaucratic afterlives, they seem too rigid, touchy and literal-minded to ever have been great at verbal sparring
I can't guarantee that I'm zeroing in on the same archetype here, but if I am, then I'd say that these guys are very good at playing these male games, perhaps surprisingly so. They're also just very good at sequestering them in the right contexts. They're definitely the people whose female friends would be most surprised to hear them talking that way, though.
The kind of values shift I have in mind is one that is indifferent to one's position, i.e., not just filling in the variable according to one's position within it. For example, imagine you have a choice of three college courses you can take: one on libertarianism, one on Marxism, and one on library research. The first two are probably going to be more interesting, but you're also aware that they're taught by brilliant scholars of the relevant political persuasion, and you'll be acquainted with relevant rationally persuasive evidence in support of this position. Consequently, you know that if you take the libertarianism course, you'll come away more libertarian, if you take the Marxist course you'll come away more Marxist, and if you take the library research course you'll come away knowing more about libraries. Assuming the first two courses would indeed involve a values transition, under what circumstances might it be rational to undergo it?
I'm not eligible to vote in the US but as a citizen of an American cultural colony I've definitely fallen for the vibe shift too. I always suspected Harris had some undeveloped potential but I really liked her DNC speech and it made me feel things. Lots of good lines, especially this moment. Low on wokeness, high on muscular optimism, high on American exceptionalism. Put me in mind of Reagan's "morning in America" in terms of vibes.
I'm beyond expecting Dems to follow the norms of martial-hierarchical honour culture, but I have higher hopes for the modern GOP; as we say round our way, ξιφοδηλήτῳ, θανάτῳ τίσας ᾇπερ ἦρχεν. Maybe Kemp should follow Hanania's (sadly unpursued) advice to DeSantis, and challenge Trump to a fight.
100% agree on all points. Not clear whether Google will be able to adapt AdWords for LLMs but at least they have a chance if they’re the ones leading the revolution.
And also completely agree about the changing shape of LLMs. They’ll just become a mostly invisible layer in operating systems that eg handles queries and parlays user vague requests (“show me some funny videos”) into specific personalised API calls.
I mean there’s this whole thing.
Seconded. I thought this was a good discussion starter.
With traditional Christian-values inspired conservatism, yes. But most conservatives here are of the Nietzschean post-Christian kind, which is much less fussy about the sanctity of life and much more comfortable with humans differing in intrinsic value. And yet even people in the second camp have to make the proper prostrations to liberal pieties.
100%. I honestly think this is one of reasons it's valuable to have some non-monogamous options on the table in a long-term relationship - it helps combat the 'grass is greener' phenomenon if you're occasionally allowed to leave your house and check out the neighbourhood. And generally speaking, these days the neighbourhood is a burning valley of cinder and radioactive ash. Maybe you find an intact tin of beans or something but you're mostly relieved to rush back into your cosy warm home.
It's funny you mention ChatGPT, as this line of thinking on my part was partly inspired by thinking about whether (and under what circumstances) it might make sense to attribute beliefs to LLMs. I don't think they come close to instantiating the kind of self-regulating representationalk dynamics associated with ideal cases of belief in humans, but they clearly come some of the way there. In that sense, I'm fine with saying that - at an appropriate level of abstraction - ChatGPT has S-dispositions.
A psychological natural kinds framework can certainly accommodate these states being (i) qualitatively different categories, and (ii) two clusters on a spectrum (positions on a spectrum is maybe messier). My own view on this would be that mental attitudes in general (beliefs, desires, hopes, regrets, fears, etc.) can be individuated on a multi-dimensional spectrum as a variety of ways that the mind handles content. While in principle there are all sorts of "in-between states" (cf. Andy Egan on delusions as in-between states), the vast majority of mental contents get handled in a few stereotyped ways, where these ways are themselves underpinned by substantially different neural mechanisms (e.g., for imagining scenarios vs believing scenarios).
Remind me about this if I haven’t replied or posted next week! Not ignoring your nice question at all but will need to find 30 mins to do it justice.
More options
Context Copy link