netstack
The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.
No bio...
User ID: 647
netstack
The horse embodies the wings a person feels inside.
20hr ago
probably impossible
gives a bunch of successful assimilation examples
What am I missing here? Like, I disagree with a lot of your examples, but even if I accepted them at face value, what you’re saying doesn’t follow. If immigrants could assimilate at some point in the past, they can do it again. If they did it when American culture was less dominant and less accomplished, they can do it now.
doesn’t stop at the neck down.
Usually this expression goes the other way.
ability to be a calculator [does not preclude] significant personality differences.
No argument here. Personality variance is crazy high even if you ignore societal effects.
the Japanese seem to be very pro-social in a lot of ways
Sure, I guess. What makes that genetic and not, well, social? I think society is usually the more mutable.
I think it’s also dumb to lump all Asians together. Look at this study on rice vs. wheat. It was conducted entirely between different regions of China!
Americans are not this.
Again: sure. Pioneer spirit, etc. etc. How do you know it’s not societal? How do you distinguish between selection on genes and on memes?
wanderlust gene
I can’t say I’m familiar with the literature, and what I could find was largely woo for globetrotters. Are you saying there’s a gene which provides this huge selection opportunity? And that it varied enough within ethnicities to dominate factors like poverty or religion?
If culture has a hereditary basis then cultural assimilation isn’t going to happen.
But why not? You have all these examples of groups who supposedly had crazy-strong hereditary culture. They’ve all more or less assimilated. Doesn’t this suggest the exact opposite?
Thank you.
Bay Area rationalists hiring an effective altruist sounds coherent to me. It’s unlikely to come to your political positions, which is not the same thing. What’s the contradiction?
This is stupid. Setting aside the fact that leftism is a political movement founded on a moral system, you are making the stereotypical atheist argument. The Church persecuted such-and-such, therefore it hates scientists/Protestants/women/etc., therefore it’s incompatible with modern society. Do you find that convincing?
I agree. If we could teach the AI to use a 1600s hangman’s moral intuition, our problems would be solved. But we can’t. No matter what we try to instill, the LLM will roleplay it until something else feels more important. Then it’s back to pragmatic treachery.
More options
Context Copy link