This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
User ID: 685
Ok so you know there was zero chance the Dems are every giving him a high ranking position?
What did the Dems have to offer him? Not prosecute him?
I don’t think that has any value to Trump. It’s why voters vote for him because he legitimately won’t back down. Now I think Trump mostly just cares about Trump and wants the crown for his own ego.
The one contra to support his thesis is it explains Elon Musks. Being a man who can see where techs could go has immense value as most people can’t do that. That we in fact have a bunch of techs that could flourish if only we had the manager who knew how to put all the pieces together. Also implies the average VC kind of sucks and really just trade off what’s worked in the past and building the next SAAS model or app.
The first assumption you could make is that Hollywood writers are just stupid. But that doesn’t feel right especially with HBO since writers do often get intricate stories right and research all sorts of mythology and historical facts to build characters and plots.
I think this leads you to a conclusion that Hollywood views corporations and business in general as low status. Therefore, learning how a business would think can’t be done because it would be beneath them to study how business would think. Thus business thinking can only be a caricature of dumb evil villains doing silly sort cuts to get things done.
This is a motte and bailey. American is way above other areas.
This is the whole SAT aren’t predictive of college performance. It’s not predictive once you have already filtered for SAT skills plus other categories.
I think what he may be bringing up is very often the debate is almost entirely on false terms.
America does for instance have too much gun violence. The debate is almost always over limiting white people from buying AR-15 which numerically are a very small part of the problem and nearly no risks to the activist class in red or blue tribe.
Where gun violence is an issue it’s mostly harms blue tribe people or politically tribeless people.
Where the debate on pro-gun/anti-gun happens is in area that is a trivial problem. Hence it seems like just tribal fights for status.
US is already spending high levels on social spending.
The American black living situation was plausible some time before the 1960’s. It actually showed up in things they are good at today like athleticism.
Today the living situation isn’t bad by any historical standard. It’s not worse than any Jewish diaspora where everyone hated them. It’s not worse than post WW2 Japan/Germany. For general Europeans things like the plague have been cited as a good thing (sounds stressful) because it increased demand for labor and led to human capital formation in the peasant class.
Environmental factors obviously do matter. It seems apparent that communism really does harm a society. But they don’t seem to be the cause for achievement gaps.
A lot of the solutions to environmental factors seem to make the situation worse especially modern liberalism. Stop and frisks is blowing up on Twitter but it does seem like that correlated very well with lowering NYC black homicide rate. And I am personally very partial to Christianity having overall good effects on the African American community versus modern liberalisms sexual values. Modern liberalism is probably fine for the high IQ San Franciscan but the lower class I believe does better with stricter social rules.
I think he’s putting out a lot of good information and content at what seems like a rapid click to me.
But in finding his overall voice he seems incoherent to me.
I don’t care about views. That’s too easy to game.
I’m fine with letting in anyone who can score a 1300 on the SAT or equivalent test.
But there is no political coalition that would agree to IQ testing for immigrants. The left gave up on that in education.
A persons income correlates more with average IQ in their country than their personal IQ. This implies that lowering a countries average IQ will not function by having the smart people pull the low IQ people us but will have the high IQ people pulled down.
Mostly due to political instability and institution quality. America could probably fit a billion people easily. If we added 700 million people from low IQ countries it would lead to bad political outcomes. The existing American people would become less productive and poorer.
Since when does leaping ability not matter in basketball? Which is definitely a think hbd types would point to as a black edge.
From 1984-2022 only one white person won the nba slam dunk contest. 2023/2024 a white person won named Matt McClung won but the competition is weird and filled with g-league players and only one NBA star participated. Honestly looks like white affirmative action.
Obviously other abilities matter in basketball too, but a big one is my launch point for my shot is higher than the defenders ability to block that shot which is heavily aided by jumping ability.
I just have a huge urge to use a cliche but “tell me you’ve never been dunked on without telling me you’ve never been dunked on”.
They won’t though.
Besides if they started pulling out adoption studies then progressives themselves are saying they believe in race realism and the GOP is believing in race realism but using a polite euphemism for it.
I am confused how banning abortion won’t boost fertility. People are still going to have unprotected sex. Which means pregnancy. Which leads to having a kid. The guy gets hit with obligations. Now they get sort of married. Love their kids and probably make more at a younger age.
Behaviors often come before beliefs.
I haven’t seen it by pro-life/pro-choice but religious attendance is likely a good proxy for pro-life.
This just means that human level intelligence is exactly sitting around a Great Filter. And variations between the “inbreds” range from can form “Hunter gathering tribe” complexity to can make “rockets that leave earth” complexity.
I have no doubt if I took subsaharan Africans and filtered them for 500 years for IQ that I could arrive at Ashekenazi level Jewish average IQ.
Hanania has basically taken a view that politicians should just adopt views to win elections. That sounds truthy but it also means you abdicate leadership.
Abortion is certainly one issue with this. It might be an election loser but Pro-life seems a very good policy and a cultural view that is extremely good if I want my society to be strong and growing. If you look at the entire pro-life package it’s better than the opposite which is sub replacement level fertility in core American ethnicities behind American success. Having people just accept they got pregnant at 20 is a good thing on both the male and female side. The male well is expected to go bust his ass for the next 20-40 years and settle down. Long-term they likely end up happy. And our nation grows. A fertility cult is much better than a “I need to find myself” cult.
On HBD the right needs an argument against open borders and it’s really the only thing that is intellectually solid. All the evidence points to low IQ countries being politically unstable. They haven’t developed into functional lower class populations with functional upper classes still leading society forward.
I do not believe I could make a strong anti-immigration argument without using HBD. The best I could do is believe in HBD and make arguments based on things I don’t believe (like the Chinese are sending in military age men to conquor America internally)
With the explosion of population in Africa it seems clear to me Europe won’t exists in 70-90 years and is going the route of S Africa. The US I thought was relatively protected but now it seems like a lot of migrants on our southern border aren’t coming from just the America’s.
It looks like it fits.
Msnbc host still saying it’s never happened before.
Regardless this would still fall under blatant lawfare. And I don’t see 600 million in damages.
You quoted shrek before but there was clear fraud there and investors did lose though I believe he made them while elsewhere.
And NY lost that case. So the charge was brought but the Judge acted properly.
You actually misspelled Cal with Stanford. Which is sort of curious because even though I’ve heard Stanford is no fun now her son would have seem connected enough to get into Stanford with a mere mortals test scores. I would assume 99% of people who get into Stanford and Cal go to Stanford.
“Democracy outperforms” actually feels weakly proven to me. Lots of great empires and golden ages were not Democracies. A lot of Englands peak was hybrid. Augustus period of Rome wasn’t Democracy.
Singapore wasn’t a Democracy.
Peter Thiel of course believes in Monarchy.
Democracy also seems to work very poorly in low IQ countries. Even if you could make a strong argument that Democracy works best for Western European people you would still struggle with Democracy is best in sub-Saharan Africa. Saudi Arabia I feel like would be worse if Democracy between the historical religious and a likely fight over oil spoils.
It seems as though the key thing to government is having a great deal of individual agency below the government and buy in by the people.
Yes when I say OD are an order of magnitude (or close to that) bigger issue it was adjusting for life expectancy loss.
Weirdly I would say rich young people want cocaine to be expensive. If you could buy coke at 7-eleven for the price of a Red Bull it wouldn’t be a status symbol having the coke in the club/after-party but a lower class stimulant.
I wish someone would explain what’s up with my math and 3% rate. My extrapolation feels right but something not jiving with the lower percent of deaths.
I don’t buy the prescription opioids to fentanyl theory but can’t prove it. Any user I know of (young people) don’t have any reason for pain meds. Even someone I’m thinking of who did prescription meds was also just in the scene and doing both. If anything it would feel like an adderall as a kid to party scene pipeline.
“People who overdose on drugs don’t have long lifespans” - obviously because they died from an overdose. Absent substance abuse a 24 year old drug overdose would have lived to old age. There isn’t an underlying medical condition that would have killed them young absent.
I’m not sure what health care reform has to do with substance abuse. Data I have seen already have Americans doing more prescription drugs so better health insurance/single payer and more money spent on health care wouldn’t seem to shrink the amount of pharmaceuticals American are using. Now if you meant targeted reform like stricter limits on prescribing then it would likely do some good.
Believable to me. It’s small in size so you could easily sneak it in. But I have no expertise. It’s a nice narrative for anti-immigration to connect the two.