dailydogma
23m ago
The AI adds apparently nothing because the app doesn't work due to the creators pairing people by hand. Why even be a website at that point?
dailydogma
29m ago
Are you the dev or something? 47 traits mostly pulled out of thin air does not change my psychometrically incompetent assessment.
dailydogma
52m ago
Way too many questions, and psychometrically incompetent. Couples mainly pair on intelligence and political ideology. Surprisingly, big 5 spousal correlations are quite small. They also pair on BMI and drug using status. Not 2000 dAnK mEmEs questions.
dailydogma
1hr ago
Yes and also children exist right now and approximately 0% of them are betrothed, so they will be looking for marriage sooner than in 18 years.
dailydogma
1hr ago
Not true, a Marriage App generates its own new customers by working well. That's the point of marriage. There's certainly value in becoming The Marriage App That Works, which can be passed down through the generations, if only people want what it can offer. The limit is that silicon valley people don't want to offer it and a lot of Westerners don't want to buy what it would sell.
dailydogma
15hr ago
I am somewhat perplexed by how you, after telling me that I haven't done a basic cost-benefit analysis, happen to casually gloss over the rather catastrophic near to medium term economic and societal damage of societies with far more old people than children, or drastic population decline as projected.... in pretty much every developed country. And many developing ones.
The solution to this is redistributing from the old to the young. He who does not work shall not eat. Easy.
I genuinely don't think we're going to need humans for their physical or cognitive labor in a decade or change, possible less.
That would be awesome. Can we design ourselves to be extremely beautiful, moral, and intelligent after that? Considering we will no longer will need the lower classes.
If it's business as usual with no major technological breakthroughs and serious social engineering (or even just the widespread adoption of the suggestions I've endorsed), I don't see how you account for the disaster that represents.
I think the people who made the disaster, so the old generation at that time, should suffer the consequences of their behavior. They are being told how to be good, by several voices at the moment, and they are not listening at all. That is wrong, and I'm fine with it if they pay the price. They deserve it.
dailydogma
20hr ago
If you disagree with this on moral grounds, be my guest. I am on Scott's side, in the sense that Society is fixed, Biology is mutable.
Society is biology, so this is not literally true. Although changing the biology of 300 million people is much harder than changing the biology of one. And if you can change the biology of one cooperatively, you might be able to do the same for 300 million people, but if you need to change 300 million people uncooperatively, that's going to have a big, probably unreachable cost.
It's not that I think these people can be effectively bullied into reproducing earlier, if anything them failing to replace themselves is better. Because what they do is unnatural, it both costs a lot of money to fix, and it comes off as extremely ugly to other people. I believe their lives are unhappy and that it is wrong to delay reproduction to 35. In the meantime I would enjoy it if a government of people who think like me lower the status those who live that lifestyle through the trumpeting the virtues of reproducing naturally at the appropriate age. I also think the late-reproducing people have a ton of negative externalities on the rest. of us and as they fail to replace themselves those externalities will fade and all of the well-adapted people will be happier and wealthier.
dailydogma
23hr ago
The Logical Fallacy of Generalization from Fictional Evidence
Apologies for that, I was trying to speak to the audience. More seriously, it's not that Dune is empirical evidence, but that the author's underlying reasoning for Butlerian Jihad being good is itself a philosophical case for what I am arguing. My own case for it, without reference to fiction and with reference to real science, would lead me to write a book about dynastic aristocracies with supermen who control technology instead of letting technology control them.
You know what, maybe we shouldn't have invented treatments for malaria, chemotherapy for aggressive cancers, ozempic for the obesity epidemic. Maybe reducing infant-and-child mortality rates from the ~50% they hovered around for most of human history to the rounding error they are today was deeply misguided. Maybe doctors should all retire en masse and society should return to the state of nature, however we're defining that this Sunday.
We spend way too much on healthcare and it really doesn't improve human happiness much. These medicines have pros and cons. You seem to fixate on the pros without acknowledging any cons. Why is that?
In some cases the pros outweight the cons. You rush to cases where most people would say that's that case. I don't disagree that much. I would probably say that some chemotherapies are actually scams and I would like to think I would be one of the patients who follows through on that and just dies earlier instead of having a wretched 6 to 12 month life extension. Others are life-savers and cures. It depends on the type of cancer. In the case of malaria, the impact of the cure and its widespread free distribution depends on what you think about a billion subsaharan Africans existing. Can't get anywhere negative on that topic with normies because it is impolite thought crime. The one downside of ozempic is that obesity was a mark of shame for people with terrible self-control, but I think that tattoos and other vices neatly fill the obesity void, so I see it as a positive on net.
Ultimately with these technologies, you must judge the life-form they help and weigh the externalities of that life form against the costs of the aid. Yes, this is so mean to do, because everyone is exactly the same and equal and equally valuable and so on, unless you want to be impolite. But is truth always polite? Anyway, IVF is extremely expensive and basically works to perpetuate people who barely want to reproduce. That attitude correlates positively with other negative behaviors that punish those around them as well. The babies it makes are sicker on average. Why should we have more sick people who hate family life at such a high cost? Who does that benefit? I'm not seeing it pass the pros and cons audit.
dailydogma
23hr ago
This ignores regression to the mean. The 120 IQ parent's children will tend towards a longer term average of the ancestors of that parent.
Gene scores do not regress to the mean. And therefore neither do 100% heritable phenotypes. I was speaking in gene scores. Regression to the mean comes from e^2. People with above average traits have above average e^2, but their children have an expected e^2 of exactly average.
An especially smart, outlier person's children are more likely to go downwards in IQ than to go upwards.
But yes, this is true in real life since the e^2 component of IQ is between 20% and 40% Also, the expected effect of de novo mutations on offspring gene scores is small but negative.
dailydogma
23hr ago
As a person who was not an American teenager in the 1990s, this game looks like completely overrated trash. First off, it's not a game, it's a 2 hour cut scene. They should have made it be a corny coming of age movie. The plot is completely boring. The aesthetics are ugly and look trans (1). The characters look like SSRI addicted 2010s university Marxist vegan polyamorists with mystery ancestry, not 1990s European-American teenagers.
Clannad is a better slice-of-life high school „ video game“ by a mile, the United States just cannot compete when it comes to that genre because it's too narcissistic about all of its obnoxious peculiarities: it's terrible music, its terrible politics, its ugly aesthetics, its inferior culture.
That it got straight 10/10s means the review companies are being suffocated by 45 year old American liberals. Does that sound like meritocracy to you? Are they really the best people to review video games?
- inb4 gaslighting me over this, the creator's past works include this trans flag pastel piece featuring a boy wearing lipstick. The creator doesn't look like he's on the estrogen but he's definitely appealing to the gender people crowd with his aesthetics.
dailydogma
1d ago
but marry off the twenty-two year old girls to thirty-five/forty-five year old men, like the old days?
I can't think of any old day where the usual marriage structure had a median age gap between 13 and 23 years or a median age of male marriage between 35 and 45.
dailydogma
1d ago
I am painfully pragmatic, and what I intend to demonstrate is that there is a technological solution to the problem (the best kind of solution, mwah):
Have you read Dune? It makes a compelling case that's the opposite of true. Maybe people who are so bad that they won't reproduce until 35 should just stop existing. Why save them with technology invented for them? What's the point?
dailydogma
2d ago
Equality. Most people, including the proletariat, and protected categories like women and minorities, do poorly on IQ tests. They can be smuggled into nice places under a big long education system through DEI. It also creates sinecures for them, like philosophy professor, high school teacher, or university administrator. All of this is at your expense as a smart person of course.
dailydogma
2d ago
I'm saying the undergrad biology books are probably flawed.
dailydogma
2d ago
Are you telling me you weren’t aware that only between 1%-2% of genes in human beings code for proteins?
Uh no, it was spoonfed to me in school just like you. Unless you picked it up from an even worse source, like a podcast or youtube video. Lol.
This is something that’s taught in the intro chapters of almost every introductory genomics textbook I’ve ever seen.
Yes and most claims in most psychology textbooks are false. I'm telling you that the textbook-for-teens is not trustworthy. I suspect the 2% coding region claim has something wrong with it, just like emotional intelligence and Freudianism.
dailydogma
2d ago
Mendelian genetics has also long since been superseded by better insights
Right, the polygenic model is superior and governs 99% of traits, but mendialian segregation is just meiotic segregation. It hasn't been superseded.
How does that tie in more generally with the origin of traits that are at the more extreme bound of the population with no previously known biological determinants?
Are you talking about diseases? Usually mutations and other types of higher order molecular disturbances.
dailydogma
2d ago
Michael Jordan's height compared to his siblings? It's caused by mendelian segregation which causes the genetic variance of siblings to be 1/2 that of the whole population. I left another comment about this.
dailydogma
2d ago
You're not understanding. Epigenetic variance explains ~0% of phenotypic variance, so it doesn't impact gene expression between people do a significant extent. Has nothing to do with between-generations.
dailydogma
2d ago
If they have a genuine 9, then there is something wrong with them if they are tired of fucking her. It would be very weird to hear someone with a 9 wife who is 22 who is genuinely tired of fucking her just because they have been together since she was a teenager.
dailydogma
2d ago
It doesn't have a significant role if it doesn't cause significant differences in phenotype, because heritability is high.
dailydogma
2d ago
Only 2%-3% of genes code for traits.
The molecular guys probably fucked that one up because 50>% of behavior variance is explained by genetic variance. They don't really have good evidence for that claim any more than psychologists have good evidence for anything they teach the teenagers. And of course we are not allowed to teach the teenagers quantitative genetics, which produces voting citizens with a knowledge base like you. But maybe the two facts are jointly true. I suspect though that the entire DNA being about 800 megabytes, means that 2% actually being code leave 4 megabytes, and I feel like a lot more than 4 megabytes.
dailydogma
2d ago
I’ve wondered at times though whether you can breed out some of the most fundamental characteristics in humans.
Of course you can. Some humans are born without these characteristics. Many lack sex drives, or intelligence, or morality, or basic health.
Even among intelligent families, children are still very much a crapshoot.
You're probably picking up on sibling genetic variance being 50% of population genetic variance. That means your childrens' genetic IQs have standard deviations of 10 points. If e^2 > 0%, then the sibling SD is even higher. Empirically it's like 12 points or something iirc. But the median sibling has the same gene score as the parental median. So, 120 IQ parents (genetically) can somewhat easily have a <108 IQ kid, a 120 IQ kid, and a >132 IQ kid, which are pretty stark differences.
dailydogma
2d ago
You're looking at polygenic selection, which would be significantly slower than selecting for traits dominated by a handful of genes.
No, it's not. If you set heritability when the allele is at 50% frequency equal to the polygenic heritability of the other trait, mendelian selection is slower because heritability is usually under this value, due to additive genetic variance being smaller when the allele frequency is under 50%. Polygenic selection is faster in general. And it's not a massive pain in the ass, it's pretty easy to get a shift of >0.50 SDs per generation when you can control the selection differential.
dailydogma
2d ago
Epigenetic variance explains ~0% of phenotypic variance. You should probably just not refer to it again and epistemically audit whatever process led you to mention it like it was important.
Make men pay to be on it and focus on attracting women and matching well. The men provide the revenue, the good reputation provides the men.
More options
Context Copy link