site banner

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 9, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

5
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

How does one refute that crap? It is free of falsifiable claims

This way. Not by pointing out her jewhishness, there's no signal there, because the author is always someone with biases, even when they tell the truth.

Don’t you see the blatant similaraties between @SecureSignals superman rant and this crap, and feminist/african american studies in general? They point to disparities and assume the jew/white male is wrong and has nefarious motives. His ‘narrative-crafting’ assymmetry is her ‘prestige assymmetry’. They use this invented assymmetry to justify a far more concrete assymmetry, privileging the standpoint of the non-jew/non-white male, and the truth-value in their statements.

like your sloppy «truth particles in the winning side» power-worship epistemology.

Make it ‘power-respecting’, at least.

This way. Not by pointing out her jewhishness, there's no signal there, because the author is always someone with biases, even when they tell the truth.

This is just completely contradictory... there are always biases, but there's no signal there? How does that make sense? If there is a bias that is the definition of a signal, if you try to understand the content without taking into consideration their identity then you will be systematically wrong. There would be no signal there if the Jewishness of a content creator was completely uncorrelated with the content, which it is not. There are broad correlations across various disparate subject matters, the bias is averaged in a particular direction that is meaningful and influential to the broader culture.

His ‘narrative-crafting’ assymmetry is her ‘prestige assymmetry’.

My 'narrative crafting' asymmetry: "Jews have a particular talent for creating propaganda and narratives that are memetically influential in culture."

Prescod-Weinstein's 'prestige assymmetry': "In American society, Black women are on the losing end of an ontic prestige asymmetry whereby different scientists “garner unequal public approbation” in their everyday lives due to ascribed identities such as gender and race"

Her asymmetry is invented, mine is true. Of course my asymmetry does not say all Jews are better than all Gentiles at this behavior, no more than making a claim "Jews have on average higher IQ than Gentiles" would be making a claim of universality. If you simply assume that there is a positive correlation between IQ and a talent for narrative-crafting, then my claim holds true on that empirical measurement alone. But I admit I go further than that and believe the gap between the two is greater than the IQ gap and is driven by differences in cognitive profile beyond simply intelligence. Something like Verbal Intelligence might be a better proxy for that talent, and the gap between Jews and Gentiles is biggest there whereas the reverse is true for Spatial Intelligence. More Gentiles in MMA, more Jews in Hollywood.

In contrast, Black women are not losing 'prestige asymmetry' due to discrimination by their gender or race, but due to their lower capabilities in producing science.

I affirm my asymmetry and reject Prescod-Weinstein's asymmetry by appealing to innate differences in talent in both cases...

You, presumably, accept that there is an asymmetry when it comes to Black Women contribution to physics, but when it comes to contributions to crafting grand social narratives and propaganda, you throw your hands up in the air and claim we cannot say anything meaningful about the asymmetry of Jewish contributions to these crucial cultural institutions.

IQ correlates with knowledge too, and the ability to create great art and science. That correlates with Truth in the speaker’s statements. Going by identity epistomology, they should be granted a knowledge-and-intelligence-assymmetry bonus instead of your narrative-crafting malus.

To be consistent with your anti-correlation of truth and IQ, you should find the stupidest person available and believe him.

By your own rules, whites have a narrative-crafting advantage over blacks, and they would be right to ignore our statements and go for Prescod-Weinstein ’s crap.

I've never said there's an anti-correlation of truth and IQ, I've said that a greater talent for crafting narratives and propaganda gives a big advantage to a particular identity with a huge bias towards its own interest and an implacably hostile posture towards perceived ethnic rivals.

There is a correlation between IQ and the consequence of ethnic bias, that is certainly true of whites who enslaved blacks armed with social narratives that were by-and-large internalized by black slaves, until whites crafted a new grand narrative that snowballed into an armed conflict and culture victory.

The greater the talent for creating memetically powerful social narratives, the greater the impact of the ethnic bias which you have already admitted exists.

I cleaned up your narrative-crafting argument a bit:

  1. Narrative-crafting ability (a complex form of deception) is correlated with falsehood in the speaker’s statements.

  2. IQ is correlated with narrative-crafting ability.

  3. Jews have high IQ.

  4. Therefore, jewishness of the speaker is correlated with falsehood in the speaker’s statements.

Logically sound so far?


  1. Knowledge, as well as science and art ability, is correlated with truth in the speaker’s statements.

  2. IQ is correlated with knowledge, as well as science and art ability.

  3. Jews have high IQ.

  4. Therefore, jewishness of the speaker is correlated with truth in the speaker’s statements.


I'd like to know exactly which of those statements do you disagree with. We'll call the two sequences A and B. (1A, 2A, etc)

IQ correlates with knowledge too, and the ability to create great art and science. That correlates with Truth in the speaker’s statements.

Narrative-crafting ability (a complex form of deception) is correlated with falsehood in the speaker’s statements.

IQ is correlated with narrative-crafting ability…

The idea of capital-T truth and «signals» that you present here is rife with utterly childish essentialism, the pinnacle of muddled Westoid thinking where Truth and Good are One through Jesus or whatever and is-ought distinction is made up by the Devil.

Either that, or this is utter mockery, I'd be tempted to shank you for such a bad faith tactic (which is why people generally don't attempt this kind of Ancient Greek sophistry in person).

Intelligence is causally related to the ability to discover «truth». It is correlated with success in achieving one's goals, because discovery of truth aids in pursuing one's goals. Particularly verbal intelligence is correlated with success in achieving goals in the verbal domain, obviously. What does it mean for something to be true, though? It means simply that it satisfies some relevant constraints. «Do dark matter axions form a condensate with long-range correlation?» is a question for which, presumably, there exists a True answer. «How do I denigrate white people from the position of authority in particle physics» is a question that has some True answers as well. Her answers to both of those questions, Chanda expresses as academic publications, as befits her prestigious role. It is not clear why she thinks the latter is a question worth asking and being answered. @SecureSignals offers his opinion on that. You bristle at his suggestions. But it must have a True answer regardless.

Lies can be true answers to questions. At the same time, Truth isn't an essence, there are no particles of Truth, no single dimension of Truth-Affinity (no matter how much you want to be on top of it), and meditating on correlations of being able to ascertain Truth will get you only a very small part of the way toward good priors. People's interest in enlightening you is not, in fact, causally related to how much they know.

I’m sorry, due to your failure to provide a clear answer like 4B, you’ve failed the test too.

What does it mean for something to be true, though?

You are lost. Shame that people from the developing world have not yet developed immune defenses against this crap.

Well, if you have understood that I argue [against] 4B, why do you feel the need for this laughable, adolescent attempt at condescension?

I see you just trying to weasel out of this. You are not used to losing the debate so one-sidedly, I figure. Well start getting used to it, you're corncobbing yourself out of pure obstinacy, this really looks very childish.

I also disagree with 1A, on this account 4A does not follow, likewise for 1B. Your entire correlative logic is worthless, it does not correspond to reality, because a) truth on all political matters is abundant and b) content of statements is determined by intention regarding their effects, which instrumentally calls for basically any combination of truths and falsehoods in a given situation for a given speaker. Again, your syllogism gotcha game is eristic, as bad as Greek stuff (and even Greks knew that the proper response to it is silent violence), and your idea of truth is undifferentiated to the point that you don't seem to distinguish Truth from Good. Your epistemology is millenia out of date.

You are lost.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. I do hope you will grow up and learn to read, though.

Dude, admittedly you are being provoked (and @fuckduck9000 is almost certainly on the path to bannination) but you know better than this. You right now have a mod sheet that is getting almost long enough that we have to scroll down, and it's about 50% AAQCs, 50% antagonism like this. The AAQCs count for a lot, which is why you haven't eaten a ban yet, but that doesn't mean you can just react like this with impunity. You need to chill, even when someone is baiting you, or you will get a time-out.

More comments