site banner
PaperclipPerfector  6mo ago (text post)   1886 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for October 1, 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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Not sure if this is the correct spot for site feedback.

Can/should we prevent posts that you reported from showing up in your own "The Motte needs your help" queue?

If I report something, I prefer other unbiased users judge if the report makes sense.

@ZorbaTHut

I'm sure many of you have heard about the murder of Ryan Carson in Brooklyn on Monday morning. I have an indirect personal connection to Carson so I've been following this case with some interest. Carson's girlfriend Claudia Morales was with him when he was stabbed to death.

I've seen a lot of people online independently claiming that Morales refused to give a description of the assailant to police. After a cursory Google, I can't find anything to back up this claim, and this detail isn't mentioned in any of the many news articles I've read about the murder. Does anyone have a source for this claim, or was it simply invented from whole cloth?

I just learned about What's Our Problem by Tim Urban in the Culture War thread. Scott Alexander reviewed it, buy unfortunately his review is paywalled. Can anyone tell me what he thinks of the book? Is it worth reading?

Any Mottizens do martial arts? Is Brazilian jiu-jitsu a good choice or has my mind been poisoned by misinformation from Jocko Willink and Joe Rogan?

BJJ reigns supreme for one-on-one fights that wind up on the ground, which is most of them. But as @Nemo says below, you probably want to round out your self-defense training with some techniques when you can't/don't want to go to the ground.

Well, what do you want to get out of martial arts? Do you have any experience with martial arts? Do you want to learn to beat people up or be a graceful ninja? (That "or" tends to be exclusionary in my experience.) How active are you currently?

I'm going on almost 20 years of various martial arts, mostly Song Moo Kwan (basically Shotokan karate with a Korean flair) and judo. I have dabbled in a few other things. I enjoy the solo workout and continual improvement you get through katas; figuring out the meaning of the various techniques is both a martial arts challenge and a historical one. Of course, that may not appeal to you in the slightest. I think some amount of full (or nearly-full) contact sparring is very important in a martial art, and unfortunately, karate seems to be going the way of Tae Kwan Do with less and less physical contact and resistance in practice.

I'm not an expert in bjj, though I do have a bit of familiarity from judo and have sparred with and grappled some bjj practitioners. Size, strength (especially grip), flexibility, and age are going to be relatively important if you want to grapple seriously. Of those, flexibility is really the only one that will improve, so you should have a separate workout plan for strength training. Something that sets grappling apart from many other martial arts is how cerebral it is in practise. Generally, and especially early on, you'll be working at a relatively slow pace, so are you able to (somewhat) calmly think through your options. This can be very attractive if you enjoy planning out lines of play. You have both gi-bjj, but a lot of schools offer no-gi bjj now as well. It would be easier to start with the gi version, and most schools do not even offer no-gi to beginners.

Most of the time, when people ask about which martial art it is, it is in the context of self-defense. Bjj is amazing for that, as long as your self-defense encounters begin and end on the ground with a sole, unarmed opponent. I say that somewhat in jest, as grappling is very important for self-defense. However, I cannot recommend a solely grappling-based art for self-defense. I believe Icy Mike of hard2hurt has a video where he discusses martial arts in the context of self-defense and concludes you should have at least a couple years of a grappling and striking art to be somewhat well rounded.

Ultimately, your goals should dictate your martial art. Importantly, you don't need to just choose one. Practise martial arts long enough, and you'll learn quite a few, whether through formal training at the schools or just by knowing people of different styles and exchanging information. If you have no idea, try a couple weeks at various schools around you. Most places have a 2-week or month-long trial that should be <50 bucks and generally includes a uniform. If you don't like the dojo/gym/mat/people/instructor you are practising in/with, then the style does not really matter.

I can provide more info on to answer specific questions if you have them. You did ask basically the broadest most common question about martial arts in general.

tl;dr: bjj good but overrated. What is offered in your local area is probably the predominate factor.

Okay, I'm in a tricky spot.

I made a group for a niche'ish hobby and got like 20+ members. However, I wanted the group to actually not die and serve as a place to socialize so I made sure the m:f ratio was no worse than 60:40. (Simply don't let all the guys in, dick move I know.)

Anyway, had the first meetup. Everyone was "okay" other than this 1 guy. This guy gave me the heeby jeebies. Had 0 charisma, made the lamest jokes, and just ruined the vibes all around (oh he also keeps on flirting with all the females, and fails at it really badly). I'm not being judgemental or biased here, he looks normal physically, but his personality is just off.

Now I get it, you make a group for randoms to join, you will get oddballs. I mean they are joining random groups online for a reason. But seriously, fuck this guy, I don't want him in my group. He is a ticking time bomb. He brings down the average status of our group himself single-handedly.

I would just... kick him. But that might make me a pariah with the rest of the group who are not wise enough to see that this mf will literally make things marginally awkward enough over the long term that the entire enterprise dies.

What to do?

“Hi guys! Remaking the group with this new chat because unfortunately we’ve heard something that made us take this decision for community safety + trust reasons. Next month’s meet up is __. Before reaching out to invite someone not in this chat, please let me know so I can make sure everyone’s comfortable.”

I'm just gonna kick him

lmao

I've also seen this done where there is a public group to initially recruit members and a private group that exists to invite selected members to. The public group can stay active but just not schedule any further events until there is a need to grow the private group again. The reason given for starting the private group can be something like I'm not comfortable with how big the public events have gotten and I need a mechanism to limit attendance.

Man, this type of shit is the worst. It's why I don't host local groups anymore. Just kick him if you have the authority the autists will ruin your damn group quicker than you think.

Any experiences/stories to share?

Mainly just autistic rationalists hitting on women in front of a whole group in really cringey ways, totally oblivious. Said women never come back of course. Try to talk to them about it and they deny it ever happened.

Then of course having trans or 'non-binary' folk show up to another meetup and start talking every time about how reality is socially constructed. Going to space doesn't matter because if we focus on social reality we have everything we need on Earth, etc.

Oh and this one time a homeless girl showed up and I think she was subtly trying to find places to stay? Anyway. You run into some weird types running a group.

Since you are already cultivating the group I would just kick him. If he is going to ruin it anyway then kicking him early has no downsides, since you will either have no group (if people are upset) or a much better group in the future.

I suppose you could give him one more chance or speak to him privately about his behavior if you are feeling charitable. But it is usually better to cut your losses early.

What's the hobby?

Why do people enjoy reaction videos? I can understand the appeal for content creators: they are cheap and quick to make and please the gods of YT algorithms.

But why would I watch someone watch a video? Is it a parasocial thing, enjoying things you liked "together" with your "friend"?

I suspect a lot of it is just content theft with the minimal effort required to make it unique. The reactor finds some content, and since he is a more savvy marketer/promoter/algorithm-manipulator/staring-with-open-mouth-thumbnail-maker than the original he can simply slap his reaction in a corner and hijack the views.

There are lots of different types of reaction vids, but for a lot of them yeah, it's just you watching the thing but with a parasocial friend there too.

I've only watched a few of these but for me it was primarily a way to vicariously relive the excitement of seeing or playing something awesome for the first time. Probably a parasocial element too, like streaming.

I'm so superior to these people watching reaction videos, I can't even ...

vicariously relive the excitement of seeing or playing something awesome for the first time.

Aw, damn it, you're right. This is why the reaction shots are the most moving parts of the first Falcon 9 landing and Falcon Heavy debut recaps, isn't it?

A good reaction video combines someone with expertise in a rare area at least tangemtially related to the video. I like watching an animation expert react to an animated video I liked because he'll observe things about the animation I'd never have seen and will never take the time to scratch the surface of the skill. You can learn a lot from these, it's more like watching the commentary tracks of a DVD.

I don't generally watch a general interest star reacts to a video of the original still exists.

Seeing what other people think of a work of media can be interesting and entertaining if you're interested in the work, in commentary from those people, or both. People read reviews and analysis of works they have already seen. Sites like Reddit and 4chan have discussion threads when an episode/movie/etc. comes out, and people read those threads even if they have no interest in commenting themselves or long after the thread is dead (for 4chan the threads expire but there's sites like desuarchive.org).

It's not that weird that people like reading Scott's review of One Thousand And One Nights, right? You could say that it is "parasocial", in some sense it is playing the same role as a two-way conversation on the subject with an entertaining friend, but that isn't normally how you would describe the appeal. Well, Scott isn't going to write a review for the latest episode of anime you watched, likely no writer of his ability will, but it might still be interesting to see what people have to say on /a/ or /r/anime or one of the few surviving anime blogs. Reaction videos are another variant of the same thing - generally more in-depth than an internet comment, with the moment-to-moment commentary of a live-watch thread or chatroom, but generally without the more thorough analysis of someone writing about the work in retrospect. (Though there are reaction videos that will spend over an hour going back over and talking about the work after it's finished, like an impromptu blog post or review.)

That isn't to say the low-status reputation of reaction videos doesn't have justification. Unlike earlier psuedo-reaction videos like MST3K, they have a very low barrier to entry and are unscripted, so naturally quality is typically low. (However the combination of the low barrier to entry and more detail than a typical internet comment may mean they are the most detailed commentary that exists for a particular piece of obscure media.) They appeal to people who prefer video to text, and while there are various reasons for such a preference one is that some people struggle to read, so when they appeal to the lowest common denominator that is often lower than the lowest common denominator for writing. Video is much less time-efficient than text (mitigated by running concurrently with the original work, so it also functions as a rewatch). Less time to think than reviews or literary criticism means commentary is often more shallow. (Though it can be more detailed and unfiltered, watching someone play a videogame can tell you a lot more than some 3-minute scripted GameStop video review.) Of course high-status media commentary is no guarantee of quality either, academics at English departments or writers for magazines like the London Review of Books churn out plenty of garbage. The very element of status often makes this worse, such as by incentivizing viewing everything through the lens of a currently high-status ideology. This is especially bad for professional writing about pop-culture, like video-game reviewers, which often aims for the ideology and pretentiousness of academic writing with less intelligence or knowledge. In any case, the point is that reaction videos are just another subset of media and cultural commentary with various advantages and disadvantages over the other kinds, rather than some alien psychological phenomenon.

I can only suspect it's mainly parasocial. It looks like a substitute for hanging out with an entertaining friend. It probably also serves up affirmations - I liked x, popular person y also likes x, pleasant vibe.

I think that watching "let's plays" is often similar. Possible hot take, but I almost want to say it's an indictment against modern society. Some people (quite a few?) are too low on energy and too lonely to even play a game alone or wrangle someone to play it together with, so they watch a parasocial video instead.

I used to watch them as a young teen, like 12-13.

As a teen they gave a rough idea on what I "should" think of a game movie or event or whatever. And regurgitating even what a stupid adult says make you somewhat of a "smart" teen. I didn't watch only with the express intent of that, I often just found them entertaining, but that was an added bonus.

Why do adults watch them? Because are developmentally impaired.

As a teen they gave a rough idea on what I "should" think of a game movie or event or whatever.

Why not watch an actual review then? I am talking about literal reaction videos, where some youtuber is literally watching another video and at most pausing it to comment. I can kinda tolerate it when it's an actual review, like Uncle Roger's BBC fried rice, although I rapidly grow weary of this format. But I just had to search YT for the link to a music video, and it helpfully suggested I would also enjoy watching reactions to a music video.

How many music videos actually have written or scripted reviews? Reaction videos have a lower barrier to entry than a blog post or scripted video, since you just have to watch and say what you're thinking, but a higher barrier and probably more detail than a Youtube comment. So if someone wants to hear what someone else thinks of a particular music video, they might be pretty much the only choice available. Also if a youtuber or streamer already has an audience they might be interested in what he has to say about something, even if they aren't very interested in the actual subject matter and it's low-effort content.

Want me to go back in time and ask my 12 year old self ?

Also don't you get it? 12yome doesn't want to parrot the opinions of some nerd who does reviews, but instead some player who does reactions.

some player who does reactions.

Why would 12yos perceive someone who does reaction videos as being cool?

I'm a Big Man.

I don't mean fat. I'm 6'8" and go about 245. Through almost all of my 20s, I was maybe 200-210. In college and before I was below that and so noticeably in the "bean pole" range of skinny. A late 20s dive into lifting paired with finally hitting the big metabolical downshift means I'm no longer "potentially a basketball player" but firmly in the land of "hey, that's a Big Dude!" No tattoos, but do have a trimmed beard and close shaved head. I've been called Nordic-looking often (I'm not).

Question is; what are some things I should be aware of in terms of perceptions by other people. I don't want to come across as utterly clueless - I already go out of my way to be a little goofy / ice-breaker-y when meeting new people. I smile (and am concious of it) a lot when dealing with bartenders / cafe people / passers by on a day to day basis. Still, I think I may be oblivious to some things. I'm especially worried about professional context. COVID had me fully remote for two years and Zoom meetings take a lot out of relative physical size awareness. New job (as of the summer) has me in a suit 4 days a week in a more conservative / traditional setting and I'm wondering if that's modulated my smiley/goofiness. FWIW, I don't think I perceive much hesitation from coworkers, and I'm getting a normal level of invitation to informal drinks after work etc.

Would also appreciate any insight on NON-romantic male/female dynamics. On the dating side of things, there is a consistent volume of women who straight up tractor-beam to Big Dudes. (Yes, it's Daddy issues and Lumberjack fantasies as far as the eye can see. SNL had a skit about it with dudes from the Chiefs after the won the Superbowl).

Best thing I ever did for myself in that respect was learn a martial art. Learning (something about) how to fight trained me how to move through space. People tell me I walk with confidence and purpose. And if you're a large man, it's better to move with purpose than with clums.

Besides that, you probably want your facial grooming to look neat and not "wild." You could also make a gag out of your height if you like - put up a measuring stick on your doorframe at your height and label it 5'11" or something.

COVID had me fully remote for two years and Zoom meetings take a lot out of relative physical size awareness.

I know a guy who didn't expect one of his coworkers to be huge. They usually used audio only, and when he suggested everyone switch their cameras on, he was shocked to see a living "bodybuilders being kings on the internet" meme on his screen. I would subtly hint you're big with new coworkers.

I also had a boss that was shaped like a brick shithouse and he just embraced the image wholesale: towering over people, wearing boxy suits etc.

Though this is a good idea, I think you really need to thread the needle on 'subtle hint' or you just come off like you're bragging about how huge you are.

6'8" and 245, yes indeed. It sounds like your self-awareness has the bases covered, and your wearing a suit will temper the nerviness of most people. When you say "close-shaved head" does that mean cue ball bald or just close-cropped? There will be quite different perceptions depending, especially on how you wear your beard. My buddies back home all seem to think huge goatees are a great look (they're not in my view, unless you want to be associated with tiki torch marches). All in all from the picture you're painting really you've nothing to worry about except the Nervous Nellies who will worry no matter what you do.

So, what are you reading?

Still on Paradise Lost. Satan always knows what to say.

Also starting Lord Chesterfield's Letters to his Son, which has been very worthwhile. He's a man both clever and decent, and he writes plainly about things that clever people often don't say. It also has gems like

Adieu! and be persuaded that I shall love you extremely, while you deserve it; but not one moment longer.

I don't think he meant it, but it must have been something to get these letters.

Paper I'm reading: Podgorski's Dynamic Conservatism.

"The Manga Guide to Linear Algebra", and I hate myself a little more with every page I turn. I'm going to complete it, because I want the knowledge and the skills, but the process constantly rubs my nose in my lack of bandwidth in onboarding even basic definitions, much less keeping abstract structures in my head well enough to even see their implications, much less their interactions.

Related, and secondarily, a video course in convex optimization (is that out of scope? If you lot can brag about classic literature I figure it's on to brag about forcing myself through technical content.) I won't detail it except to say it's humbling; playlist at https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8WsPW41L6l7rviIGvIkY0-jn-tM3YSNi if you're curious.

I've rediscovered the US's official congressional record, at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/crec . For whatever reason it's compiled as being distinct from the hearing transcripts, at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/chrg . It's a weird mix of infuriating and humbling, seeing the egoistic grandstanding around things as subtle and varied as the BUILDER act, substantially modifying the National Environmental Policy Act, and as tiny and high-context as tribal treaties from the 1800s interacting with permitting to add a convenience store to a reservation casino. Something about the scale of impact vs the scale of the people involved? These aren't great souls, whether in Congress or the experts they bring to testify, and they're largely not able to make sweeping impacts due to the combined momentum of history, lobbies, budgets, and a few hundred Congressional cats to be herded.

I just wanted to see Jamie Tucker say "shitter" on the record, man.

Brushing up on my Irish history with Tom Barry's Guerrilla Days in Ireland. He's a pretty important figure in the Anglo-Irish War, mcjunker did a very good write up of the Kilmichael Ambush a few years back.

While the Kilmichael Ambush was succesful in that the British patrol was totally wiped out, the Crossbarry Ambush was almost more impressive just for the fact that the IRA weren't wiped out. At that point in the war the British had gotten wise to ambush tactics and patrols consisted of no less than 300 men who would encircle large areas then go house to house clearing out suspected IRA safehouses. The IRA were forced to respond by putting all their eggs in one basket so that numbers were close to 3 to 1 rather than 30 to 1, and this set the stage for the Crossbarry Ambush when Tom Barry and 100 men of the West Cork IRA were encircled by 1200 British troops and 120 Auxiliaries (Barry says 1400 with more patrols on the way). The British were apparently close enough that Barry could hear the execution of one of his commanders who had been caught off guard while recovering from wounds in a nearby house. They had about 40 rounds of ammunition each and little hope of sneaking past the encirclement, so they decided to engage a section which had travelled a bit too far ahead of the others to secure a breakout. Somehow they surprise this section, burn out their trucks, take guns and ammunition in time for the arrival of the next section. The other sections have heard the gunshots and are expecting a quick and easy cleanup operation, so the fact that the IRA have had time to plan a second ambush seems to drive the British into utter confusion. Confusion or unfavourable terrain (it's hard to make use of dozens of trucks if the ones in front have been burned out) are the only explanations I can think of for why the West Cork IRA weren't destroyed that day, because the casualties of a 1200 vs 100 man battle with the IRA flanked on 3 sides, amounted to something like 6 dead on their side and 10 dead on the British side.

Barry's final remarks on the battle make it seem like confusion was the real source of victory:

Shortly after the order to march was given we spied a gathering of British away in the distance ; evidently groups of disorganised units. They appeared to be leaderless, as they were standing around in the centre of a small field in the sloping hillside east of Crossbarry. Through field glasses I could see them gesticulating as if they were arguing as to what to do next. We helped them to make up their minds, for although the distance was a bit far, the Column was halted and deployed along a ditch. The range was given and three volleys from nearly a hundred rifles were fired at them. A few staggered and fell, others broke in all directions, and soon the West Cork hillside was clear of the khaki clad troops. Crossbarry was over.

The decision to fight was part of a pattern for Tom Barry: when the British adapt their tactics, the morale of the IRA is at risk and he has to prove that they can still fight. Some of these counter-tactics are straightforward military affairs, later on in the book Barry justifies terrorism as counter-terrorism (there is a chapter devoted to this called 'Counter-Terror'). When the feared Auxiliary units are sent in and start causing casualties for the IRA, the Kilmichael Ambush shows that they can still win. When the British frustrate ambush tactics by staying in fortified barracks and travelling in large groups, Crossbarry and heavy explosives open another avenue for attack. When the British start a campaign of burning down farmhouses and cottages Barry responds by burning down 2 loyalist houses for every republican house lost (and given the disparity of wealth a ÂŁ1000 worth of destruction on one side brings ÂŁ20,000 worth of reprisals). When civilians in country towns are forced to repair roads and inform on any suspicious movements on pain of execution, Barry shoots at their feet to convince them that they have a choice in who is going to kill them. When the Essex regiment gets a reputation for killing the wounded and unarmed, Barry announces that no mercy will be given to that regiment (having fought for Britain in WW1 he still had a lot of respect for the other regiments he was fighting). This isn't to say that the IRA were on the verge of winning, but they were pretty good at surviving.

As for informers, Michael Collins in Dublin was the man who did the most on this front, but Barry has some interesting stories himself:

The first is “A” of Castletown-Kenneigh, aged about thirty, an ex-British soldier, a Catholic and a paid British spy (. . .) The night was bright and they rode slowly along, endeavouring to gauge the size of fields, strength of ditches, the position of houses, byroads and the other factors which influence the selection of an ambush site. After travelling a few hundred yards the leading horse shied violently, nearly throwing his rider, and it was only when the horse was turned round and forced back that the leading rider observed a man lying on the grass by the roadside.

Dismounting, he shook the man, who awoke, sat up and looked at the I.R.A. Officer. In reply to a question as to what he was doing there, the man again looked at the I.R.A. Officer and said : “ It is all right, sir. I am one of yere own and I have just left Bandon Barracks. The Major knows me well, as I work for him.” He then gave his name and address. Then the officer realised that because he was wearing full field equipment over his trench-coat he had been mistaken for a British officer. “ A ” was not drunk, but was obviously recovering from the effects of liquor. The second I.R.A. officer was then called up and asked if he had ever seen “A” in Bandon Barracks. He replied that he had not. “A” was then told he would have to be examined further before he would be released, as he might be a “Shinner,” the British nickname for an Irish Republican. He was asked to walk along to the byroad, where the talk could proceed with less danger of observation from passers-by. During the next twenty minutes he told the two officers the sordid story of his treachery over a nine months’ period. It all came out : the arrests he had been responsible for, the coups he had missed, his list of local I.R.A. who were still evading arrest, and the amount of pay he was receiving : “ Five pounds every week, and sometimes more, if I have good news.” That day, after reporting to the British Battalion Intelligence Officer, “A” had been drinking in the military canteen until after curfew hour. Then, free from observation, the Essex had driven him six miles and dropped him near where we had found him. Overcome by liquor, he had lain down before completing his journey home and had fallen asleep. Then one of the I.R.A. Officers was sent back to bring up the third, alleged to be a prisoner, who would not give any particulars about himself. When “A” was asked if he recognised this prisoner, he called the questioning officer aside and said—“ I do not know his name, but he is one of them. I saw him with the Lordans and others and he is high up in them.” The spy was then told that the prisoner would be brought to Bandon barracks where he would be forced to talk. At this “A” got very excited and again calling the officer aside said— “ You can’t bring this fellow into Bandon as he might know me and get a message out about me. Shoot him. Shoot him now, here.”

The I.R.A. officer replied that he did not like shooting prisoners himself and he would wait until some of his troops came up. Then the spy showed the viciousness of his character for he eagerly volunteered to do the shooting. He asked for the officer’s gun and reached greedily for it, but the time had come to tell him that the play had ended. This spy was a Catholic and the local priest was called to minister to him before he was shot on the roadside at Mawbeg seven hours later. Strange are the ways of destiny. Incidents which appear of little importance may cause death to some and allow life to remain with others. In all probability, but for the shy of a nervous horse, this spy would still be alive and many other members of the I.R.A. would have met their deaths as a result of his activities.

Chesterton, What's Wrong With The World

It's a long series of short and funny meditations on politics and philosophy. A typical paragraph:

I am well aware that the word “property” has been defied in our time by the corruption of the great capitalists. One would think, to hear people talk, that the Rothchilds and the Rockefellers were on the side of property. But obviously they are the enemies of property; because they are enemies of their own limitations. They do not want their own land; but other people’s. When they remove their neighbor’s landmark, they also remove their own. A man who loves a little triangular field ought to love it because it is triangular; anyone who destroys the shape, by giving him more land, is a thief who has stolen a triangle. A man with the true poetry of possession wishes to see the wall where his garden meets Smith’s garden; the hedge where his farm touches Brown’s. He cannot see the shape of his own land unless he sees the edges of his neighbor’s. It is the negation of property that the Duke of Sutherland should have all the farms in one estate; just as it would be the negation of marriage if he had all our wives in one harem.

I disagree with many of them - e.g. the above hints at distributism, the idea that individuals will make better use of their property if they own and work it independently, rather than a few capitalists owning it all. But the capitalists mostly make more efficient and productive use of it, which is why individuals sell their productive capital to capitalists - the capitalists can pay more for it than the individual would make on his own. But it's still funny.

Iain Banks' Use of Weapons. The Culture novels tend to involve an outside protagonist, one who bridges the gap between the universe of solved problems and the one of problems which just haven't been solved yet. In this case, he is an ageless mercenary, periodically contracted by the Culture to play firebrand or warlord on some pre-Contact world. I find this refreshing; he feels much more like a Culture citizen than the agents of Consider Phlebas or Look to Windward despite operating in a very different environment.

Awww yiss. But how about that fire drop Player of Games? Eh? That shit was lit dawg.

One hundred percent. But! I didn’t mention it specifically because the protagonist actually is a citizen, rather than a visitor.

Oh I must be misremembering. Either way yeah Banks is the shit.

Player of Games is a citizen going out to play games. Windward is a cat terrorist coming to tour an Orbital, and Phlebas is a shapechanging outsider’s half-assed quest for Justice.

Since we are in the community, that takes IQ very seriously, don't you think that being energetic is also a major factor of success? For example, under the post about Elon Musk, the majority of the comment section is a discussion of how intelligent he is, but there is little talk about his mental stamina, which is the most interesting for me. I'm quite clever, maybe not extremely smart, but somewhere between 120-130 IQ and I cannot imagine myself having a business, because it requires preparedness for constant struggle and ability to withstand many hard blows. I can imagine myself in a cozy office job, and making decent number of money, but never in any executive position, where I have to talk to people all the time and constantly think about my company, while everybody wants to take me out.

Similarly, in every small town, there is a couple of business owners that enjoy higher standard of living than their neighbors and are often envied by the community. People with academic background like provincial doctors or teachers sometimes mock them as dim-witted and uncouth, but this is rarely the case. I think they are quite smart, maybe not very smart but at least around 120 IQ. They just possess different set of capabilities than people who like intellectual challenges.

George Cochran calls it moxie, Steve Malina writes on his blog about energetic aliens. It's interesting what determines these abilities from biological point of view. Is this higher dopamine levels? Extreme emotional stability? Very efficient brain? All of these factors?

I know people who are smart, but those who run things are just on an entirely different level. Of course being clever is always beneficial, but there are places where pure intelligence cannot take you. I don't know where I'm going with this, just find this topic interesting and somewhat overlooked.

I'm just as smart as my dad, maybe even slightly smarter, and while I've never had a formal IQ test (only taking Raven's progressive matrices unofficially, which is a good test, but it's up to you how you want to weight it, getting a value of 130), I've literally scored 100th percentile in a prestigious international competition that tests your grasp of English, and usually get something around 99.9th, in more general aptitude tests that were widely administered when I was a kid.

So yes, I'm confident I'm around 130 IQ, but unlike my dad, who is an insanely hard worker, running a hospital while working as a Consultant, I am incorrigible lazy and have ADHD.

Put me in his shoes, starting off as a penniless refugee from Bangladesh arriving with his family as a teen, and I strongly doubt I could have gotten to where he has, becoming a comfortably wealthy consultant surgeon with modest but national renown. Maybe he'd be internationally famous if he spoke better English.

I feel like a car with a great engine but broken transmission, severely bottlenecked. I'd likely trade trade like 5 IQ points to go to merely average in terms of consciousness, because while I highly value and take pride in my intelligence, I have a hard time making the most of it.

It takes an enormous amount of energy and tenacity to run a business, especially in a corrupt and cut-throat environment like India. I have no wish to find out whether or not I can handle it myself, because I am doubtful that my dad passes away anytime soon, or at least not before AI makes even incredible cognitive talents in humans moot.

Having ADHD sucks, so I hope an extreme example illustrates your point. My dad has always been slightly disappointed that I don't apply myself the way he can, and it takes all my effort and meds to keep progressing in my career instead of being stuck where I am forever.

Yes. This is obvious if you've known just a few very successful people well at all for a while and more obvious if you know some very unsuccessful people. Robin Hanson agrees.

If you spend more time on something, you're going to get farther, and people with more energy spend more time pursuing their long-term goals.

By the way, I don't think what Cochran meant by 'moxie' was energy, if that's what you were implying.

Yeah, I guess that by 'moxie' Cochran meant some sort of emergent quality, that combines all the factors impacting your social status. Nonetheless, energy is probably one of these factors. I was imprecise, but being 'energetic' is also kind of imprecise description. What kind of energy, kinetic energy? We have some intuitive understanding, but we lack any precise characterization. And that's why I find this factor overlooked, because we have quite precise measurement of IQ but it's difficult to compare 'being energetic' statistically.

This gives me a thought - maybe there's a time-energy thing to it too.

So let's say that IQ is an expression of how much intelligence you are applying at the moment. Maybe it's at the maximum when you're doing some hard thing, but it probably isn't that high all the time. Most of the time, you're using much less intelligence. Even smart people do pretty dumb things once in a while. So then for every person, there is a "peak IQ", which is the maximum amount of intelligence you can ever conjure up. And there's also a measure for maybe "IQ minutes" for how long you can apply that level of intelligence and what level of intelligence you are capable of applying at other times throughout the day.

If you take an IQ test, presuming that you want to take it and want to score well, then you do what's needed to ensure you're at peak IQ, so that it measures your actual peak IQ. It is still a useful measure, but it's harder to measure how much you can actually apply that and how much intelligence you display when you aren't being tested.

Maybe the average smart person is really smart for like 3-4 hours total at work, and maybe 1-2 in their personal life. This is plenty to have a good job and make a good living and have an interesting hobby or two.

Maybe what Elon Musk really has is extraordinarily high IQ minutes. Thus, his peak IQ is generously high but not out of the league of smart people worldwide. But if he can apply all of that intelligence for, say, 18 hours a day, versus 6 max for the average person of that IQ, well then he can get quite a lot done. Like start and run a revolutionary electric car company and also a revolutionary rocket company, and like 4 other companies for things that seem a little wacky but could be revolutionary someday, and then I guess buy and run Twitter too just for kicks.

This is an interesting way of characterizing it and I feel similarly. I think about this in the following terms: usually I oscillate between 'lower states' and 'higher states' of mind, and when I work on a difficult task, I get bored or tired or stressed out quite fast, and then I have to stay for a while in the 'lower state' of my mind. People, who I find energetic tend to go into these 'higher states' more easily and concerning Elon, I don't know, maybe he even sleeps in such a state or goes into the flow as soon as he opens his eyes.

Seems like it's more about interest than energy. Most days I can barely program for three hours, but easily spend many hours doing slightly easier things like strategy videogames. When something important comes up (a little while ago I had the opportunity to solve a few extremely difficult problems over the course of a day for $25,000) I can work at max possible intensity for 14+ hours, with short breaks to pace around in a panic.

don't you think that being energetic is also a major factor of success?

It definitely is, as is being outgoing.

Yep there are many factors besides IQ that matter quite a lot. Unfortunately though because IQ is so denied as a useful characteristic by the mainstream, contrarians tend to see it as the most important thing ever.

By my lights, IQ is a useful predictor for someones potential in a narrow sense of what IQ is useful for measuring. But there are many more factors involved in being human that IQ doesn't directly involve, and for some tasks high IQ can even be a detriment.

Yeah energy is hugely important. Intellect, management skills and energy are like multipliers to your overall effectiveness. All three should be high for best results.

What would you call the following dilemma and options:

Someone presents an argument, to which another responds with a counter-argument that is tangential or slightly off-target. The OP must decide to either 1) legitimize the counterargument by engaging, and run the risk of entering an unproductive dialogic detour, or 2) attempt to steer the conversation back to the original argument but risk appearing dismissive or uncooperative.

I really hate it when that happens, and it genuinely feels like the most common form of debate--more common than directly addressing the actual arguments. Addressing direct arguments is often accepting your opponent's framing, which might seem like an inherently losing proposition.

I generally try to highlight the dodge, and I think it pretty much always makes me look combative.

Yes I see it here too, so came the thought that coming up with some shorthand names to acknowledge what was happening would appear more toothless.

You should always do 2. 1 Makes you look incompetent to competent observers. Who are the only ones who actually matter in a "debate".

If you are arguing with someone in good faith and they really want to learn, you can entertain 1.

Anybody know of a good Reddit client that still works? Ideally for free?

I was using Relay after Baconreader gave up the ghost, but even that has switched to a subscription model, and worse, activated such a wide swathe of DRM that the Play Store tells me it won't work my device lmao.

I know there are few accessibility oriented open source apps that exist, but I'm talking about a full-fledged client that is an upgrade over the dumpster fire of the official app.

What are the concrete reasons why someone would want to use a 3P client instead of just the normal Reddit app or website?

The UI and UX is usually great streamlined and better for mobile, especially for Markdown text.

The Reddit app is an ad-ridden abomination that learned nothing from other better clients, and does its best to aggrave the user with unwanted pop-ups, retarded recommendations, and hiding important features.

3rd party clients usually block native reddit ads too, which my DNS ad blocker can't do on the app.

I haven't used it in a long time but 3rd party apps for Big Tech social media generally tend to be faster, have cleaner UI, and a workflow that doesn't suck you into foreverscrolling.

RedReader is alright.

Isn’t this what the whole API brouhaha was about? Reddit wants to force everyone onto the official app so they can sell ads and collect analytics.

There really aren't ANY apps that just pass the API costs on to users? It's been months, surely that's enough time to figure out an instrumentation layer and a payments provider integration.

It is, I'm just curious if there's any way to get around it on mobile

I recommend using a web browser (forcing the old desktop site).

Eh, I'm not a fan of old.reddit, considering it only superior to the trash fire that is new reddit. I'd strongly prefer an app with the usual bells and whistles that accommodate for mobile.

What is this place?

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.


Why are you called The Motte?

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.


New post guidelines

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!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats