domain:mgautreau.substack.com
crushedoranges
Can Marx explain the used panties market?
5hr ago
lol, lmao even like, you can have that self-narrative for yourself, and that's cool but where were you in the past twenty years? you haven't done anything. Now the right has the stick of power and you retreat to principled liberalism? I don't buy it for a second. Show me your scars. Your medals. Your badges of honor that would have made you a pariah for twenty years. You don't get to claim stolen valor to defend the parasites of academia. You haven't fought for shit.
quiet_NaN
5hr ago
Universities aligned themselves with one side of the friend-enemy distinction, that side lost, therefore they must suffer.
Sure, since 2000, campuses really doubled down on social justice.
But that is only half of the story. The other half is that MAGA has fully embraced anti-intellectualism.
Granted, the wokes were certainly not great for intellectual honesty. They had some topics where they had ideological blinders -- anything related to women, race, DEI. Any genuine intellectual had to either learn Kolmogorov complicity (like Scott Aaronson) or be an independent and contrary figure (like Scott Alexander).
From what I can tell, MAGA has little use for intellect. Take the previous Republican president, GWB. He was also not an intellectual giant (though likely smarter than his opponents painted him as). But his policies were written by smart people in conservative think tanks. I disagree with a lot of his policies -- mainly his wars and torture prisons, but I would probably also disagree about his tax policy if I read up on it -- but his policies were at least coherent.
Not so with Trump. His tariff announcements were simply some underling of his asking ChatGPT for the trade deficits with various countries. While he certainly has an uncanny ability for showmanship, he does not have a political vision apart from becoming president and getting the peace Nobel. He is against immigrants because that is what his voters want.
A lot of politicians are opportunistic to some degree. But most pick up the spoken and unspoken rules. With Trump, I have the feeling that he is playing president simulator and skipping through all the dialog and ignoring the world-building. Take J6. If he had read the supplemental material, he would have known that the coup game mechanics work different in POTUS2016 than in Tropico, and just telling his followers to "stop the steal" would be futile. But he does not care about the finer points. He wants to be a beloved king, whatever the Americans call him. (He can't be playing a tabletop because any self-respecting DM would have either stopped his character or walked out. On the other hand, it is bizarre that the game designers even included a dialog option to criticize Zelenskyy for not wearing a suit.)
I think that even in the GWB era, the universities were mostly left-leaning. But they also knew that Bush needed the US to keep its technological advantage for his new American century grand strategy or whatever. With Trump, all bets are off. That guy put an anti-vaxxer in charge of the health department, not out of personal conviction or even because it was a big campaign promise, but just on a whim. Whatever research is done in the STEM departments of universities, and however useful it is to either humanity or the US in particular, it is likely less beneficial than vaccine development.
In short, the universities had quite a few bad reasons to be against Trump (e.g. SJ), but they also had a lot of excellent reasons to be against him. I also do not think any big university will fully suck up to Trump, e.g. giving him a honorary doctorate (which would work great -- a pompous celebration of Trump is just what he is waiting for).
EilonwyPrydain
5hr ago
I've been thinking lately about boyhood and masculinity and emotion. There's this anti-trope in US society - by which I mean it's a trope that was formed to combat another trope. The trope is, "boys shouldn't cry", or sometimes "real men don't cry." I'm going to keep talking about boys because I'm specifically thinking of my teenage kid. But this trope is like the number one example in any article about toxic masculinity. This trope is seen as making boys repress their emotions and not allowing a healthy emotional life. The anti-trope is, allow boys to express their emotions. Encourage them to be sensitive and talk about their feelings and develop emotional intelligence.
But...what about anger? As a parent, I worry all the time about my kid. He's got some neurodivergent issues, we're seeking treatment for it. But one thing that's really started to bother me lately is his interactions with his school. I get a call at the snap of a finger, the minute he loses his temper or has an emotional meltdown or refuses to work on an assignment. "Ms. Prydain, please talk to your son." Every incident requires an incident report and a committee meeting and a notation in his permanent file.
Oh, he wasn't totally cooperative today? He had an understandable reaction to being disappointed or anxious about something? Oh no, have I failed as a parent? /s
And I mean, I get it, I do. They have a school to run and can't be spending all their time on the neediest kid. But I do worry at the message that he's getting. "It's not okay to be anxious." "It's not okay to get angry" - or at least not in a way that anyone can tell. Keep those feelings bottled up, young man, and only express them in socially acceptable ways. Otherwise, grit your teeth and get with the program.
What is a socially acceptable way to express anger? Is there such a thing when you're a child in school? For all the talk about how all emotions are healthy, I think it can't be denied that some things are okay to express, and some things will get the psychiatrist called in.
And yes, it's good to have emotional intelligence and it's good to learn some emotional regulation, I just think it's kind of weird that amid all the talk about how toxic masculinity discourages boys from expressing emotion, I'm not sure that doing it this way is much better. Is he actually learning healthy strategies to regulate his emotions, or is he just learning to mask and not express how he feels or that something bothers him?
This is already all over the place but I thought of this quote from a character on Marvelous Mrs. Maisel:
I handle things very calmly. I don’t get mad. I can’t get mad. When you’re really tall, you can’t get mad. You can’t pace around and wave your arms in the air and raise your voice, because people get scared. See? Look around. See? That’s what people look like when you’re really tall, and really mad. I look like an angry building! So I stay calm… all the goddamn time.
So as the mom of a sensitive, creative, intelligent, and conscientious teen boy, what am I missing here and how could I be doing better?
anon_
5hr ago
Wholeheartedly agree, but I think this is a lot harder than you imagine.
Without being interested or engaged in politics, he needs to select an avatar that understands it keenly. That's both a principle/agent problem and a
The reason DEI was able to spiral is because the spiral did not affect the academics’ social status, but actually increased it.
Which is downstream of the fact that DEI advocates were the kinds of people that were interested in things like department/university politics.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
5hr ago
Doesn’t choosing to leave those things “out there” imply pretty strongly that we could economically get them? I’m not convinced that’s true. Getting to the asteroid belt is not energetically cheap, and the trip itself would take years and require that any crew taken along bring food water, and life support sufficient for a 2+ year journey. At current launch costs, you’d have to bring back a lot of minerals to break even.
O’Neil cylinders would enable space farming, but again, we have the difficulty of sourcing the materials to build the cylinder, the energy to launch it all to wherever you want to build it.
I think all of this points to the problem I have with over-romanticizing space exploration. We sort of have an unfounded assumption (probably because of poor analogy to sea-exploration) that you can sort of just find or get the resources on the way. That works on the ocean. Out of food? Go fishing. Out of water? Get some on the next island you pass. You won’t run out of air because obviously you never left Earth and you can breathe the atmosphere on the boat. In space, you have to bring it with you. All of it. And worse, you have to launch it or the tools and materials to make it from Earth. The free lunches that sailors got simply don’t happen in space. If you’re in space, water either has to be brought along, recycled, or chemically manufactured. Food either must be brought along, or you must bring the seeds and everything required to grow, harvest, and preserve them. The fuel is the same situation, either you bring it, or you manufacture it. The free lunches don’t happen. In fact space is probably one of the most dangerous places to be. You can’t breathe in space, it’s too cold for survival. There’s no food or water. That’s before considering the radiation that would be dangerous to humans, or the asteroids that can smash tge ships protecting astronauts from exposure to space.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
6hr ago
2312 came out in 2012, and presumably was written in 2011 sometime, at the latest. That’s at least 5 years before trans stuff really filtered out into normie world, I think.
I think KSR is a bit of an overrated author in the world of SF, but he tends to be well ahead of the current thing.
To his intellectual credit, he strikes me as more of a harbinger of doom than a follower.
hanikrummihundursvin
6hr ago
It feels like we are trying to push a square peg through a round hole, so long as scientists are people and not robots.
Having gone through a long journey of internet atheism, towards 'Skepticism' as a sort of general outlook to fill in the void that a lack of coherent belief system creates, I was left, like many, very unimpressed by my fellow atheists, skeptics and scientists in general insofar as they were represented by science popularizers. I did not find anything similar to Less Wrong during this time, but was left to trudge through the mud of Skeptic drama, power tripping feminist moderators and such. Atheism+ came along with a bang and every foot soldier of internet atheism and skepticism turned from making mountains out of molehills, where the actions of some pastor in the middle of nowhere did or said something silly, towards tearing each other apart over small ideological differences. These were the same people who scoffed at the silly religious people who start wars over inconsequential differences in scripture...
Now, that's just the rabble beneath the 'Science'. It included a lot of professors and scientists, sure, but it also included a lot of nobodies. But this was the population group that had, for at least a decade, labored under the delusion that they were in some way different from the rest. With science, reason and rationality as their shield. Turns out they very much weren't any of that to any extent that mattered.
But, again, this is the rabble. The scientists themselves, surely, are better. Right? Well, as you say yourself, they kind of aren't. And better men than me or you have long made that observation. Turns out they are very much human like everyone else.
To that end I'd argue the kind of 'scientist' you seem to pine for would probably make for a terrible person in any other aspect of life. Good people don't constantly have to evaluate base truths. Wallowing in self doubt over whatever facet of their life they happen to re-evaluate today, to not fall prey to bias or whatever, whilst potentially destroying key aspects of their life in the process.
Further than that, I'd say that if you ever want to colonize Mars, the last thing you need is science. As you can't hope to achieve such a lofty goal without true believers who hold not doubt in their heart towards their task but unshakeable faith and enthusiasm. Lest you end up with another 'Whitey on the Moon' paradigm.
As far as my mind can see, if we were to form any sort of realistic framework that could facilitate this goal of veneration and exploration for science, physics and space, we are working towards a chauvinistic European and/or East Asian supremacism. Any other population groups and any other concerns that don't functionally establish such authority are doomed to fall prey to everything we've seen trip up science so far. Though I welcome any thoughts to the contrary.
In conclusion, it seems that if one loves science, one should learn to love politics first.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
6hr ago
But I strongly suspect that Trump would very much like to truth social about the world’s smartest man endorsing a favorable balance of trade or what have you.
And I bet that Tao wouldn't. Not even if pressured by the administration.
hydroacetylene
6hr ago
I legitimately DON’T know if Tao has personal political opinions. But I strongly suspect that Trump would very much like to truth social about the world’s smartest man endorsing a favorable balance of trade or what have you.
falling-star
6hr ago
Hello Motte Friends!
A while ago I posted about a plan to get a girlfriend. Life threw up a lot of curveballs, so I ended up holding on the plan to push online dating. I didn't completely slack though. Here's the stuff I said I'd do, versus what actually happened.
- Lifting: Have been doing Stronglifts 5x5 mostly consistently since my last post. My friend is my gym buddy, and we keep each other consistent. I squatted 210lbs this week. I've always been skinny (currently 5'11 155lbs), so even these beginner gains are making me look better. It feels nice to be more physically capable.
- More fashionable clothes: Got those and a better haircut. I'm getting compliments on my appearance.
- Skincare: Couldn't stick with it. Seemed to improve my complexion the day of, but not over the medium term. A friend suggested new products, I'll make another attempt with those soon.
- Professional photos: Didn't happen, temporary money troubles
- Contacts: Didn't happen, money troubles
- Read Models: @crntwx suggested this. I read about a third of the book so far, have been trying to change my thought process and self perception in line with it's suggestions. It's a real crusade 😂, real "draw the rest of the owl", but worth doing.
- Sleep: Honestly pretty bad in terms of hours and schedule, probably the number one thing hurting my charisma.
- General habits: Spending WAAAY too much time on the internet doomscrolling, number two drag on my charm.
Advice Request:
- I get a big improvement in mental state after lifting, but it's after work 3 times a week. I used to improve my mental state by running, but my legs can't handle that and squats at the same time. What could I do on off days/daily?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
7hr ago
Falling back to "How can you really know you know anything, maaan??" is not particularly convincing. Many of the people you have been arguing with have been observing or participating in (voluntarily or otherwise) the culture war for over a decade. And most of the evidence is there, and a good bit of it has been posted.
One example:
The University of California system, in particular, was up until March of this year requiring "diversity statements" for prospective faculty, which were statements demonstrating the applicant's dedication to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. These statements were in many cases not merely one factor among many, but used as an initial screen to exclude non-politically-aligned candidates.
Which free speech rights do you believe are being targeted by the government now?
This overall topic is about who the democratically elected government chooses to spend money on. Even if you consider free speech dependent on federal subsidy, which would be wildly at odds with the premise of natural rights, there are always people not getting money. There have always been conditions for getting the money. These incudes the previous administration's insistence on DEI-support speech in applications and proposals, the reversal of which is the basis of the OP's quoted objection.
MotteThrow
7hr ago
It's more showing that Conservatives can also destroy them and their ability to do science, similar to their progressive coworkers that force them to add the line of text in order to not be destroyed currently. Previously, the Conservative request to stop this was "seek truth and don't lend your credentials to anti-science extremists on the other side". Now, the fuck around time has passed and the grillers are finding out.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
7hr ago
Haha, I should've expected that. It's true though!
thejdizzler
7hr ago
Mars trilogy is much better than that. Not as moralistic for sure: there are many competing ideologies and it isn’t clear to me which KSR thinks are the right ones.
It does seem his work has degraded a bit over time because I also hated Ministry for the Future (dude if global warming was that easy to solve we would have done it).
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
7hr ago
I know and see plenty of leftists online who say similar things in the way you're saying now. That the powerful conservatives are attacking everyone and that their left wing censorious behavior is justified in defense. They're just as convinced as themselves as you are.
This is true. Is not the proper response to look at the evidence available and draw one's own conclusions?
Mushguffler
7hr ago
If you take free speech seriously, then they're archetypal examples of victims of cancel culture.
No, the real victims of cancel culture are the ones who didn't get to be in that position because they are conservative. My preferred result is admissions officers being put in prison for decades of discrimination. What is happening is the compromise.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
7hr ago
Planck's Principle -- that "Science progresses one funeral at a time" -- has reigned for a long time.
falling-star
7hr ago
Hello Motte Friends!
I've been getting more involved in my local rave scene as part of my effort to get a girlfriend. This post is part an anthropology post like @self_made_human's, part progress report, and part discussing strategy
What the scene is like
- The motto is Peace, Love, Unity, Respect (PLUR). A general attitude of being accepting, vulnerable, and spreading positive vibes prevails. Drug use is common, but not nearly as universal as outsiders think. It only takes a minority of people to completely change a groups vibe (IMO for the better). Contact high is real.
- The accepting attitude means you get a wide range of people and subcultures. You'll often see PhDs and tradesmen chatting. It's extremely internet influenced. I tell people the main way to tell if an event is a rave or just a club night is the presence of animal ears. God bless neko girls.
- The music and dancing is nominally the main reason everyone's there, but half the action is floating around and chatting with people off the dance floor. Most people are way more open to conversation and connection than normal.
- There are different tiers of events (duh). The biggest ones have the most single girls, but they're so loud and crowded it's hard to talk to them. The smallest ones are mostly attended by the people that go to every event, almost all the girls there are taken. There's a real goldilocks zone in between the two.
- Lots of events are invite only or minimally advertised. The people that go to every event are often part of the crew for these. These are often ideal places to meet people. Almost every event has an after party. Getting invited usually requires knowing someone on the crew.
What I did, how it turned out
- I went to every event I could and brought a polaroid camera. I went around, walking up to random people and offering to take people's pictures. The acceptance rate was around 95%.
- This almost always lead to a follow up conversation and me becoming friendly with their circle for the rest of the night. I would be gifts or invites to other events.
- I tried using this as an in to talk to the beautiful girls in elaborate costumes I saw at every event. They all ended up asking for photos with their boyfriends, which I obliged. Rule of thumb I learned was the more complex the outfit, the more likely they're taken.
- In terms of romantic results, I made out with one girl after taking her picture. That didn't go anywhere after I learned she was poly. I used polaroid as an icebreaker on behalf of my friends, resulting in one hook up and one date. Girls who I'm not interested in sometimes flirt with me.
- I made friendly with one particular crew to the point I'm invited to every event they're involved with + after parties. In that social circle way more people know me and my name than the other way around. Is this the social proof thing people talk about?
- I got cool with their organizer, who unironically knows hundreds of people. I asked him to introduce me to potential partners and he agreed. Hasn't happened yet but he says he's looking.
Advice/Difficulties
- I don't know how to dance with other people, especially how to dance up to a girl to get her attention. Any advice here? I often find myself dancing faster than everyone else.
- At these events I'm talking to a lot of people, but it stays surface level, light hearted. I don't really know how to flirt. I've been told I'm attractive when the conversation gets passionate or philosophical, but I don't know how to guide a conversation there.
MotteThrow
7hr ago
Should it matter? "I was just following orders" usually isn't a defense for actively helping the enemy. Would Tao be willing to go full MAGA if it meant Trump would give him funding back?
magicalkittycat
7hr ago
How certain are you that you're actually being attacked and it's not underdog bias?
I know and see plenty of leftists online who say similar things in the way you're saying now. That the powerful conservatives are attacking everyone and that their left wing censorious behavior is justified in defense. They're just as convinced as themselves as you are.
Knowing that people delude themselves into the very same style of bias perceptions you currently hold, knowing that there are studies and evidence suggesting that this happens on both sides of pretty much every topic, how certain are you that you're not just experiencing an underdog bias and failing to see the ways your own side might hold institutional powers unfairly? And how does any answer you give look differently than what a leftist under the bias would give?
I would hope others in a rationalist community are aware of how our own biases can impact our perception. Maybe you haven't read things like the lens that sees it's flaws and other parts of the sequences before, I recommend it
When we examine the world and we see a common self-perception bias about one's self and their own groups, one that all those other groups are blind to for themselves it stands to reason we might also have that same bias even if we don't see it. How sure are you that you're uniquely immune?
More options
Context Copy link