domain:forecasting.substack.com
GBRK
4m ago
Surely then you would need to assign first world citizenship to the entire planet?
In point of fact I do support open borders, so I wouldn't strictly rule out everyone else eventually getting citizenship. But citizenship comes with responsibilities as well as rights. Anyone who wants to come to America should. Anyone who wants to stay in America should contribute. The only reason to give any baby citizenship is because we assume that they will contribute to the common project of our nation. Now, I'm pretty darn sure that the median baby-- including the median immigrant baby-- is eventually a net-positive to america. But if I wasn't, I would advocate for increasing the responsibilities of citizenship until we could be confident that they eventually will be.
jkf
11m ago
"Decent alcohol" == "doesn't taste like rotten fruit"; "good weed" == "female plants that were triggered to produce buds", more or less? Not a really high standard, although if you wanted to up the ante I'd think that something like "good whiskey that you might find in a store" would be much, much harder to make at home than marijuana of reasonable potency.
(given that I know lots of people who I'd consider connoiseurs who do the latter basically for fun; you can have like five plants for personal use here, which is way more than anyone could reasonably smoke by themselves -- and these guys smoke a lot!)
I do actually also know a guy who bought some kind of still kit and made some harsh high potency moonshine (if you are into that sort of thing) and a kind of cherry liqueur that was... OK? He's sort of bored of it now because (get this!) it's too much work -- whereas the dope-growing guys just trade clones amongst themselves and put them in the backyard.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
18m ago
Do you think that means they believe Israel is literally twisting the US's arm to do it's bidding, or that they believe the US leadership holds an ideology resulting in their support of Israel even against the interests of Americans?
MiddleAgedMan
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way.
19m ago
I've become the primary cook for our family and have come to rather enjoy the process of putting together meals. But on the rare occasions I'm on my own for dinner, I cook maybe 10% of the time. It's mostly not worth the effort for one person, especially if you are not a fan of leftovers for days.
I would argue that it's not that big of a deal and that clearly if single men's preference is to eat simply or quickly then it's just not that important to them.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
23m ago
That the US has a "Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG)" is a pretty common conspiracy theory. I think SS and the other local dissident right members could tell you all about it.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
35m ago
Is there anyone disagreeing with this? I'm only familiar with the claim that the US supports for ideological reasons, not that Israel has any leverage over the US.
GBRK
37m ago
Ah yes, those socioeconomic factors that everyone "know[s]" are "massive."
We do, in fact, know empirically that SES affects IQ. You can't refute that just by using scare quotes.
thin US black kids are and how fat Vietnamese kids are
Childhood nutrition is a lot more complex than "calories in, IQ out." Culturally variable diets also impact development, and the western diet--particularly concentrated in poor westerners, including blacks-- is particularly bad. Plus, diet has epigenetic effects. It's not enough for your parents to be well-fed; relative to your genetics, you will grow up stunted if your grandparents weren't well fed.
Except the data inconveniently shows that "high socioeconomic status (SES) blacks do no better (and often worse) than low SES whites, whether measured by their parents’ income or their parents’ educational credentials,"
That exact blogpost proves that SES is a confound-- you can see the line going up for higher SES in blacks. Given the explicit and abundant evidence of existing confounds, the null hypothesis shouldn't be "assume blank-slatism by default, and everything we can't explicitly point to as coming from confounds must be because of genetics."
I would also not get too excited about interpreting "two or more races" underperforming whites (and moreso Asians) as evidence in favor of hybrid vigor and a desire to pwn the racists—since, for example, "two or more races" contains Asian-white mixes. It doesn't take much outbreeding to guard against inbreeding, as mutational load decreases sublinearly with effective population size, something along the order of square root off the top of my head.
To be clear, the fact that evidence for hybrid vigor is shaky is evidence against genetic differences in racial IQ. If you'll let me use symbolic logic...
A: There exist race-based differences in genes that code for IQ B: When genetically distinct populations hybridize, hybrid vigor results. C: We observe hybrid vigor
A + B ⇒ C
So ¬C ⇒ ¬(A + B)
Therefore if C is false and B is true, that implies ¬A.
I'm aware that the following could be used as an argument against B:
It doesn't take much outbreeding to guard against inbreeding, as mutational load decreases sublinearly with effective population size,
But also, I'm having hard time squaring that with the standard HBD viewpoint where racial differences in IQ are due to differential selection effects-- which presumably lead to roughly equal levels of mutational load overall (barring particularly inbred populations). If racial differences in IQ do exist, it would be as the result of selection for alleles (and novel mutations) that optimize for intelligence at the cost of some other trait, like the Ashkenazi Gaucher disease thing, but still bounded by other adaptions to local climate and food variations that sacrifice IQ for survivability in other ways. That's exactly the sort of thing that should cause intra-race susceptibility to heterosis as a function of masking deleterious alleles.
professorgerm
You shall love your crooked neighbor, with your crooked heart
40m ago
Probably even that's just because I read here less and archive much less than I did 3 years ago
Same here, I haven't been around The Motte as much as in the old days. Reading still, usually around the monthly QC collections, but commenting less.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
55m ago
Ketamine vs LSD/psilocybin are very different in terms of pharmacology, even if the net effect on depression is the same. The former acts by modulating NMDA primarily, the latter 5HT2A.
Subjectively, a k-hole is light years apart from psychedelics.
They then tend to increase neuronal plasticity, via different mechanisms of action.
Its weird that we found three recreational drugs from different families doing this, and no non-recreational ones.
Well, ECT and transcranial magnetic stimulation use no drugs at all (barring incidental anesthesia and muscle relaxant in the former). They also, after a few sessions, relieve depression for months or years. Once again, the terminal effect is believed to be increased synaptogenesis/plasticity. ECT has been around for 70 years.
There's nothing particularly weird about it. The regulatory environment just became somewhat more friendly towards exploring less conventional therapies when the anecdotal evidence became strong enough.
Personally, I couldn't care less how "weird" this seems in the first place, as long as the treatments work. The human body is weird and unintuitive in the first place.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
Sweet Sejenus
58m ago
I guarantee you your coworker goes home to his wife and bitches about you/his job all night long.
You have a coworker who is just a bitchy wuss of a person. You can identify this by all the bitching he does. You should exclude his bitchy opinions from your mental map of the opinions of capable people.
In fact, you should do this with more people that you meet, even online. Bitchy whiners should be ignored. If they can express a solution, even a crazy solution, that’s different, but if all they do is whine, ignore them.
Anyways, to countersignal your coworker, my wife and I have our ups and downs for sure, but she is not a “job in herself.” She’s the best part of the day, for which, through the struggles, I remain grateful.
Botond173
1hr ago
What's even the point in getting married if you don't want to have children?
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1hr ago
but leaving that aside, there's an opioid epidemic.
Yes. It would be nice to notice danger before it leads to an epidemic. Theres even this same "the numbers say addiction is rare" used as part of the argument for expanding use that far in the first place. You may not be in America, but its relevant because you lean on "we as doctors".
There are all kinds of drugs that have
nil recreational value, but which engender physiological or psychological dependence.
I know. What Im talking about is the pattern with psilocybin, ketamine, maybe ecstasy? where they are supposed to treat depression with few sessions, and effects lasting months. Its weird that we found three recreational drugs from different families doing this, and no non-recreational ones.
cjet79
1hr ago
Throwaway05
1hr ago
The process is somewhat individual and adversarial. In NJ the way it works is more or less this - somebody has to be concerned about the patient (usually a family member, a concerned bystander, cops walking by) the patient is then taking an ED or Crisis Center on a temporary hold, at which point a social worker has to see them and think they need to be committed at which point they are seen by two physicians who have to feel it is appropriate. Individuals involved can be sued, fined, lose their license for abuse and so on. Then afterwards there is an expungement process. If the patient is held for an extended period of time without discharge then they have a formal court hearing that can and will result in release from the psychiatric hospital.
Obviously there is some abuse and laziness in the process, most typically the second physician would be like "eh I wasn't there, I'll assume the first doc was correct."
Ultimately this involves multiple trained professionals with skin in the game to make the determination that someone needs to be committed and they can always go through a court process afterwards.
I think some of the value here is that most people who end up committed don't have the functional status to do much of anything. If you make it opt-in most wouldn't, and wouldn't be able to get expunged. I'm fine with a more robust way of people getting their rights back but it has to be done in away that isn't too egregiously expensive and defaults to no because of how dangerous a small subsection of these people are, which is hard to convey if you've never seen them.
Crisis centers do occasionally catch people who will explicitly say that they are interested in killing people (in a sociopathic way) and loading them down with rights restrictions before they get started in an unalloyed good.
Hope all of that makes sense, typed fast.
Some other stuff: -While most doctors aren't anti-gun they aren't committing people purely to get them away from their guns unless the doc has concerns for threat and its therefore appropriate. This is because these settings are overworked, their aren't enough beds for those who really need them, and the hospital doesn't get paid if the insurance company doesn't think the patient actually needs to be committed and that rolls onto the doctor's head. In the worse case scenario no psychiatric hospital will take the committed patient because they clearly don't need psychiatric care and then the ED comes over and stabs the psychiatrists 80 million times for taking up a bed while someone is bleeding to death in chairs.
-Average disorganized street homeless person is harmless other than the inability to care for themselves even if they are vaguely threatening, so they tend not to get taken in unless they are actively harassing someone or committing some other crime like trespassing.
benmmurphy
1hr ago
Photos remind me of the Capitol from the hunger games.
hanikrummihundursvin
1hr ago
Having a wife is a job in itself - my coworker every day.
Tree
1hr ago
It’s allowed under the good-fun exception. Would the victim really object to the crime? Most weddings would only be improved by a crash from some local notables.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1hr ago
I don't think we are going to get on the same page about this, but as a fact matter - if your friend was psychotic under the influence of a substance at that time he had poor judgement and insight, if they were committed involuntary (the correct response to oh holy shit the walls are talking to me is to you know, get help).
Someone experiencing a psychotic episode is often not aware that they are no longer aligned with reality. They are experiencing not just hallucinations but delusions. Yes, obviously they have "poor judgement and insight" while actually experiencing the psychotic episode; that's not reason to deprive them of fundamental rights forever.
One of the challenges of managing society in general is what to do with people who are "fine" most of the time but dangerous while in a certain state (like decompensated mental illness, tripping balls, or just pissed off).
That's pretty much everyone.
Crowstep
1hr ago
I planned to argue that assigning people special hereditary rights is fundamentally incompatible with democratic civilization and the notion that "all men are created equal"
Surely then you would need to assign first world citizenship to the entire planet? Issuing citizenship by blood is hereditary, but issuing citizenship by residence is de facto hereditary, because most of the world can't have children in first world countries, because they can't get to first world countries, because they're not citizens.
Throwaway05
1hr ago
It actually doesn't, as in the case I know where someone took a prescribed drug which caused psychotic symptoms. But even if that were so, a lot of things do. Showing some level of poor judgement and insight and lack of responsibility is not per se grounds for revoking a fundamental right.
I don't think we are going to get on the same page about this, but as a fact matter - if your friend was psychotic under the influence of a substance at that time he had poor judgement and insight, if they were committed involuntary (the correct response to oh holy shit the walls are talking to me is to you know, get help).
One of the challenges of managing society in general is what to do with people who are "fine" most of the time but dangerous while in a certain state (like decompensated mental illness, tripping balls, or just pissed off).
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
2hr ago
As ever, we won't really know the answer until after the question is irrelevant. But we saw the 2024 elections already.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
2hr ago
It takes a lot of attention and fine-toothed combing to separate social citizens from asocial ones who have learned to pretend to be social where necessary. They will obfuscate their asocial activities, limit them to settings in which they aren't observed closely, and always keep a plausible excuse handy. After a few months and years of beatings, only the stupidest will be asocial where they can be caught.
This might be a problem after a while. It's not a problem right now. There's low-hanging fruit.
I know we have some American lawyers around here. Question for you: is law school still a good move?
For context, I'm at a juncture of my military career where I either charge ahead (with uncertain results) or get out. If I went the law school route, it would likely be fully covered by my GI bill, and I have plenty of savings, plus my wife works, so money is not a key motivator.
I already know the basic pros and cons, but want to hear the perspective of the kind of people who enjoy this website. Lawyering, yeah or nay?
More options
Context Copy link