The “hate of statistics” part was labored but revealing. Your latent Marxism leads you to believe that everything is a status game and the point is to rise as high as possible on the dominance hierarchy. The truth is we don’t want to stand out, either too low or too high, or even too sideways, because that will get us targeted. So equality is built in, but not too much equality, because then we become rivals. This is the double-bind that Christianity showed the way out of, and led to stellar accomplishments in science that we now enjoy. In my lifetime the right has occasionally won these battles and expelled the woke, leading to prosperity and then a new round of woke. I don’t think these cyclical tactics will ever get you what you want. People are afraid the Supermen will get them killed, for good reason.
Saying that statistics is a central stimulus of vitriolic reaction is putting the cart before the horse, people are not reactionary over an abstract measuring instrument. It is not somehow an animating force in the same way identity politics in itself is, resulting in moral disgust and outrage (with each side operating on different mechanisms of disgust). Almost all diametric opposition in the ruling societal liberal orthodoxy is centralized around equalitarianism.
Reactions may be emotional in nature but they do not start out this way (not instinctually grounded) when it comes to ideological convictions that require mental gymnastics in order to successfully inculcate (plasticity). The inculcation process occurs before any emotional tie is developed and primed for quasi-pavlovian negative stimuli which then causes the pathological emotional reactions seen.
These luxury beliefs are almost always top down, not grass roots or naturally occurring. Most people are empty vessels from which you can then fill with whatever memetics are promoted as prestigious and therefore exhibit advantageous behavior aimed at obtaining some form of status.
Machiavellianism and noble liars are the dominating phenotypes when it comes to positions of power and prestige in the absence of more direct non-feminine and patriarchal conservative authoritarian influence and leadership e.g Caudillos (Pareto would call these ‘Lions’). The current system of incentives is obviously built for Pareto’s foxes.
Regardless, these phenotypes and dominating cults of each kind within their own eras would be antagonistic and persecutory to scientific values.
The belief that progressives are against any kind of statistical understanding of the world that differentiates people is obviously false.
I don't know anything about your Amazon productivity study but ask yourself, if the results of your study showed that women of color were 2x as productive over a given work day then white men, would progressives react negatively to the data? Obviously not.
It's not that complicated, progressives are against statistics if and when it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
I've mostly backed off the strong version of that claim, but this isn't a good counterexample. If white people were statistically inferior, then progressives would be in favor of white people. That's what egalitarianism is!
I do not believe most progressives are egalitarians, or at least I've never met one. Just one example, higher education is being dominated by women in modern era, as more and more men are dropping out or failing, but I've yet to meet the progressives who advocate for affirmative action for men to get them on equal footing.
If white people were shown to be statistically inferior (as they certainly are by some metrics or another) that data would celebrated, it seems naive to pretend otherwise.
It's not about egalitarianism it seems pretty much purely about idpol.
I'm a fan of Steve, but I wish he would acknowledge that there is such a thing as the hereditarian Left that accepts the science and doesn't deserve his criticism. Maybe he does realise that but it just hasn't been worth mentioning.
I've been mostly center Left (voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama) during my adult life so I suppose I might actually qualify as part of the hereditarian Left.
I am not (in principle) against redistribution (assuming it can be done sort of efficiently, without too many negative 2nd order effects) and I like egalitarian outcomes if they don't detract too much from growth and technological advancement.
I think Brian is much more "anti-Left" than I am, AFAICT.
1:45-2:08 Intersectionality and blank slateism BOTH are rooted in the liberal framework of EQUALITARIAN dogma & orthodoxy from the perspective of POWER deconstruction.
I've long thought that if we lived in a society in which just about anyone, regardless of intelligence, who works hard and plays by the rules could reasonably look forward to a rich and fulfilling life, then a lot of this resistance to the idea that individual intelligence is largely determined by genetics (as well as a lot of the racial tension in contemporary society) would literally disappear. What might such a society look like? shorturl.at/INOT6
Everyone's happiness is equally important and public policies should be designed accordingly-- that's the kind of equality that matters, which is quite a different thing than equality of outcome.
Thus, to take a concrete example, current trade and immigration policies violate that fundamental principle. Why? Because they hurt the life-chances and living standards of the least skilled members of our society even as they further enrich the upper and upper-middle classes, who were better off to begin with.
On the other hand, if only we knew a way, even in theory, to tax the winners under our current trade and immigration policies in order to subsidize the wages of the losers, then that might no longer be the case. shorturl.at/OUXY4
But absent that, trade and immigration restrictions are what social justice demands. The Trump phenomenon was fueled by that truth, which our ruling classes are loath to admit.
...The problem that humanity faces now is not any real conflict between Whites and East Asians. The problem humanity faces now is the probably death of advanced civilization due to South Asians, Arabs and Black Africans outbreeding Whites and East Asians. sub-90 IQ populations outbreeding 100-plus IQ populations. That's a real and serious problem. If our civilization dies, there will be no second one. There's no cheap coal left to jumpstart a second Industrial Revolution. If we lose our present technology, we are back to the Iron Age, forever. Probably not even that, the cheaply accessible iron ore deposits are probably gone forever too. Back to the Stone Age, folks. That's our predicament.
Cherry picking inclusivity and a self serving us vs them as if IQ nationalism would actually be a mobilizing force of solidarity and forming a cohesive coalition. Proposed by some big brained China loving autist. Yeah, okay. Failing as a race in the competition for resources (including reproduction) is the fault of the out-group and not at all to do with the inherently maladapted and supposedly monolithic in group? More self serving and redirected blame as a result of the lack of fecundity. Take the cringe elsewhere.
The “hate of statistics” part was labored but revealing. Your latent Marxism leads you to believe that everything is a status game and the point is to rise as high as possible on the dominance hierarchy. The truth is we don’t want to stand out, either too low or too high, or even too sideways, because that will get us targeted. So equality is built in, but not too much equality, because then we become rivals. This is the double-bind that Christianity showed the way out of, and led to stellar accomplishments in science that we now enjoy. In my lifetime the right has occasionally won these battles and expelled the woke, leading to prosperity and then a new round of woke. I don’t think these cyclical tactics will ever get you what you want. People are afraid the Supermen will get them killed, for good reason.
57:30
Saying that statistics is a central stimulus of vitriolic reaction is putting the cart before the horse, people are not reactionary over an abstract measuring instrument. It is not somehow an animating force in the same way identity politics in itself is, resulting in moral disgust and outrage (with each side operating on different mechanisms of disgust). Almost all diametric opposition in the ruling societal liberal orthodoxy is centralized around equalitarianism.
Reactions may be emotional in nature but they do not start out this way (not instinctually grounded) when it comes to ideological convictions that require mental gymnastics in order to successfully inculcate (plasticity). The inculcation process occurs before any emotional tie is developed and primed for quasi-pavlovian negative stimuli which then causes the pathological emotional reactions seen.
These luxury beliefs are almost always top down, not grass roots or naturally occurring. Most people are empty vessels from which you can then fill with whatever memetics are promoted as prestigious and therefore exhibit advantageous behavior aimed at obtaining some form of status.
Machiavellianism and noble liars are the dominating phenotypes when it comes to positions of power and prestige in the absence of more direct non-feminine and patriarchal conservative authoritarian influence and leadership e.g Caudillos (Pareto would call these ‘Lions’). The current system of incentives is obviously built for Pareto’s foxes.
Regardless, these phenotypes and dominating cults of each kind within their own eras would be antagonistic and persecutory to scientific values.
The belief that progressives are against any kind of statistical understanding of the world that differentiates people is obviously false.
I don't know anything about your Amazon productivity study but ask yourself, if the results of your study showed that women of color were 2x as productive over a given work day then white men, would progressives react negatively to the data? Obviously not.
It's not that complicated, progressives are against statistics if and when it doesn't tell them what they want to hear.
I've mostly backed off the strong version of that claim, but this isn't a good counterexample. If white people were statistically inferior, then progressives would be in favor of white people. That's what egalitarianism is!
I do not believe most progressives are egalitarians, or at least I've never met one. Just one example, higher education is being dominated by women in modern era, as more and more men are dropping out or failing, but I've yet to meet the progressives who advocate for affirmative action for men to get them on equal footing.
If white people were shown to be statistically inferior (as they certainly are by some metrics or another) that data would celebrated, it seems naive to pretend otherwise.
It's not about egalitarianism it seems pretty much purely about idpol.
I'm a fan of Steve, but I wish he would acknowledge that there is such a thing as the hereditarian Left that accepts the science and doesn't deserve his criticism. Maybe he does realise that but it just hasn't been worth mentioning.
I've been mostly center Left (voted for Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama) during my adult life so I suppose I might actually qualify as part of the hereditarian Left.
I am not (in principle) against redistribution (assuming it can be done sort of efficiently, without too many negative 2nd order effects) and I like egalitarian outcomes if they don't detract too much from growth and technological advancement.
I think Brian is much more "anti-Left" than I am, AFAICT.
1:45-2:08 Intersectionality and blank slateism BOTH are rooted in the liberal framework of EQUALITARIAN dogma & orthodoxy from the perspective of POWER deconstruction.
I've long thought that if we lived in a society in which just about anyone, regardless of intelligence, who works hard and plays by the rules could reasonably look forward to a rich and fulfilling life, then a lot of this resistance to the idea that individual intelligence is largely determined by genetics (as well as a lot of the racial tension in contemporary society) would literally disappear. What might such a society look like? shorturl.at/INOT6
Would be happy to discuss.
I'm a social justice warrior, by the way. Just not the conventional kind.
Everyone's happiness is equally important and public policies should be designed accordingly-- that's the kind of equality that matters, which is quite a different thing than equality of outcome.
Thus, to take a concrete example, current trade and immigration policies violate that fundamental principle. Why? Because they hurt the life-chances and living standards of the least skilled members of our society even as they further enrich the upper and upper-middle classes, who were better off to begin with.
On the other hand, if only we knew a way, even in theory, to tax the winners under our current trade and immigration policies in order to subsidize the wages of the losers, then that might no longer be the case. shorturl.at/OUXY4
But absent that, trade and immigration restrictions are what social justice demands. The Trump phenomenon was fueled by that truth, which our ruling classes are loath to admit.
After listening to your previous discussion with Steve Hsu where you talked about market dominant minorities I want to share the following blogpost: https://spandrell.com/2017/09/06/fighting-the-bad-fight/
"""
...The problem that humanity faces now is not any real conflict between Whites and East Asians. The problem humanity faces now is the probably death of advanced civilization due to South Asians, Arabs and Black Africans outbreeding Whites and East Asians. sub-90 IQ populations outbreeding 100-plus IQ populations. That's a real and serious problem. If our civilization dies, there will be no second one. There's no cheap coal left to jumpstart a second Industrial Revolution. If we lose our present technology, we are back to the Iron Age, forever. Probably not even that, the cheaply accessible iron ore deposits are probably gone forever too. Back to the Stone Age, folks. That's our predicament.
"""
Cherry picking inclusivity and a self serving us vs them as if IQ nationalism would actually be a mobilizing force of solidarity and forming a cohesive coalition. Proposed by some big brained China loving autist. Yeah, okay. Failing as a race in the competition for resources (including reproduction) is the fault of the out-group and not at all to do with the inherently maladapted and supposedly monolithic in group? More self serving and redirected blame as a result of the lack of fecundity. Take the cringe elsewhere.