@ulyssessword's banner p

ulyssessword


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:37:14 UTC

				

User ID: 308

ulyssessword


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 00:37:14 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 308

Where are you finding that?

I've also seen arguments that a particular distribution of values for IQ, Openness, Conscientiousness, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism, etc (including many factors that psychologists don't measure) is the best for a nation, and the only way to get spread is to select based on race.

Even though the "good" numbers might be higher on other people, naive number-maxxing would lead to a failure mode of some kind. It's often unspecified, but the ones I can remember involve out-of-touch highly [good trait] people making norms that are legible and achievable to them, but disastrous to everyone else. Liberalization of sex and drugs are the main culprits.

By extension wether a man is black or white must matter more than whether they are an aged Supreme Court Judge or a Twenty-something meth head.

Maybe. I saw some stats on the Trump 2016 election, and the survey showed that being Black was a better predictor of presidential vote than being a Republican.

Nice strawman. But even the most hardcore HBD believers would accept that the worst whites are likely worse in some aspects than the best non-whites.

Ethnonationalists are (often) also HBD believers, and they say that the important aspect of a person is their race, full stop. You could point to higher intelligence, longer life, better health, or lower criminality among other ethnic groups, but that still wouldn't convince them that someone from another race is better in the ways that matter because that's not what they're judging people on.

I think it's pretty clear they reduce overdoses...

They may reduce overdoses, but I think that's far from clear.

As a (sort of) counterexample, "...B.C. has implemented every harm-reduction program that has been proposed, from safe-injection sites to safe supply and effectively making all drugs legal. As each new measure has been introduced, drug overdose deaths have increased, except for a brief drop in 2019."

The toy model is that they would otherwise stop (often from from death), but instead they continue for longer before stopping (slightly less often from death), and the time they spend doing drugs is higher and therefore the social cost is higher as well.

That being said, overperformance of multiracial students would be consistent with heterozygote advantage.

I suspect that it's some amount of selection bias as well. Specifically, being multi-racial is higher class than being single-race, so people with X% of their genes from one race and Y% from another would answer differently on the survey based on their class.

Showing your ID in person is not a privacy risk. Sending it over the internet is.

Okay? So ban porn advertising on any site that targets children. I'm pretty sure that law isn't even necessary because websites have a lot more control over their ads than stores have over their neighborhood.

If a city council sorted their areas by crime rate and excluded adult bookstores from the bottom X%, then I'm pretty sure the (prospective) store owners would have a good case the restrictions are illegal. If the city pulled all its cops and banned private security from them, it would be a slam-dunk case.

No. There isn't a crime rate minimum for opening an adult bookstore.

Uploading your driver's license is a government-mandated risk to your privacy, while going to the bad side of town is just an unfortunate coincidence.

How does someone that blatant stay employed long enough to reach your house?

Doorbell cameras are in 1/4 houses, and let's say half report it. That means she could get away with it 8ish times, or about one full day of normal deliveries. How unlucky do you have to be to be in the first eight(ish) thefts of her career? Alternatively, how bad can the companies be that they let her keep her job after getting caught?

The usual progression for small organizations is:

  1. Some minor punishment
  2. Blacklist them, revoke their membership, ban them from the premises, etc.
  3. Commit to calling the cops if they return.

Any organization can (theoretically) do #2 on a whim and #3 if needed.

Have twin studies been ignoring that factor?

Yes, routinely separating people from their family and other support structures is slightly insane.

Can you be more specific?

How would social status vary more among fraternal twins than identical twins? Are there family dynamics that push fraternal twins apart (on whatever stats you use) while pulling identical twins together? Do fraternal and identical twins live in different climates?

Isn't the whole point of martial arts (at least some technical ones, like BJJ) to make this possible?

Same with sports, and yet regional U16 boys teams routinely beat world-class women's teams in hockey and soccer (at least).

Being better than every woman in the world at a physical activity isn't too outlandish for a man, and I'd bet that being better than every woman in a given city isn't uncommon among dedicated amateurs.

I've never seen a minivan on a jobsite here (working on new-built commercial/industrial buildings). It's all either pickup trucks or full-sized vans.

By my reading, only "officially", while the "true" agreement is for a simultaneous ceasefire as described in the previous sentence.

I thought it was a good effort at introducing something that may not have otherwise been discussed

I mentioned it downthread, but I literally don't know what the point was. Since you saw something interesting here, could you explain it?

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time,

Dang, my optimism was misplaced here. I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to be engaging with, as "the alt-right is bad" isn't a very interesting thesis.

"even if someone gives fully informed consent...they have the right to [revoke it]"

Heading off on a bit of a tangent, I've seen arguments like that a few times. They never quite sit right with me, or at least they feel incomplete.

When I see that argument, I imagine a hierarchy of agreements: at the bottom are mundane ones that anyone can agree to. In the middle are serious agreements that are restricted to adults of sound mind (legal contracts, etc.) because children can't fathom the consequences of signing. At the top are super serious ones that no living human could be expected to follow through on (e.g. that take on the violinist) because adults can't fathom the consequences of signing.

With that in mind, the fully-consenting-violinist arguments says that (by analogy) motherhood is a superhuman commitment that no adult should be held to, regardless of any indications they might make otherwise.

One can just say that parents should have...

Is your "should" borne out as a matter of fact? I don't think so.

You can argue that the asymmetry is unjust, but that's not the same as stating the asymmetry doesn't exist.

But the hallmark of authoritarianism is to expand the definition of "undesirable" to include your political opponents -

What's it a hallmark of when the definition of "undesirable" excludes literal criminals, classified based on their criminality (not as an incidental feature like MLK)?

I agree with your concern over the lack of process (are those people actually illegal immigrants? Are we sure?), but the intended targets are appropriate targets for persecution.

The point of the turn signal is to signal, it's pointless to do when nobody's around so if you're completely certain, there is no need. It's hard to be completely certain however, so lean on doing it all the time to build habit.

A common story element among those with poor awareness: "I was driving along, then this car comes out of nowhere and..." No, aliens didn't teleport a car next to you. The car drove to that location and you weren't paying enough attention to note blind entry points and/or track their approach. (also, you didn't realize that the story would cast you in a negative light).

Signalling 100% of the time is the way to go, for exactly the reasons you laid out.