RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
No bio...
User ID: 2051
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
1d ago
Not everything needs to be HBD. The UK is just generally very centralized around London (for various reasons, some sensible, some not), London is in the south, QED. There is also some other factors, like the canal boosting a variety of industries. If you look at a GPD per capita map, it also looks to me mostly like a London effect, with only some far smaller Scottish cities doing similarly well like Edinburgh, Glasgow or Aberdeen.
There are some possible splits in the UK, like celtic vs anglo/saxon heritage, and there is some evidence that celts might consistently lack behind across countries, but it's somewhat weak and I'm not even sure that there is a substantial differential in heritage between north/south england anyway so it might be completely irrelevant.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
1d ago
I'm not aware of major new developments in germany. I'm going with "nothing ever happens" on this one; It will probably stay illegal bc there is no solid constituency to get it changed (no, men in general don't count; Caring about paternity implies that you think it plausible for your wife to cheat on you, which is pathetic), but laws will also not get more punitive bc many cases in practice are at least somewhat sympathetic (if you care enough to break the law about this, there is probably a clear reason for it).
For the record, I'd prefer if genetic sampling on birth was (opt-out-able) standard practice and would involve paternity testing by default, as well as testing for a host of inheritable diseases and whatnot.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
1d ago
I find it really frustrating how often HBD gets dismissed, and then an alternative explanation is given that is perfectly compatible with HBD. Usually connected to the assumption that HBD is about either differences between people being either 100% genetics and/or that it's just about black vs white.
No, HBD is simply about the finding that genes/biology in humans matter for everything, even for those attributes where the implications are a bit unpleasant. Yes, some people are just more violent. Some people are just less conscientious. And yes, some people are just less intelligent. It's not even their fault so I have a lot of sympathy with them, in a way. But it's not claiming that environment has no influence at all; That's just silly.
Once you accept this, group differences follow directly. Let's take brain drain. If we accept that intelligence is, say 60% genetic, and that a place suffers from a large percentage of intelligent people leaving, what does this imply about the group that has left vs the group that stayed behind? It's nearly mathematically impossible for both groups to have the same genetic mean afterwards! It would require some convoluted simultaneous anti-selection. And this applies in one way or another to every large migration wave. There is always some reason why people leave, and that reason will have implications for group differences between the stayers vs the leavers. Also, this applies of course to the average, not to literally every single person in each group.
Of course, this is hardly the only dynamic; The recent Reich paper shows clear evidence for ongoing selection even just inside west eurasia and in particular shows that the idea of cultural evolution supplanting biological evolution is simply wrong; They work in tandem with each other. Which makes perfect sense: If a society requires substantial long-term planning for winter months, then you will have both cultural adaption to do so and biological selective pressure towards more conscientiousness, intelligence, etc. Likewise, living in literal centuries of civilization with a highly developed tax code such as China will plainly have different selective pressures than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
Also, an aside: It's perfectly sensible to say that HBD is more important for differences inside developed states than for the differences between the developed vs the undeveloped world, since the latter has larger environmental differences. The black-white gap inside the US is probably substantially more genetic than the Europe-Africa gap. And this fits very well with the data, since the latter is significantly larger, even accounting for admixture.
Coming back to this post, assuming HBD is true, it makes sense that people with
Cultural antibodies hardened over a millenium that rejects the state, trusting strangers, higher IQ institutions
will also have substantially biologically adapted to that environment. Or the other way around, if we assume the differences currently holding them back were pre-existing, than we would of course expect them to fare badly in international warfare and regularly get conquered and colonized. I agree with @SecureSignals that at least part of the difference here is likely pre-existing.
Now you may ask, if HBD is so compatible with everything, when does it really fail? That's simple: I lean towards cultural/environmental explanations where the split is historically recent, and/or where there is little evidence for plausible, sufficiently large genetic differences. NK vs SK is the gold-standard here. Korea has historically always been relatively developed and well-managed. Koreans are of course not perfectly homogenous, every group has subgroups, but it's relatively isolated and as homogenous as it gets. The split is an inheritance of WW2, which is quite recent. And it's at this point well-known that neither communism nor most other autocratic governments are very conducive to economic development, so the cultural explanation makes very plain sense.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
3d ago
Yeah, you're really not helping my impression here. Progressives literally say 100% the same. It's fine to be a conservative religious, as long as you're like one of the good ones in their tv shows who lives a conservative lifestyle and is spiritual in some undefined way, but who doesn't actually espouse any conservative values nor seems to have strong specific religious convictions, either. And certainly doesn't "spread hate" about trans people, or "threatens reproductive rights" or whatever.
It's true in a sense, you can mostly live life just fine as a religious conservative as long as you don't trigger random progressive activists.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
3d ago
Did you ever feel like your fellow Americans hated you? Maybe I’m being histrionic but I guess 2016-2024 I just need knew fellow Americans were capable of doing things they did to me then. Like evil. The America I grew up with was united. Muslims hit us and we would all go kill them together. But 2016-2024 we were enemies with each other. It’s like losing my innocent. A civil war I never saw coming. And it honestly feels like we almost lost and America was over.
I'm not american, but welcome to how atheists (and gays, and so on) felt under the moral-majority-style religious right. It was the same kind of split were the moderate religious right was publicly saying not believing was fine, but they were actively politically allying (and thus empowering) a more rabid wing that would regularly go after people who do something that goes against their beliefs. Like, it's fine to be an atheist, as long as you don't do anything that might offend random christian activists.
To be fair, the woke actually still feels worse to me since it has more internal institutional backing inside academia, but there definitely is some symmetry here.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
4d ago
If I understand it correctly, the loss is at least capped at the original value of the 100 shares. Basically, you gain the advantage of owning stock without having to put up the same investment up-front, but you should have at least have a substantial percentage of the money for those 100 shares lying around in some way regardless so that you don't have to take a loan if things go south. But if you do this with multiple investment schemes that are in theory un- or only weakly correlated, then you can use the same stack of money as a guarantee for all of them without ever going negative.
No, I am promoting the idea that, when we choose to incarcerate certain persons, thus denying them the ability to either defend themselves or avoid attackers, we have assumed a corresponding duty to protect every single one of them from violent assault to the best of our abilities, and do not have the right to condemn a certain fraction of them to constant victimisation because protecting them is inconvenient.
I find the differences in the conceptualisation of prisons quite interesting. To many, especially right-wingers and some conservatives, punishment is the point of prison, so some background level of victimization is, if anything, morally positive. To you and large parts of the progressive wing of the left, prison is a choice we hoist upon certain people, maybe even for some utilitarian benefit overall, but the fact that we do so against their will means we have some obligations towards them. To me, the point for me personally is simply just separation between us and them (as such, I consider exile the ideal punishment, it's unfortunately just not really available anymore); If they then choose to victimize each other, that is on them. Since anyone in prison is by definition a victimizer (technically only allegedly, I know), the oppressor-victim dichotomy is an absurdly bad match anyway. I actually prefer if they treat each other well, too, I just think we have relatively little obligation towards them. At least in my country, prisons are already more than nice enough, nor are prisoners lacking food or other amenities.
None of these conceptualisations is strictly speaking wrong, and they lend themselves to wildly different conclusions.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
8d ago
But even a quokka (did I use that term right?) in an ivory tower like me who would prefer color-blind policies can see that there is a big narrative difference between 'a third of Louisiana voted for Democrats and not win a single Representative' and 'the Blacks of Louisiana overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, and yet did not get a single Representative who is Black or a Democrat'. Both are bad, but the Blacks are a much more coherent group than people who vote for Democrats. You don't know if your coworker voted for Democrats, but you can certainly make an educated guess about their racial identification.
I can understand this perspective somewhat, but I struggle to see how to decide which groups are considered important for this purpose doesn't either end up a complete clusterfuck or worse, vindicates the ethnonationalists' fears of the inevitability of multicultural spoils systems. There is also even plenty of examples where it works out the other way around - special interest minorities who care a lot about an issue and coordinate well reliably outcompete even much larger majorities if those don't care enough, through a combination of lawfare, lobbying and (local) special elections.
I think the root of the problem is that states are competing for national attention, and doing the sane thing and awarding EC votes or Representatives in proportion to the state-wide vote will guarantee that a state will not be worth fighting over. If Colorado decided to do that, national parties would just ignore it completely. "To win one measly EC vote through campaigning, I would need to convince another 10% of their population to vote for me instead of the other guy? Hard pass."
Instead, it is the interests of states to be battleground states. "Half of our voters prefer Democrats, and half Republicans. The tiniest margin will decide who gets all of our EC votes and Representatives. So you better try hard to send gifts our way to convince the marginal voter to prefer you."
If doing the sane and stable thing leads to you being ignored and borderline flip-flopping makes you the center of attention, then states will behave as if they had BPD.
I think a large problem is also the centralisation of power in most western countries. Politics is often better the more local it is since the problems of one place are rarely the problems of another. Europe is, as usual, even worse on this account, since a lot of power got shifted into the EU which is at best difficult to understand for the average citizen, and at worst employs committees and courts that are entirely out of the citizens reach. Not that central politics is entirely bad, it has an important place especially for large-scale international trading, warfare or diplomacy. But this is often piggybacked unto for much more general power, and nobody ever lets go once granted.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
9d ago
I don't think there is anything as crude as a treatment for this particular issue, especially if you're feeling fine about it yourself and are no trouble for others. If that is your genuine personality, you'll likely continue to feel that way for a good while.
But from having watched some people grow old and dependent there is a general rule that the less family & friends some has, the more pitiful the state you will end up in. There is very little as disgraceful as the actual reality of elder care homes. Friends can at least keep you active and mentally aware for a while longer. The best cases I'm aware of invariably involve the presence of a personal caretaker who genuinely knows and likes you, and the regular visits of friends and family. Maybe you'll get lucky and stay in full possession of your mental faculties as well as sufficient physical capabilities until you die relatively suddenly, who knows.
So even if it may feel like a hassle, I'd strongly suggest trying anyway.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
9d ago
How do you know we’re not already glorified pets in some societal experiment and/or universe simulation?
Strictly speaking I don't, but in the same way as I don't know whether there is a invisible teapot floating somewhere in space. I've never considered arguments along these lines particularly convincing; No matter how omnicient and omnipotent a being might be inside it's perceivable universe, you can always claim that it's all just an elaborate fake orchestrated from beyond. The possibility should be kept in the back of one's mind, but unless there is particular evidence in its favour, I'm fine with just dismissing it.
That may be another avenue of argument, but netstack's claim that I was contesting was that inevitability does (not) overrule a dystopia.
To your point, I might prefer to have a gracious owner as opposed to a hostile one, but not being a pet in the first place takes precedence.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
9d ago
The problem to this view is that, as far as I have read Iain M Banks own comments on The Culture, he seems at least positively inclined, and he definitely is the kind of leftist that could plausibly like a society such as The Culture. So the most likely conclusion to me is that it is his best attempt at the kind of utopia he personally would want to live in, but with enough intellectual and moral integrity that he tries to seriously challenge it over and over again, as opposed to choose the easy way and give it challenges tailor-made to look good against..
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
9d ago
You can’t compete with the Minds. This is a fact of the setting, rather than a societal choice or a zero-sum game, so it doesn’t move the needle into dystopia.
I disagree and proclaim the opposite. If I write a dystopia about an oppressive one-party state, but then add a lot of statements into the story that in this world it has been scientifically been proven that this is the logical endpoint of any and all societies, does this suddenly make it not a dystopia? If anything it would make it even more dystopian since there's no getting out.
It's the same with the Minds. Humans factually being glorified pets is horrifying, and moreso if the Minds are truly unbeatable. It being a societal choice would make it less dystopian, since that means there's hope yet for humans.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
9d ago
I agree with @gattsuru wholeheartedly on the (absence of) merits, but the reason why the genre gets uniquely trashed is imo the insane output and popularity both in Anime and in fanfic/royalroad-style amateur writing, coupled with a certain level of pretentiousness. Shounen is literally defined by its target group being boys, you don't expect it to be deep and if it is, that's a positive. Slice of Life also is defined by being light and fun. Isekai on the other hand has a very bad case of "this is not like other Isekai I swear" followed very quickly by checking absolutely every trope in the worst way possible. Spoiler: If you try to write seriously in a genre trashy enough that you need to put in a disclaimer that it's not like the rest, choose a different genre. Or just own up to the fact, you probably are just as trashy as everyone else.
For this reason, imo KonoSuba is a decent contender since it's comedy and doesn't pretend to be something it's not. Likewise, Overlord is funny in its complete over-the-top ridiculousness, but it's hard to tell whether the author intended it that way, so probably more a case of so-bad-it's-good.
And secondly, Shounen and Slice of Life are arguably troperific in a mostly-wholesome way; For example, boys loving exciting adventures and people usually becoming friends after fights, that's just fun & nice. Isekai, on the other hand, is frequently quite degenerate, for lack of a better word. Especially the tendency towards harems puts it quite close to erotic dramas just with an inverted target audience.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
10d ago
More seriously, the fact that the perpetrator was stopped arguably shows that security measures were perfectly adequate.
In a certain trivial way you're obviously right, but I increasingly fear that the primary reason it works that way is that this has more to do with the low quality of people trying, as opposed to saying anything about the security.
But on the other hand, without temptation and difficulty, there is no significance to you choosing good. If you're already primed to be good, you just get the archetypical Shin Megami Tensei-style Heaven Ending, where it's all just perfectly ordered and even if people have free will in some technical sense, it's never meaningfully realized, why should anyone ever deviate from acting good?
Sometimes I imagine a God akin to an ultra-superhuman R. Scott Bakker, who, disillusioned with the problem of free will in his own reality with the existing beings, tries to create a world populated with beings that have true free will. After millions, maybe trillions, experiments, he thinks he has been successful. But how do you even measure such a thing as free will? How do you prove it? If it can be measured, it stands to reason that it's a result of exactly the kind of physical processes that do not allow for true free will. Giving these beings temptations, but also giving them the capacity for empathy and reason to understand good and bad, and then seeing how they behave is at least not entirely nonsensical. This neatly solves the problem of evil as well, as long the evil is caused by humans in some sense; God can't intervene, or else he would fuck up the experiment. Maybe being corrected and lectured by literally God will bring most people in line. Maybe learning that any evil will be corrected anyway causes people to behave like shit. Maybe just simply showing yourself and proving the existence of hell will cause even sociopaths to be nice, purely for their own sake. Either way, it's not a true free choice for good, as opposed to bad, anymore.
But then again, I do not believe our actual universe as we understand it allows for free will, unfortunately, so there's that. Of course, this style of god would be a lot more morally ambiguous than the christian conception, possibly even evil by some moral systems.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
11d ago
Thanks for the rec, I'll check it out for sure!
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
11d ago
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
11d ago
Man, reading up on Caelum Est Conterrens reminded me, despite my many sympathies for their basic attitude, how many rationalists seem to be dedicated to fulfilling the worst stereotypes about the scientifically minded. See this discussion's gem:
So, apparently there's something I'm not getting. Something that makes an individual's hard-to-define "free choice" more valuable than her much-easier-to-define happiness.
There's this idea among the other-ways-of-knowing crowd that science can only ever talk about what we can currently define and measure, and that it is in particular obvious that there are things we will never be able to measure well, so science is limited to only a specific sliver of reality. This leads to the silly caricature of the scientist as a person who is only obsessed with measurable and entirely dismisses the immeasurable. Whereas I'd say most scientists have not only no issue admitting the limited scope of our current knowledge, they actively work on increasing that scope, precisely because they do not dismiss these concerns.
But no, this person just unironically dismisses caring about free choice (even putting it in scare quotes) as opposed to happiness, because the latter is easier to define.
Stereotype accuracy, indeed.
Nah. In particular, they went in to Season 2 with a perfect excuse to write an arbitrarily long, very episodic stretch of filler material, and they basically ignored that, time skipped as necessary, and kept the show pacing tight anyway.
It seems we're talking a bit past one another. I'm not really talking about episodic fillers, though of course those can also be a problem. To me the entire premise of the third and fourth season felt tacked on in the typical style of how tv shows always have to expand the scope from personal adventures to grand, world-saving heroism when they run out of interesting small-scope ideas.
To elaborate a bit (spoiler, obviously):
Otherwise, I unsurprisingly strongly agree with your earlier post. I'm a solidly in the technofuturist transhumanist "good-things-are-good" camp, and I have nothing but scorn for the showrunner's values. But even independent of that, I think that just keeping the story tightly focused on the original premise would have been much better. If anything, I'd have preferred a few seasons of episodic hijinks along that line to the ever-increasing scope we got instead.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
17d ago
Yeah, struggling on the finish line is common, and mystery shows are the worst offenders. Some shows & movies are great and clearly originally planned as a one-off initially, and then unexpected success results in a bad case of sequelitis. First three seasons of Supernatural, for example.
Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood is imo rightfully one of the highest-rated animes. Very good, self-contained story from start to finish, with minimal fillers throughout. Whatever you might think of the genre in general, this is how it's done.
Avatar: The Last Airbender has a weak-ish start and a few fillers inbetween, but the ending lands. People have already mentioned Gravity Falls, but that is definitely another one.
Blackadder is mainly episodic comedy, but it does not fumble the ending, neither inside the seasons, nor the last season.
There are also a decent number of animes with only 10-20 episodes, but I think that's not what you had in mind when asking the question.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
17d ago
Imo The Good Place dragged out far too much, but I also greatly disliked the direction it went into later for other reasons that are arguably subjective, so YMMV.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
22d ago
Depends on the data and variable, as usual. TFR specifically is a rather synthetic approach that looks at all the women in a given year, records how many had a birth in that year and their respective age, and then creates a synthetic women that sums through these average birth rates for the current year to get a total number of children. This is why it is a lot less stable than actual numbers of children and very sensitive to delayed child birth, at least in theory (in practice, delayed child birth and reduced birth rates are so highly correlated that it doesn't really matter). So no, it doesn't include children they brought with them. But it still shows that after entering western countries, they reduce the rate at which they're having children quite quickly.
RenOS
Falling Outside the Normal Fashion Constraints
22d ago
I've looked into this a bit, and the politics of having children. Conservatives are also doing fine-ish in most places, still usually below replacements but only at like 1.8 or 1.9. As @IdiocyInAction says, immigrants in western countries are closer to natives in number of children than one may think, but it's kind of a fools errand to put a number on it since they are a mix of different ethnicities from different source countries, some of which are already substantially below replacement themselves. Generally speaking, though, if you restrict it to immigration from high-birth-rate countries specifically, they're still AFAIK above replacement. Urban vs rural is also a very noticeable difference, which also correlates with politics.
Taken together, the implication is that moderates might be more close to one, and especially progressive, urban whites probably have east asian style birth rates. Scott once mentioned that rationalists and polyamorists have substantially < 1 TFR, and I don't think they are exceptional compared to progressives.
I feel like there might be a breadcrumbs effect that is under-explored. Basically, every ultra-competent (in the sense of being simultaneously highly intelligent and highly conscientious and highly agentic, and so on) person in the world, if they are interested in leaving their country and going to the west, will try to get into the US first and foremost, since it's the powerhouse #1. And since they are ultra-competent, they will find a way in. Every single other western country - no matter how hard they're working to have selective immigration - will only get the breadcrumbs from this, only people who either aren't quite competent enough to get into the US or who want to go to another country for idiosyncratic reasons, like already having family present there. And worse, this effect is cascading down: If not the US, then it's north-western europe, which also isn't even terribly hard to get into for a reasonably motivated individual.
To be sure as long as you're not screwing up the selection you're still getting reasonably competent, unproblematic individuals. But I wouldn't be surprised if Australia in particular gets the chaff of the grinders: Those that needed to grind extra-hard just to barely make it.
More options
Context Copy link