GaBeRockKing
No bio...
User ID: 3255
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
I think you're right in that there's some fuzziness involved in determining the effect size, especially since the correlation between IQ and educational attainment is strong but not incredibly so. But the objection you bring up means that the graph I posted should be underestimating the size of the new more-smarts-means-more-babies effect, since in the past fertility rates were higher.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
At any given point in time and cultural context, a genetic trait might be positive or negative for fertility. But over the long run, everything reverts to the mean. If IQ is real, it should have some sort of consistent, visible effect visible over long time periods-- and 20 years is a fairly long time period. The reason I pointed to the graph of people with more educational attainment regaining their advantage in fertility is to display exactly this phenomenon. Truly dysgenic phenomenon are intrinsically self-defeating.
And it's worth considering that fertility rates based on genetic traits are a lagging indicator. That we're seeing evidence of a switch to benefiting probably-smart people means that the actual mechanism must have been in place for at least 20-40 years, since all the newly fertile PHDs must have had the genetic components of their IQs determined then.
The fertility rate inversion we're seeing is also not just an american thing, but common cross culturally as more countries go through the stages of the demographic transition.
All that is to say, I trust Darwin and Rudolf Clausius way more than I trust anyone else. Any scientific paper has to get through them before it gets to me.
Unrelated hot take: while mixed race people, as a group, will continue to be average, we should expect the leading geniuses of the mid 20th century to be disproportionately mixed race due to the effects of hybrid vigor. And if theories about genetic intellectual differences between races are correct, we should be able to identify specific combinations likely to produce particularly intelligent hybrids.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
That's dumb. I guarantee your local morons running for city council aren't important enough to be puppeted by whatever evil group you think controls america. Yes, choosing between the soccer mom who thinks harry potter is satanic and should be banned from every school in the district versus the strung-out ex-hippy that wants the police to raise sales taxes by 0.5% to fund their vision of renovating the playground in park fuckhill is less glamorous that voting for GOOD versus EVIL in the national elections. But mediated by the fact that local elections are often one or lost by only hundreds or even dozens of votes, the compounded effect of voting in your local elections dramatically outweight any possible impact you could have in national elections-- and that's even if the national elections were actually composed of the good party and the kicking-puppies party.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
I'm not saying "plenty of" in terms of "proportion of the total population." I'm saying "plenty of" in terms of absolute numbers. I suspect many of those people would be happy for time off their sentences in return for working in the field they're trained for on behalf of the government.
Like, not to put too fine a point on it, but that's sort of exactly what we do with hackers already-- there's an existing pipeline from "black hat hacker" to "government spook."
And "worthy of imprisonment" crime is a measure biased towards people who commit crimes with an impact toward a few, specific individuals, rather than e.g. financial crimes that often have vastly more impact than your average armed robbery but result in far less jail time.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
Are you talking about not voting for president or not voting at all? Because as the other person said, regardless of where you live and what ideology you favor, you should still be voting in local elections. The more local the election, the greater your voice-- and the more important the people you're voting for. A president has a lot less impact on your town's crime rate than the policies of your sheriff, mayor, and prosecutor.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
I'd be interesting to see a follow-up too, since any result other than a regression to a mean would imply that either the initial study or our very concept of IQ is flawed. With greater racial interbreeding ratios and selection pressures in that have returned to favoring fertility rates in people with high educational attainment, if there is any actual of race on intelligence, it should be gradually reducing.
Our justice system is expensive because it's poorly designed. Or rather, because it wasn't designed-- because it's just a long pile-up of compromises with no guiding ethos. And yet, despite that, if we assume we're not going to redesign it, then imprisonment is still cheaper than the death penalty. If we assume we are going to redesign it, then why no redesign it so that criminals directly repay their contributions to society?
People demand that prisons be punitive while at the same time squeamish about the exact nature of punishment. Of course that leads to poor optimization for economic efficiency. We could get a lot more efficient use out of prisoners if we were a lot more judicious about exactly which rights we chose to violate, while at the same time not losing our heads if the same measures end up making prisoners happy. For example, encouraging moderate cocaine use but then predicating their supply on being productive and compliant.
(I'm not saying that specific intervention would solve our problem, just using it as an example of the sort of measure no one is even willing to consider.)
I'm also addressing your comment here:
The kind of labor that can be efficiently done by slaves is mostly done even more efficiently by machines these days, and prison guards cost a lot more than just hiring society's existing pool of the poorest
... with the above. Historically, slaves did plenty of complicated, specialized work that required a surprisingly high level of education. In rome,
Other vital services were provided by literate slaves who served as teachers, librarians, scribes, artists, entertainers – even doctors.
That in the modern day compelled labour is typically done by people with only the desire for and ability to compel uncomplicated work doesn't mean we'd have to stick to that paradigm. We imprison plenty of lawyers, hedge fund managers, accountants, scientists, etcetera. It shouldn't be impossible to convince them to do work that's on net beneficial to society even if we have to pay them with cash or reductions to their sentences.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
The enslaved soldiers definitely would have still been out-group after being enslaved, and if anything more prone to massive violence. You're correct that executions were also common, but I don't think either of us have the data to talk about "standard practice" in this case. And yet, an argument that says, "hard labor cannot be more efficient than execution" required a preponderance of the evidence, while my position (that hard labor can be made to be more efficient) requires only a collection of positive examples, regardless of how representative they are of average behavior.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
The whole theater of appeals and waiting is expensive. It should be more expeditive
Of course it's expensive-- society is will to accept a very low P[innocent of murder|executed for murder] rate. What false positive rate are you willing to accept?
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
Some medications downregulate sensitivity to particular neurotransmitters in the hopes that doing so causes your body to upregulate production of said neurotransmitters. Similarly, it makes sense to me to try creating buildings that make people feel alienated in an effort to push them towards more community-minded behavior. I can't make any concrete statements about how well it works... but nevertheless, I miss the old St. Paul.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
I'm abbreviating for conciseness. Of course there's a lot of other factors that go into what false positive/negative rates we optimize our justice system to accept, like the risk of a justice system being seen as "soft" encouraging vigilantism and the degradation of state power.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
Forced labour probably doesn't pay for itself
I'm almost absolutely positive it could. The carceral system-- and in particular the prison labor system-- is inefficient because it has misaligned incentives at every level due to a complete lack of consensus about its actual goals plus institutional inertia from times with totally different values. If we're talking about making dramatic reforms anyways (which would be required to significantly streamline the process of executing criminals) then we could orient things towards actually making the existence of prisoners net remunerative for society.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
Which ones, in your view?
Talking about specific here is probably past the limits of my knowledge. I'd guess there are probably some small crimes where the optimal punishment is something like, "expedite criminal sentencing and limit appeals, then put someone in a really unpleasant cell for a few days," rather than "put someone in a moderately comfortable cell for six months." Where if the legal system gets something wrong you lose maybe a week or two of time and your countersuit costs taxpayers only a small amount of money, and where if the legal system gets something right you get a pointed reminder to not be a dickhead but don't stay in prison long enough to get institutionalized.
I'm actually in favor of the corporal punishment idea for the same reasons-- you can search my comment history to see my position on floggings.
But in any case, I'm taking a philosophical position here, not trying to recommend specific policy. I believe causing harm can be justified to enable a greater good, but harm should never be a goal in and of itself. I'm completely against the death penalty because in practical terms we have cheaper + more effective alternatives and in moral terms killing someone adds absolutely nothing to the world, while simultaneously depriving them of the chance for personal redemption and salvation.
In any case, if you were to implement ugly cells for prisoners, who would you expect to be most likely to oppose you: admirers of Eisenman, or his critics?
I don't think architectural preference would matter matter. I sincerely doubt an attempt to actually design prison cells to maximize the things I want to maximize would actually look anything recognizably like "brutalist architecture," except in an incidental sense if I end up being cost-constrained.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
If you got the forklift certification because you expected to make more money-- because the pool workers legally allowed to do jobs involving forklifts is artificially constrained by the certification process-- then you've benefited from the same economic mechanism unions do.
Morally, you're free to make a distinction between getting a forklift certification versus forming an insulin cartel or shutting down imports across the country to get $2 more an hour. But mechanically and economically, it's the same sort of behavior guided by the same sorts of incentives.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
Even in the utilitarian framing, it's sometimes okay for things to be neutral or unpleasant for most people to make a select group really, really happy. I enjoy brutalist buildings. I would be unhappy in a world where every building was brutalist, but that some buildings are brutalist is just really cool to me. Not independent of their property to be uncomfortable and unsettling, but because of it.
I hate to sort of boil this argument down to "let people enjoy things," but I don't think you actually believe Eisenmann wanted every single building on earth to be ugly and depressing. And in point of fact, I think you'd admit that, at least to eisenmann, his buildings-- even in being depressing-- were still beautiful. Take a look at this design study, for example. It's certainly no Mona Lisa. But even though it devolves into abstract shapes, that perhaps infuriate you with their intentional lack of meaning-- is the palette of colors used not lovely? Are the geometric forms involved wholly without harmony? I'm not asking you to like Eisemann's work. But try to understand the actual mechanisms of what brutalism, as a philosphy, is. Stripping out some of the aesthetic elements that we use to judge beauty of course makes a work unappealing to the people who primarily want to see those particular elements. But it also removes all obscuration from the remaining elements-- it puts the remaining beauty in the sharpest possible relief.
Consider music instead of architecture. People can love plenty of things about music... the harmonies, the melodies, the rhythms, the lyrics, the meaning, the context, the performance... etcetera etcetera etcetera. But liking big band swing shouldn't prevent you from at least recognizing the aesthetic qualities in ecclesiastical monophonic chant. And without making any moral judgements about pop music, I'm still very sure children should be exposed to the occasional string quartet.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
In case it's non-obvious, I'm making an argument about optimizing for expected efficiency, rather than saying there's any agreement about how many innocent people we would knowingly condemn to prison in order to keep guilty people imprisoned too. My claim is that we already make implicit cost-benefit calculations about what sort of false negative/false positive rates we're willing to accept from the justice system. Which, in turn, implies that we must also be placing an implicit, finite cost on how much damage we think particular crimes actually cost.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
I think there are cases where it's justified to kill someone. I'd refer to aquinas' just war theory as being illustrative. Every death is a tragedy, but there are times where causing a lesser tragedy serves to prevent a greater. But note that I specified "helpless" person. Which-- relative to the carceral system-- inmates are. In older, meaner times, when society had fewer surplus resources, the relatively higher difficulty for the state to efficiently contain criminals made the death penalty more justifiable. But in the modern context, that's simply not the case.
So yes, I believe life imprisonment (where technically feasible) is more moral than killing. I wouldn't try to life-imprison an enemy soldier in the middle of a firefight, but I would absolutely prefer to imprison rather than execute them after their capture.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
Weirdly enough, I agree with you about the public flogging. It's also the reason I think arguments in favor of the death penalty fall apart on practical grounds. Carceral systems that include flogging as an alternative or supplement to fines and lengthy prison sentences demonstrate that it's possible to make fundamentally different tradeoffs about how we administer justice.
If you assume we're keeping everything the same about the current system, then the death penalty is verifiably a net economic negative. There's little evidence it is, in its current form, much of a deterrent, and it costs a lot of money to establish someone's guilt to the required standard. If you assume we're going to change the system somehow, to require a higher threshold of surety for guilt but also a lower threshold of double-checking to reduce costs... then why not assume we can change the system in other ways? I refuse to believe we can't engineer a way to make an entire adult human productive enough to be worth maintaining.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
What I’m saying is that you’ve outed yourself as a liar.
I can't wholly discount the possibility that my more fundamental beliefs about the sanctity of life have biased me towards believing evidence and arguments that present my anti-execution position as fulfilling both my values about utilitarian economic efficiency and my values about deontological behavior. And yes, since my deontological values are more fundamental than my utilitarian values, I would still be anti-death-penalty even if I thought it wasn't a utilitarian evil. But I was in no way being dishonest-- I genuinely believe everything I said about alternatives to the death penalty. I would prefer lifetime imprisonment over hard labor for everyone on track to receive the death penalty because of my utilitarian and deontological beliefs about slavery, but I would be happy to accept hard labor as an improvement to killing people.
As for your last accusation-- that I don’t actually care if that reason is true-- you are also completely wrong. It's true that I would ultimately be happy if you stopped supporting the death penalty regardless of why. (Though I'd privately think you were an idiot if you said something ridiculous, "lifetime imprisonment causes more net suffering" or alternatively the exact position I complained about in my original comment about people who are pro-execution but anti-government.) But I have practical objections against lying in arguments, and specifically in this case if you somehow managed to convince me that the death penalty was a utilitarian good versus alternative punishments I would reprioritize my time and emotional response. There's plenty of stuff that's a utilitarian evil but moral good, and plenty of stuff that's a utilitarian good but moral evil. Given that it's much harder to change peoples' minds on either of those categories, I prefer to focus my time on the slam-dunks that are both utilitarian and moral evils.
/u/Netstack if I haven't sufficiently toned down the heat of my rhetoric, please tell me and I'll stop responding to this subthread in general.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
It would be evil to make every prisoner live in a prison cell designed to make them sad all the time. But also... Prison is a punishment? And punitive measures can be used to achieve utilitarian and/or moral goals? Not every cell needs to be designed to make its inhabitants sad, but at least some of them probably should.
If the architect you're talking about genuinely felt that everyone should be sad all the time and his buildings were designed to do that, it would be evil. But I doubt that was genuinely his position l, and if it was he would bee the most incompetent supervillain of all time. I scrolled through his art and buildings and found several I unironically enjoyed, even as they reminded me of less than perfectly pleasant things.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
Have you ever ever obtained any sort of credential with a barrier to entry that enabled you to do specialized, abnormally renumerative work? If so, that's exactly the sort off thing I'm talking about. Unions are only one of many ways to obtain a labor monopoly.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
No amount of labor? Consider that statement very seriously. Would you seriously have executed that man if he were otherwise guaranteed to cure every form of cancer?
Everything about the justice system is an expected value calculation. If you let at most ten guilty men go free to save a innocent, you're implicitly saying that the risk of them committing crimes is outweighed by the good the innocent person could do. And you're also saying that an innocent person is worth less that the expected value of letting eleven criminals go free.
GaBeRockKing
1mo ago
Your stated concern is not your actual concern;
Yes. And? I want something from you. Does it make more sense for me to offer something I want, or something you want in return for it?
Are you seriously pissed off that I'm not assuming you should share my values and arguing from them?
If so, here's your argument: "Pope said so, Q.E.D."
Soldiers routinely commit atrocities worse than your average executed murderer, and yet people have been enslaving prisoners of war for literal milllenia. Forced labour literally pays for itself.
Prisoners don't have to be doing low-efficiency labor like breaking rock or pumping water out of lead mines... It's 2024. We can rent them out to mechanical turk for twelve hour a day and give them fentanyl doses to make sure they stay on task.
I don't think hybrid vigor would be a factor in every case, but alleles that manage to reach fixation in a particular population group likely make some sort of balanced tradeoff-- not optimizing for any one thing too hard because doing so would confer metabolic costs while producing no competitive advantages (against a population with the same genes.) So if racial IQ science is real* I'd suspect that in the right-tail of IQ distribution we'd see people with heterozygous alleles that were "intended" to perform some balanced function in isolated groups, but combined by crossbreeding lose any limiting factors and produce people exceptional in some way or another.
*To avoid concern trolling, I should be clear here that I do not have any particular faith in the existing racial IQ science. I can't rule out in principle that racial differences between IQ groups exist, but there are too many confounding factors, and in particular people who talk about race-based IQ support their claims with evidence that matches the pop-sci view of what "evolution" looks like, rather than what any plant or animal breeder would say actually happens in practice with genetics.
More options
Context Copy link