@MaiqTheTrue's banner p

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

				

User ID: 1783

MaiqTheTrue

Renrijra Krin

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 November 02 23:32:06 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 1783

I think it does matter in the sense that you have to get people interested in the game in the first place, especially the young, and as attention spans shrink, a game that’s 80% waiting for play to start is probably not going to hold as much attention as other sports.

Baseball already has this problem. It has a game much too slow for modern audiences, and has already introduced changes to try to fix those problems. The pitch clock, designated hitters, the free runners in extra innings— all of this is designed to speed up a game that is perceived as too slow. And I think they’ll run into limits eventually because the game of baseball was invented in the 1890s when spending an entire afternoon playing a single game or watching a single game was a reasonable ask. Is it really a good model in 2026 when it has to compete against faster games and better entertainment? I think it might have trouble even though I like the game.

I think Theres evidence for it. Taking the simplistic view that there are no odd goings on anywhere seems silly when you find every ancient civilization coming to believe in the same types of magical powers. Why would every culture think that stars had something to do with the future if it never worked, or that repeating words in a trance state could make physical changes, etc. shamanism exists everywhere.

I would suspect the opposite, as Chinese live under a regime that can and has arrested people for saying the wrong things online. I know the whole thing about Winnie the Pooh as a stand in for Xi, and it seems weird to think they’d do that on one topic but not on others.

I suppose, but looking around, I think that giving people the ability to have freedom sans responsibility has produced most of our problems today. Would it be better to somewhat constrain people and have a functioning society or allow total freedom and live in a society where nothing works and you can’t leave the house unarmed lest you be robbed.

To me, what people call Trump Derangement Syndrome is not a syndrome of the physical body, but of the mental body. It's the absolute horror of feeling your own body fail, no longer functioning according to your will.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is really less about losing the body, and more about the wrong person being allowed to rule, and thus the body-politic if you like. The thought is that the ego of these people cannot accept that other people who win elections have the right to implement their agenda. They can’t accept Cthulhu swimming straight instead of hard left. And seeing that they aren’t getting their way causes distress, especially for those who have made politics their religion. It would be for them like what would happen to a Southern Baptist who wakes up one morning to find that America is now ruled by Sharia law. If you see that not only your religion under the thumb of those who disagree and who are suddenly allowed to rule over the country and them.

I’m not suggesting that we need a good job for every single person, but I think if 80% of people could expect that a high school education and a bit of job training would get them a fairly good job with benefits and potentially upward mobility, then I suspect that college would be less important to most people and goes back to being upper class finishing school and maybe pre-professional training (doctors, engineers, scientists, and scholars) rather than being the almost required job training that it is now.

Ask almost anyone in college education, and you’ll hear the same story— very few are capable or interested in the material, especially the critical thinking or reading heavy courses. They cheat as much as they can get away with, choose the easiest courses they can, and coast. At a cost of 100,000 over a lifetime, and probably delaying normal adult life until 30, not having kids, and so on. The system we have is bonkers

Old school forums are much better for community simply because of the limited number of people on that forum and all there based on common interests. I recognize a bunch of names here, and the sorting by replies to a post means having an actual conversation is possible rather than simply shitposting into the void.

I’m mostly in agreement of the thesis of the book and Caplan’s case against education. The problem as I see it is that we really don’t have enough good jobs to go around, but we can’t admit this so we keep throwing education at the problem hoping that if we can give everyone an education that they will all do fine. But this ignores a whole host of issues: the massive time sink which delays productive work and family formation, the enormous costs to students and society at large, and the diminishing returns on college graduation as more and more students get those degrees. Of course, I think FdB is correct that most people doing any skills based activities will sort themselves into tiers and stay there. The problem is that we don’t have enough other options for kids below the B tier (and with AI on the way, the B tier is likely in trouble too) and the over education of our population is a symptom of the larger problem of not having great options for millions of people who don’t actually belong in school, and the need for the elite students to waste more time proving they’re actually worthy (which I think is probably an MS or MA or MBA by now).

It’s mostly done as an easy out. If you can supposedly get a good job by just pushing through school hard enough, then no one in the ruling class is on the hook for whatever happens to those on the bottom rungs. And it provides a nice sponge for most other social problems as well. A daycare so mom can work instead of raising her kids. An indoctrination center to make the kids believe whatever the state wants the kids to believe. And teachers get to be underpaid social workers and psychiatrists for kids with severe problems.

I find that hyper competent characters are definitely boring and frankly they aren’t real characters to me. I’ll agree with her up to a point. Making someone constantly whine about having given something up is annoying. Though to me it doesn’t turn the competence into a curse so much as it it reveals that the character is actually immature and whiney. Most people, if they choose to give up on something to pursue their career do so with some thought to the costs. If a person chooses to try to be a D1 quarterback, he’s obviously going to not have time for other things like making art or music or dating or other sports. He’s also the one who decided that was what he damned well wanted and isn’t likely to spend a lot of time rehashing that decision in his head unless he either failed or doesn’t like the outcome. Patrick Mahomes is not sitting on the sidelines wondering about the life he gave up to play football. His career is awesome. Some alternate universe Mahomes who snapped his ACL before the NFL draft and works as a truck driver might regret the decision because that decision made his life kinda suck.

Who wants to pay to have their kid sell cookies at Walmart?

I’m not convinced that it’s possible to just win an arial war. There’s no real way to force a victory unless you have total control over the territory and that either requires Hiroshima or substantial boots on the ground. The Iranians can simply bury or hide anything or anyone they care about, and often deep enough that only a nuke can destroy them.

The problem is the will to do those things. The heavy casualties that come with an invasion are politically untenable— we had significant backlash against Iraq when our losses reached 1000 total. And nukes are effectively off the table because again the political backlash would be severe. So we just drop bombs on some targets and pretend we’re winning.

The mother would also be in a position to understand and judge the claim.

There are lots of things that might make someone lie about such a thing, and if she had an ongoing pattern of lying and exaggerating to get attention or be manipulative, I think the situation would look very similar from the outside. But if people close to her are saying she has this pattern, I tend to default to it being true, simply because they know her.

I haven’t read the book yet, and having met people who I would describe as hillbillies, honestly, I think he was leaning more into dunking on them based on stereotypes rather than making a critique of a real culture. Hillbillies are not lazy or stupid even if most of respectable people like to think they are. We have a strong bias against working class white people, and often claim they are lazy and stupid.

I think the opposite is true. Ingenuity takes far more smarts than looking in a book and following the directions. And it’s a lot more work to have a blue collar job than to type away at a laptop while drinking a Starbucks. Get a member of the laptop class and a hillbilly on a deserted island, and the hillbilly will build a house and rig up a way to hunt or fish and his richer and better educated cohort will have no idea what to do.

I kinda get where that piece is coming from, but I think it kind of fails simply because it doesn’t deal with the difficulty of working with iron. It would be like saying “okay, silicon is as common as sand, therefore we can decentralize information because all you need to do to get silicon and therefore computer chips is to go to a beach and start digging. Not really. You have the raw material, but unless you have the skills and and technology necessary to work with that material, you aren’t really going to get anywhere close to equality with those with the ability to use iron.

I personally think a large part of the collapsing states was simply rot. The leadership hadn’t really developed much beyond where they were hundreds of years ago, the people, used to being a part of an empire were less industrious and self controlled and often dependent on luxuries from abroad rather than local stuff. So social vices proliferate, industry and innovation decline, and sooner or later someone comes along and topples the old order simply because the foundations had been eaten away.

I’m pretty convinced of this, at least without really good levels of subject matter knowledge. I would expect an economist to accurately predict second order effects of a tax hike or tariff increase on prices because he’s studied that system deeply. I would expect a geologist to be able to tell me whether or not fracking would destabilize geologic plates and cause more earthquakes. Or expect an expert on neurology to predict the effects of early screen use on the development of the human brain.

Take away the expertise, and it is effectively impossible because you don’t have enough background information to know the difference between things that are impossible, things that are rare, and things that are common. If I know for example, that tariffs lower imports, then it’s possible to say raised tariffs will raise prices on basic supply and demand. If not, I can’t really do that.

The contrarian approach mostly looks smart because it signals that you aren’t beholden to expert opinions and are supposedly looking for yourself. Which signals that you’re smart enough to do it and that you’re confident in your ability to do that. Smarts and confidence are seen as positive.

That’s pretty much what happened here. The real image showed a Somali politician with the flag upside down, showing at best ignorance and at worst disrespect for the flag. Journalists who don’t want the immigrant community to be seen in either of those ways is strongly biased towards any way to “debunk” that idea.

And this is why deep fakes will work most of the time. They don’t have to even be good, they just have to conform to what people want to be true.

It’s rather telling however that democrats get upset about republicans saying true things about them. If democrats made ads that said republicans want to cut spending and lower taxes, republicans would be thrilled even if they went to the wrong side.

I mean true, but unless you preserve something like the future you want, there’s nothing to point at. It’s a lot harder to say I want a Christian society when your kid is having his faith destroyed by modern liberalism hammered into his skull. And really, outside of traditional movements, that’s where we are. Culture is so hostile to their ideas that unless they separate from the rest of the culture, there’s nothing left to preserve.

Hockey, soccer, basketball and rugby are at least played fairly continuously, without timeouts between plays and numerous play reviews and flags on top of timeouts and TV breaks. I like tge game, but if you’re not used to turn-based play where you get time to set everything up 4 times and run the play to see what happens, it’s kinda boring and I think it makes the games longer than they need to be.

It’s the same intelligence. It’s not different intelligences. That’s my point. It takes logical reasoning to understand socializing or art or sports. You just have people spending their time using their g for different things. Some of it is temperament or family dynamics guiding kids on how they choose to develop their skills, but at the bottom it’s all g and a person who doesn’t have decent g isn’t going to excel in skills other than math either. I’ve yet to meet an IQ 80 person who could really and truly understand socialization or art or nature, and outside of maybe football defense where all they need to know is “tackle guy in front of me” most sports require at least average intelligence to understand the strategy.

What well meaning teachers talking about 7 intelligences tend to mean by that is that g, IQ, simply doesn’t exist and that you can be smart about different things because there are different forms of intelligence. So a person can be too stupid to understand very basic logic and supposedly have “sports smarts” which requires a form of cause and effect thinking to learn the game, let alone strategy. Or maybe they’re too stupid for logic but can figure out how to get a picture to look good (using cause and effect AKA logic). It makes no sense.

It’s mostly cope in my view. The people who push the idea that there are other forms of intelligence tend to be either teachers who want to believe that the dumb kids aren’t actually dumb, and the dumb ones who don’t want to believe that they’re not just as smart as the science math and logic leaders. But it’s not true. You can’t be smart about feelings or art or nature or smarts without using the same pattern recognition and extrapolation skills that the STEM people use. You might, by temperament, aim it at different problems. Patrick Mahomes is aiming his logic and pattern recognition at football where Elon Musk is aiming it at rockets and drones and flying cars. It’s the same brain, the same processes, but one guy is throwing to Kelcie and the other is building flying cars.

I think it’s going to fall, though to be honest I think baseball is falling faster. I live in a baseball town, and yes you’ll see team gear, but nobody really gets into the ins and outs of the game, and don’t follow the game or the players to any real degree. Most of the players are Hispanic imports from abroad, and really, the games up until the all-star break don’t matter much. And unless you’re super into pitching, Theres not nearly enough action to keep people interested in the game, to the point where the league itself feels the need to artificially speed up the game with pinch hitters, pitch clocks, and base runners in extra innings. If you need to speed up the game to make it watchable, it’s not going to last.

I like football, but I think the game has too many stops. It’s hard to keep watching when 1/2 or more of the “play” time is standing around waiting to actually play the one play before standing around waiting for the next play. Add in that with rare exceptions, most plays outside the red zone don’t matter much, and you get a game that is 99% fluff. You end up doing other things while waiting for the good parts of the game. And I don’t see that as being a sustainable model for a popular sport.

Most pro sports also have a big problem in the price of attending an actual game. It costs hundreds to attend a game in the NFL. It’s somewhat better for baseball. And figuring out which of the streaming services actually show your team often means subscriptions to multiple services and dealing with blackout games. It makes introducing the game to kids harder. And if you don’t make it easy for kids to get into the game, then eventually they find other things to watch and do and get into.

They can’t stop it, but neither can you. It’s not stopping unless the entire culture accepts and supports conservative views. Which isn’t happening.

The trads are not trying to undo all of western progressive culture, because that’s likely impossible for them. Instead, they propose to build enclaves where they can keep their kids safe from the kinds of ideas and material culture that exists in the rest of the world. It’s a redoubt, a fortress intended to at first provide protection and support for the like minded, but eventually have enough power to make changes.

It’s high stress because unlike males, there’s no real role to slot into. You have to sort of make one, somewhere on the spectrum between pseudo Amish trad wife and ball busting girl boss dyke. And because Theres such a wide range of potential womanhood, there’s no target to aim for, nor can anyone help you understand the role or how to achieve it. You had thousands of years where this wasn’t true and had few or no girls deciding that they were men. Women knew how to help their girls as men knew how to help their boys because the end goal was known

I still think there was value, even at young ages to having male only places. You do need at least some single gender socialization so that young men and young women learn how to navigate their future roles in civilization and how to deal with their unique problems. Males need to see good modeling of channeling the extra energy that they naturally possess. Little boys are bundles of energy who need to learn how to channel it. Little girls have less energy but are much more naturally attuned to being catty and manipulative in social interactions and need to be taught to control those natural tendencies. You can’t do those things in a mixed gender environment because the problems are different and what would be good if a boy did it might not be for girls, or vice versa depending on the behavior.