NelsonRushton
Doctorate in mathematics, specializing in probability theory, from the University of Georgia. Masters in AI from the University of Georgia. 15 years as a computer science professor at Texas Tech. Now I work as a logician for an AI startup. Married with one son. He's an awesome little dude.
I identify as an Evangelical Christian, but many Evangelicals would say that I am a deist mystic, and that I am going to Hell. Spiritually, the difference between me and Jordan Peterson is that I believe in miracles. The difference between me and Thomas Paine (an actual deist mystic) is that I believe the Bible is a message to us from the Holy Spirit, and the difference between me and Billy Graham is that I think there is noise in the signal.
User ID: 2940
NelsonRushton
16d ago
That is only meaningful if (a) (as jeroboam said) they are telling the truth, and (b) you compare to a control group consisting of the number of children shot in the head or chest in other war zones.
A priori, it is = easier to believe that you could find several doctors to make up this story, than it is to believe that Israeli soldiers are doing it intentionally on a regular basis. So the evidence needs to be pretty solid in my book.
I do not believe that intellectual arguments generally have much impact on Marxists. As a notable case in point, Thomas Sowell (perhaps the most insightful political thinker of the late 20th century) was a Marxist when he began studying for his Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago. He did his dissertation under George Stigler and studied extensively with Milton Freidman, both of whom were Nobel laureates in economics and vigorous free market advocates. If intellectual arguments, well-formed and directed at a capable, open mind, are the cure for Marxism, Sowell should have been the poster child for the red pill by the time he graduated. In fact, however, Sowell was still a Marxist when he received his doctorate.
After spending years under the rigorous tutelage of some of the world's foremost free marked economists without a dent in his Marxist zeal, Sowell began working as an intern for the US Department of Laor. Within three months he had renounced Marxism -- not as a result of any intellectual argument, but as a result of seeing how the sausage of leftist government is made. Sowell went on to write A Conflict of Visions, which I believe was largely inspired by his own red pill experience. The thesis of the book is that ideological differences are not born of errors in reasoning on one side or the other, but of different ways of seeing the world. These ways of seeing, AKA worldviews (or visions as Sowell calls them) are not the result of conscious deliberation or argumentation. On the contrary, they are the stage on which deliberation and argumentation take place. Sowell holds that people with different worldviews talk past each other because they literally see different worlds and speak different languages, even when they look at the same events and use the same words. I believe he is quite correct.
As a rule, people do not argue themselves into a worldview and they do not get argued out of a worldview. What changes one's worldview, in general as in Sowell's case, is not argument but experience. Fortunately, the experience that shapes one's worldview does not have to be a lived out in the flesh. As Jordan Peterson has recently advocated in his We Who Wrestle With God lecture tour, the virtual experience induced by hearing a story can also shape one's worldview. That is why people of all times and cultures spend so much time telling and listening to stories (and watching screen plays on television, reading novels, etc.). Peterson says, "A story is the lens through which we see the world". I would say that a worldview is the lens through which we see the world, and stories are a crucial device by which worldviews are promulgated and passed down.
In particular, values of a culture are transmitted through stories of heroes and villains who live out the virtues and vices of that culture. This is why the vast majority of material in sacred texts consists of stories. Of the roughly 23,000 verses in the Hebrew Bible, only 613 are commandments and the rest is storytelling. The works of Homer and Hesiod -- the principal religious texts of classical Greece -- were nothing but stories of heroes and villains, and this is not uncommon for sacred texts around the world. I hypothesize that peoples' natural capacities for spiritual experience , for hypnotic trance, and for the appreciation of music, co-evolved as a mechanism for passing down the worldviews of a culture. Language evolved for passing down declarative knowledge, and entranced storytelling evolved as a mechanism for imparting the shared cultural worldviews in which that declarative knowledge is situated. Want to change someone's values? Entrance them and tell them a story. That is how Milton Erickson did it; that's how Gerry Spence does it, and that is how Jesus did it. Great influencers are great hypnotists and great storytellers. This is why religious sermons are given by a well lit speaker against a dark background, begin and end with music, and consist mostly of stories. TV Shows and movies are conducted that way, too. This is why children's bedtime stories are a tradition in every culture: sleepy children are entranced.
I would guess more people have broken free of Marxist brainwashing by reading Orwell's Animal Farm than by reading Hayek's Road to Serfdom or Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (I've heard of both anecdotally, but more of the former). But the story that is truly the bane of Marxism is the Holy Bible. Marxists know their enemies, and that is why they make war on that book everywhere, and to whatever extent, they take the stage. We saw that, for example, in the opening ceremony of the recent Summer Olympics. Evangelical Christians lean Republican by two to one [source], while atheists lean Democrat by four to one [source]. Women ages 18-29 lean Democrat by only two to one [source]. About the only salient group that leans left harder than atheists are gays. So unless you think you can turn a gay person straight, the most effective red pill transformation you can make is to convert an atheist into an Evangelical Christian. Turning an atheist into a Christian is a stronger blow against Marxism than turning a young woman into an old man (and who would want to do that anyway?). Peter Boghossian, author of A Manual for Creating Atheists, recently lamented that perhaps by creating atheists he is also creating Marxist zealots. Of course he is, and even new atheist Richard Dawkins now tends to agree with that assessment [source].
Moreover, I believe we think of "taking the red pill" the wrong way. At this point, many if not most people -- even most Democrats -- already know that wokeness is intellectually preposterous and morally toxic, but they are scared to say so publicly. That means that the younger generation only hears one side of the story and the infamous march through the institutions ploughs ahead. What is chiefly needed to fight Marxism is not more arguments, or even more people to agree with us, but greater courage among those who already believe: the willingness to actually fight the culture war. The culture war is not a literal war, but is a literal fight in the sense that if you participate you may well suffer materially for it. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "It is not syllogisms that keep reluctant nerves and muscles at their post in the tenth hour of a bombardment." Whatever it is that keeps them there, that is what we need more of, and it doesn't come from arguments. It doesn't even come from the side of the brain that formulates and evaluates arguments.
So, want to red pill a normie? Don't argue with them; tell them stories heroes who embody the virtues honored by patriots of the West -- especially courage and integrity. Read them George Washington's first inaugural address, or his letter from Valley Forge. Or read them Sam Adam's speech to the Philadelphia State House, or Socrates's Apologia. But if you want to fire-engine-red pill a normie, share the Gospel with them. Christian communists might be a thing, but they aren't really much of a thing.
My 7 year old son asked me this morning, "Do monsters draw people with big sharp teeth?" It's a natural assumption; children (and cartoonists) often draw monsters with either exaggeratedly big sharp teeth, or claws, or horns (or all three) -- presumably because the fangs of an apex predators are primally frightening to people, especially to children. I said, "No, monsters draw people holding Bibles".
NelsonRushton
1mo ago
This has been a goal of the libertarian and classical liberal movements for the last century.
And that approach is failing miserably before our eyes.
NelsonRushton
2mo ago
The bigoted opinion most supported by this farce of a fight isn't anything about Khelif's genital arrangement or chromosomes,
A woman, born female in a country where homosexuality and gender transition are illegal, raised as a woman, but born tall and with a face and body that is undeniably a bit masculine
According to NBC among other sources, Khelif has male (XY) chromosomes: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/imane-khelif-boxing-win-olympics-gender-eligibility-rcna164662
In my book that is obviously, by far, the central issue.
NelsonRushton
2mo ago
It seems like the recent uptick in crime has a large component of crime committed by homeless addicts, especially on the East coast. If you are naturally left-leaning, you might be interested in Michael Shellenberger's thoughts on this topic. This whole video is good, but I have queued the link up to the part where he discusses the central idea: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5nSBmftZ1qU&t=903
Shellenberger is very compassionate and a natural born leftist, but he understands the facts that (1) addicts living in the street are there because of an ongoing sequence of foolish decisions whose net effect is that they have lost control of themselves, and (2) the interventions necessary to get them back on their feet necessarily involve both carrots and sticks. He has some fairly concrete policy recommendations that he makes in the video. My sense is that he has so much conviction to actually solve the problem that he doesn't let himself be blinded by ideology, and his suggested approach combines the best aspects of the political left and right.
In any case, suppose I have an idea that I believe is better than the status quo. Then what? My philosophy on this has two parts. First, a soldier at war is not responsible for winning the war; he is responsible for doing his duty in the effort to win the war. Similarly, when it comes to public policy, I am not responsible for changing the world; I am responsible for (1) not being part of the problem, and f(2) doing my duty in being part of the solution. My duty is to work intelligently to change hearts and minds. Working intelligently means working in groups and through institutions -- and on this topic I would refer you to Teddy Roosevelt's essay "The Duties of American Citizenship", and to the final segment of Ronald Reagan's farewell speech.
In my opinion, if, over the course of your life, you help five people get closer to truth, you are a superhero.
- The bible talking about killing off entire families as punishments.
- Long lasting family feuds.
- Feudal level countries killing off entire families as punishments.
- Ongoing demands for reparations.
I think the assumption that is built into your thinking is that the only legitimate justification for proactive violence (that is, violence not in defense of self or others) is as punishment for an offense by the person targeted for violence. If we assume that, then it follows that the cases above consist of punishing people for the acts of other people. But not everyone holds that assumption, and I don't hold it myself.
Note: I am not necessarily defending the actions described below, but I am trying to articulate the alleged moral justification in the minds of the killers.
In Case 1, I assume you are referring to the story of Achan in Joshua 7. Notice how often this phrase occurs in the Bible: In this way you shall put evil away from you (some examples can be found here). That means that the execution is justified, not by punishing someone who committed a bad act, but by the desire to rid the tribe of certain genetic predispositions. It isn't bad acts that are being punished, but bad genes that are being extirpated. This also applies to the genocide of other tribes that have too many bad apples (e.g., the Midianites and Amalekites). It's not that the Amalekite infants have done anything wrong; it's that they are likely to infected with something akin to zombie-ism or orc-ism. That doesn't explain the killing of Achan's wife, but it explains the killing of his children.
The killing of the wives and children also has an enhanced deterrent effect. What good does it do to punish someone for crime in the first place? From a utilitarian standpoint, the benefit of punishing crime isn't the pain and loss of the offender as a positive good in itself; it is the deterrent effect. Killing the whole family enhances the deterrent, and thus has the same kind of justification as killing the offender himself, or even flogging him. From a utilitarian standpoint, IMO, it is indefensibly arbitrary to just punish the offender, when punishing people he cares about has a larger deterrent effect -- and when no immediate, intrinsic good comes from punishing anybody in the first place. (But I'm not a utilitarian).
Case 2 is unique in this list. This is the only case where the killing is not a state action. But in warfare, whether between clans or nations, your duty to kill enemy combatants, and perhaps even noncombatants, is not justified by the fact that you are punishing them for some offense they committed. On the contrary, they may be right good fellows through and through. Killing in warfare (or clan warfare) is not punishment at all; it falls under a different heading.
In Case 3, for example in the Glencoe massacre, I presume the real justification was to cement the power of William of Orange, which might otherwise have been on shaky ground. This action was widely condemned, but not universally condemned, and William felt he could get away with it so it must have been plausibly justified in his culture. When I see something like this, I don't ask, "Wow, how could they be so crazy?". I ask, "Wow, what makes that moral convention adaptive for national survival?" What I take away from events like this is how important it was to the survival of feudal nations for the King to have strong moral authority. Without that, national defense would be a tragedy of the commons.
Case 4 is, in my opinion, the one that is truly based on a notion collective punishment. How could people be so crazy? What is adaptive about that? What is adaptive about that is that, if you manage to convince enough people that the targeted class (the bourgeoise, white people, Jews, whatever) is the root of all evil, then, like Lenin, Hitler, and Mao, you and your constituents can self-righteously steal the property of large numbers of people who have done nothing wrong. The push for reparations is nothing but a pretext for banditry -- the same as in Marxism and Nazi antisemitism.
oops. Strike that; reverse it
I am tempted to delete the original post, but that would also delete the record of your pointing out the error. The post is now edited to preserve as much of its essential content as is still relevant, pointing out the history of the post and the correction. Thanks for the correction.
Note: The original version of this post theorized that there was a causal connection from the botched Secret Service protection of Trump to Microsoft's layoff of its DEI team. However, @The_Nybbler then pointed out that the firing happened before the assassination attempt (see below). The post is now about why I think that the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) push within the Secret Service was responsible for their poor performance on July 13.
When I was a university faculty member, I noticed pretty quickly that no matter what issue was being debated in a faculty meeting, it was always the same people in two camps opposing each other. I am reminded of Thomas Sowell's well-put description:
One of the curious things about political opinions is how often the same people line up on opposite sides of different issues. The issues themselves may have no intrinsic connection with each other. They may range from military spending to drug laws to monetary policy to education, Yet the same familiar faces can be found glaring at each other from opposite sides of the political fence, again and again. [Sowell (1987): A Conflict of Visions, p. 13]
In the case of disputes among college faculty, it took me a while to figure out the underlying variable that basically split the department into two camps -- but once I noticed it, it was consistent and the data grew over time: the basic ideological split in the department was between people who want a culture of meritocracy, and people who don't. So I learned that not everyone wants meritocracy; some people in fact are strongly opposed to it, and that this variable is a major ideological axis in the culture of a university department, and probably of any organization. The degree of meritocracy in an organization correlates with a large number of other variables and determines which direction it goes on a variety of high stakes decisions.
DEI is an assault on meritocracy in a deceptively direct and damaging way, and so it fundamentally changes the organizations it infects. The result of DEI is not just that you hire and promote the best candidates you can under the constraint of identity-group quotas -- because under a DEI push you can't even have an honest discussion about it in case there are better white male candidates. Fundamentally, DEI isn't about quotas; it is about denying facts about group differences, and corresponding individual differences, that underlie the need for quotas. In this way, DEI requires systematically lying about merits of people's credentials and performance, which entails the erosion of the fundamental variable of meritocracy in the organization. This sends the organization into a sick corner of ideological space that results in a pathological inability to perform its mission -- unless its mission is licking the boots of DEI-loving bureaucrats and politicians, which is, without exaggeration, the primary, or at least a primary, mission of a growing number of organizations.
And that, I think, is how an amateur would-be assassin was able to stalk unopposed onto on a rooftop, with a rifle, 130 yards (short rifle range) from a podium where the former president and presumptive Republican presidential nominee was speaking, with a clear line of site to the podium (every time I re-read that sentence, I think I am in the Twilight Zone). The more information comes out about this event, the more it seems to be a result of institutional incompetence on the part of the Secret Service, and the more egregious the stonewalling is from that agency, and the more baffling the whole situation is -- unless you understand DEI and its consequences.
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
Not the process I described, but I think it allows for the same mechanism (lack of attention to the WNBA => lack of convergence on opinions about the greats) via this step:
Each voter was presented two randomly selected names and asked to pick which one has had the better career in the 21st century.
So culture war? But then how do I explain Phelps at No 1?
Good question. One possibility is that the list was compiled from the top 100 (or some other number) from several different journalists: you make your list; I'll make mine, he'll make his, and we'll agglomerate them in some way. In that case, each woke writer would feel the need to put a few of WNBA players on the list -- but the WNBA is not an A-list sports league and hasn't been discussed enough to reach convergence on the GOAT's. Some of those journalists may never even have watched a full WNBA game (most feminists haven't). So, there would be less convergence on the various lists, which would show up as lots of WNBA players in the agglomerated top 100. Just a guess off the top of my head.
Phelps at #1 seems like a CYA move: almost 10% of the top athletes are from a single obscure sports league -- but that's our honest opinion, and it can't be sheer wokeness, because look who we put at #1. Also, Phelps has the all-time record in the most salient metric (total Olympic medals in head-to-head worldwide competition), so any other choice would look woke.
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
Is this consistent with your above statement, "They do"?
@NelsonRushton: Whatever argument that is, it will have to prove that majorities don't decide morality
@anon_: They do. And the majority now has decided that slavery was pretty awful.
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
Would you also affirm the following?
- race based slavery is immoral regardless [causally]of what a majority of people believe.
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
You think there are a lot of lost tribes out there that tried all 3 and never invented writing or something? This whole theory is puzzling. No one had gunpowder, phones, and crocks at the same time either.
In real life these values are on a continuum. My hypothesis (not thesis) is that the closer a society gets to accepting all three at once, the weaker it gets. It's not that they failed to invent writing; it's that they got conquered and absorbed, and their culture was taken out of the meme pool.
I don't know what you mean by "crock". The question here, though, is what is in need of an explanation. It's obvious why no previous society ever had the internet and remote control drones at the same time. It is not obvious why no society ever had (1) sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable, (2) homosexuality is morally acceptable, and (3) male and female sex roles ought to be respected equally. I would expect that if the combination were not toxic, a society would have embraced them. Many societies embraced (1) and (2), and I submit every society ought to embrace (3); so, an explanation is required as to why it never happened.
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
Let proposition A be that combustion consumes oxygen, as opposed to releasing phlogiston. Do you believe (1) (Proposition A is true because a majority of people in 2023 believe it is true), or (2) (proposition A is true, regardless of what a majority of people believe, because combustion actually consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston)?
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
Do you believe in the symmetry of C/D? Or do you believe 300 years ago fire really was phlogiston?
I believe that combustion consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston. I assume you do too. The next question is why this is true. Do you believe that this is true because (1) a majority of people in 2023 believe it is true, or because (2) regardless of what a majority of people believe, combustion actually consumes oxygen as opposed to liberating phlogiston?
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
Well there you have it. Jesus dude, could you construct a more convoluted argument? Literally throwing darts at a non-existent enemy.
The conjunction of (1), (2), and (3) is not a straw man; it is exactly where Western civilization is headed. Yet it is uncharted ground. My thesis is that that ought to give us pause that no society has ever tried this combination and survived long enough to record the fact.
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
What's silly is the idea that my judgment today of has to be based on what people thought in a different century... They [majorities] do [decide morality]. And the majority now has decided that slavery was pretty awful.
Let me see if I understand correctly. Do you affirm the following?
- Proposition A: Slavery was immoral in 1700, because a majority of people in 2023 believe it was, regardless of what a majority of people in 1700 thought.
If so, why is that true but not this:
- Proposition B: Slavery is morally permissible in 2023, because a majority of people in 1700 believed it is, regardless of what a majority of people in 2023 think.
For example, is it because 2023 comes after 1700? Or because we are having the conversation in 2023? Or for some other reason?
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
@NelsonRushton: By your argument, that I quoted above, slavery was moral until 300 years ago
@anon_: This is a fairly common, silly argument.
The argument you are calling silly is your previously stated argument on the topic of CSAM (supermajority, etc. etc.).
What I asked for is your argument that the abolition of slavery was a moral improvement. I'm now asking for the second time. Whatever argument that is, it will have to prove that majorities don't decide morality, which will contradict your argument for the prohibition CSAM.
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
In light of that, what argument would you make against prohibiting (1), (2), and (3) in media depictions, that does not contradict your original argument on CSAM?
- A large supermajority believes that sexual urges towards 5 year olds is fundamentally morally abhorrent
- No such contingent is even remotely there on (1), (2) or (3). In fact, none of those can even claim a bare majority against them
As I reported before, a supermajority of married women disapproved of premarital sex in the 1960's. Moreover a supermajority of adults in the US (75% of those who expressed an opinion) believed premarital sex was wrong as late as 1969 [source]. By your argument, that I quoted above, slavery was moral until 300 years ago; premarital sex was wrong until 60 years ago, and gay marriage was wrong until 10 years ago. I assume you believe, however, that the abolition of slavery (e.g.), which changed the supermajority consensus, was a good thing. If so, then there must be some consideration aside from the majority opinion that informs morality. My question is, in your view, what is it, and how does it apply to CSAM in a way that it does not apply to, say, the normalization of premarital sex in media?
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
I don't know of any society has embraced them together.
I don't think is an accurate characterization of my view. And I certainly don't endorse your conclusion as to either writing or as to pornography in general.
I wasn't characterizing your view, but what follows from your argument if it is valid. It seems to me that the argument you put forward to support your view is an equally strong argument for a view you oppose.
As a matter of fact, I think that normalizing premarital sex is a grave social problem. As far as I know, no society has ever embraced the following three norms simultaneously and survived: (1) sex outside of marriage is morally acceptable, (2) homosexuality is morally acceptable, (3) male and female sex roles ought to be respected equally. For example, the Romans accepted (1) and (2) but not (3). I advocate for (2) and (3) but not (1). I think the basic reason (1), (2), and (3) are not compatible is that young men would become addicted to having sex with each other and, not necessarily lose interest in women, but not be very motivated to navigate the challenges of obtaining and sustaining opposite-sex relationships. Sound familiar?
Our own society is moving toward accepting (1), (2) and (3) together, but this is a recent development, and at the same time our society is dying before our eyes, so I do not count the current, unstable situation as a data point because it is a dramatic departure from our recent history as a culture. To give you an idea how fast these norms are changing, leading Democrats (e.g. both Clintons, Biden, Obama) opposed gay marriage until around 2012 -- and in the early 1960's, 86% of married women said when polled that it was not OK for a woman to have sex with her fiancé before marriage [Charles Murray (2012): Coming Apart, p. 154].
I doubt that a society can survive that accepts (1), (2), and (3) -- though if one has ever existed it would prove me wrong (maybe someone knows an example?). So that experiment hasn't been run with success to my knowledge. On the other hand, the experiment of socially accepting child sex has been run many times (in modern Afghanistan, ancient Rome, the Sambia tribe, et. al.) and those societies continued to exist for generations. I'm definitely not advocating that, but I am saying the empirical evidence for the maladaptivity of (1), (2), and (3) is stronger.
In light of that, what argument would you make against prohibiting (1), (2), and (3) in media depictions, that does not contradict your original argument on CSAM?
NelsonRushton
3mo ago
Interesting post. The conclusion of the argument is that the state has a legitimate duty to forcibly ban media that corrupt morals, when the harm is sufficiently clear and severe, and/or supported by existing legal precedent. This might also apply to other kinds of media that are now legal and common, and plausibly to all porn. At a minimum, it suggests that written material or drawings that depict things that would be illegal to film with real actors should also be illegal to write or draw. The key questions are not the abstract principles (which I think are obvious), but the criteria for drawing the lines, the burdens of proof in play, and the question of which agencies are empowered to make the decisions.
Thoughts?
Great post. It's refreshing to read something with some thumos [Greek: spirit] on The Motte. I agree with the critical mass of this, but I am going to focus on the things I don't agree with:
- I believe that the job of passing down culture falls equally on men and women, but they play different roles by passing down different elements of culture. It is the responsibility of men to live out and pass down the virtues that ensure life goes on. It is the responsibility of women is to live out and pass down the virtues that make life worth living.
- You wrote, " When people sneer that a corrupt police force is just a gang in blue, they are more correct than they understand." I believe they are profoundly mistaken. No two things are exactly the same, but the degree of difference between different things, and whether or not that difference is categorical or not, depends on one sees the world. The difference between cops and robbers is the difference between fighting to indulge one's carnal desires, and fighting in the line of duty -- and a healthy society regards that difference as night and day.
I think both are important (and actually complements).
Agreed. Even Abraham argued with the revealed word of God, interpreting it in the light of reason [Genesis 18]. But when God's command was clear, nothing mattered more [Genesis 22].
Amen. No damn way a 7.62x51 rifle round (what the Israeli's use, comparable to a .308 Winchester) fails to exit a human skull.
More options
Context Copy link