justmotteingaround
No bio...
User ID: 2002
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Does anyone know if there are models that take into account sentiment analysis (ie ingest lots of data from TV viewership, FB,YT, comment sections, clean it, weight it, etc)? This is how I'd solve the game for betting purposes.
Just by eyeballing it, Trump seems to have a massive advantage. Trump-positive yt vids are more viewed and have a better like/dislike ratio than any vaguely Dem positive video. The top comments are often mostly pro Trump. A large percentage of MSM TV coverage is pro Trump, FB used to lean more pro Trump, Twitter is operated by a Trump fanatic. Polling leans old, this leans younger. The comment section of NYT, WaPo are obviously anti Trump, but these are comparatively microscopic players. What does themotte think, and what might I not be seeing?
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Trump has been a brand for decades that has been plastered on buildings, steaks, planes, bottled water, casinos, vokda, perfume, sneakers, and more.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Given that the election is a dead heat, the House is split and by thin margins, and a conservative leaning SC, perhaps there isn't any non-conformity so much as an extremely common difference of opinion. I'd wager that R's win elections because approximately half of voters are R's.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
hahah no I think Zorbas dedication is unimpeachable. This fleshes out what I gathered from perusing the megathread about the move. A Seattle sub mod chimed in about getting new admin attention over milquetoast issues like homelessness and trans stuff. I suppose the chilling effect was bad enough, though I do think they should have forced the admins to kick us off with an escape plan in place. On one hand, I have a very open to any mere speech, but I can well understand why a private company wouldn't want themotte on reddit even if I think its the pinnacle of moderated free speech. The move did what I expected, but it was perhaps inevitable.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Specifically, did we ever see these threats? I hit bedrock here
On reddit Zorba:
Alright, so the admins are paying attention to us now. Not going into details, they aren't relevant and I don't want to draw their attention more; ask me again once this is done and I'll vent.
Poster:
Ok, it's a year later. Spill. I'm really curious about the fucked-up internal politics of Reddit.
Zorba
I am confused why this is coming up so often, you're the second in the last two days and I'd totally forgotten about it for months before that.
But anyway, out of a possible overabundance of caution, I'll PM it to you.
AFAICT, the threats were never discussed openly. I could be wrong. I only ask because this new threat rang some bells. Lots of arguably paranoid cloak and dagger stuff in the Meta: the motte is dead thread. I'm still grateful for all the hard work that goes into this place. Its the kind of place I can ask: does this place exist here because of a persecutorial complex; or was the move, like, justified...
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Thanks! That fleshes out my memory, but I'm still lost as to what the mods knew regarding the need to move. Was it "safteyism"? Did they say 'we wont elaborate further at this time' or am I hallucinating that?
I'm interested in that because at the time I thought the move could be plausible, but was leaning paranoic. However, there is a lot I didn't know as a casual reader. I'm trying to put context around OPs claim that JD Vance allusion to a Scott Alexander article threatens the motte. Is this a pattern of persecutorial complexion, or am I off my rocker.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Why did they put us there? I suggest you ask them.
This is a genuine curiosity of mine. Iirc, the reddit mods were explicitly not going to explain their actions beyond vague gestures to the Eye of Sauron somewhere around the time Scott (happily) landed in the financial security provided by substack.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
please engage with the substance instead of doing so with mockery.
Fair. As I've said here a few times, I loath safteyism. I find the hypothetical threat scenario so implausible that mentioning it screams of a persecution complex. I should have engaged more substantively.
I was against the move from reddit. I actually never saw a full explanation of why that was necessary. I recall a discussion of "((( )))" use trigging and auto-admin response). Iirc zorba said a full explanation would be forthcoming, but I missed it. I could be misremembering and no explanation was offered, but I remain open to one. That said, I thought having a backup motte was a good idea.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Threats to our community aside
Are we going to move to an onion site now that the VP candidate made a 5 second vague reference to a writer whose comment section inspired this forum?
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Grading Trump on a curve as, say, Ben Shapiro says he does, does not exclude dubious media hysterics over Trump. I think the shrinking institutional media leans hysterical while claiming objectivity, while new media tends to grade him on a curve, and simply says thats what they do.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Random ideas:
Eliezer Yudkowsky wrote about "curing" his wifes SAD with a massive overabundance of indoor lighting. I forget the details. Likely a low probability of success, but no side effects beyond money spent.
Slowly get in elite cardio shape. Worth a shot. Mostly positive side effects even if it doesn't work.
Regular social responsibilities are correlated to positive mood. Lash yourself to the mast! Join an IRL social group or volunteer somewhere you'll be needed.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Oral or topical minoxidil has low side effect profile. Finasteride works but might mess with hormones/ has low probability of high impact side effects. Electric micro needing is weird and gross, but works esp. in conjunction minoxidil.
Biotin and msm are low probability, but might thicken hair/ make your hair look better.
Get in shape to look more like prime Bruce Willis or other balding sex symbols.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
I think the way you use the word "science" conflates the method and the process with scientific institutions.
To be clear, I mean the institutions, because of the method. The institutions are more error prone than the method, but I'm arguing the institutions, on average, approximate reality better than legislators.
It's not like the avenue of legalizing it is completely sealed off
I never said it was. My argument is that it takes inordinately longer.
medical procedures (surrogacy, euthanasia)... how does banning this particular field of medicine set some dangerous new precedent?
It is necessarily a precedent because thats how case law (but not science) works. Again, Skrmetti would more permanently and more broadly allow legislators, not doctors, to determine if any procedure is safe, beneficial, etc.
I mean, that's a staple argument of all sorts of human-nature-denying idealists since forever.
This is a non sequitur. Its still a false dichotomy because you can have a regulatory state, informed by or deferential to some degree of scientific consensus, and imo this is the lesser of two evils. One need not deny human nature to argue this. The argument anti-ideological. It inveighs against scienceism - which is anti-science exactly to the degree it exists.
The question here is why did it need to be comissioned politically
The answer is irrelevant to the arguments I'm making because they commissioned science to be done, which is exactly what I'm arguing for. Science should not be conducted in the court room. I concede that science is imperfect. I'm arguing that its superior to the precedent set by Skrmetti because case law and consensus have different mechanisms.
I don't understand why you're so torn over this.
I think its because there is an inherent tension between rationality/technocracy/utilitarianism/ whatever the fuck I'm arguing for, and freedom of thought, which I also argue for. I'd argue that the limiting principles on peoples beliefs are less bound by reality than expert belief. Exceptions prove the rule because you'd make money betting they're less frequent. Experts could recommend putting lead in the water, but my argument is that their epistemic processes will get the lead out of the water faster, on average, than public opinion/legislators which enshrine a leaded water program. However, expert consensus should not trump the will of the people. The reductio that people should be able to vote to put lead in the water, or reintroduce chattel slavery, or trans all the kids, strikes me as a potential problem.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
How is this not already the case?
It functions as balancing act of political and scientific consensus, and I'm much more of a political doomer than a science doomer. MDMA is exactly the kind of situation I want to avoid. They held hearings on the scheduling in the 1980's, and sought scientific input. Neurotoxicity studies where central. They've since been critiqued. Recent interest has dubbed it a "breakthrough" therapy for PTSD. Like weed, MDMA remains a schedule 1 making it extremely difficult to even study. Like weed, it'll likely stay a schedule 1 drug for decades and decades and decades and decades after therapeutic uses has been discovered. GHB has a similar history, but a therapeutic formulation was granted strict control under schedule 3. So while its possible to penetrate regulatory caprice, it usually takes longer. Case law is slower. Numerous examples. Stem cells being particularly egregious imo.
abolishing the regulatory state
Strikes me as a false dichotomy. Science has varying degrees of confidence. In this case, WPATH etc are peddling what I believe to be bullshit science with bullshit confidence.
The Cass Review...
Commissioned, but real science was done. Sounds good to me. NHS is a governmental body anyhow. I do think it will lead to a reversal in the anglosphere. Srmketti will be permeant.
Good! This is the part that I wanted you to explain how there's anything bad about!
Easily the most challenging critique for me to contend with, but perhaps I'm just limited. On what principle should I argue against people voting for representatives that promise to put lead in the water? On one hand, I do think people have that right. On the other hand, I'm just sitting here with my dick in my hand wondering how I can escape this principle.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
what precedent is it setting?
As I stated, legislators can eschew medical/expert consensus for anything they please. Imagine the scientific consensus states that natal males in womens contact sports poses an injury risk. Well, Srkmetti would provide precedent that elected representatives can ignore that consensus. Is mifepristone safe? Thats now up for legislators to decide on their own. Does MDMA provide a therapeutic benefit to veterans with PTSD? Etc.
you should be arguing for the total abolishing of the regulatory state.
No, I want both internal and external experts to study things without their findings being handwaved away by politicians with an ideological agenda. Or course in this scenario, I don't trust the APA, AMA, and WPATH view on gender medicine. But experts will be mugged by reality far faster than case law. The cass report led to a reversal in the UK; science slowed down gender medicine in the Nordic countries. It takes far too long to get bunk science out of the legal system because the legal system is unscientific; relies on case law (eg bite mark analysis). In general, trust experts more than politicians because experts are responsible for the modern world.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Unless I'm missing something Skrimetti is just about banning / age limits on gender medicine. I don't see how it's qualitatively different from banning heroin or other recreational drugs.
I think I've been pretty clear that entire reason I'm against Skrmetti prevailing has noting - whatsoever - to do with banning flawed gender medicine. The precedent it sets can be argued in favor of the next Bad Thing(tm). Just sue the current bad thing for torts.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
In 2017 Oren Cass published an a great article on the problem of "policy based evidence making" in my favorite magazine, National Affairs. Part of the thesis was a call against government expansion, which won't be the case if Skrmetti prevails. Unlike policy, science gets mugged by reality in comparatively short time spans. I'm confident that "gender science" won't hold for a hundredth as long as the precedence Skrmetti will establish. Moreover, it would broaden the scope of legislative intrusion. Imagine a scientific consensus emerges that natal males playing female contact sports poses statistically significant injury risk. An ideological legislature could dismiss that, and instead pursue their own policy, ethical, or ideological goals. The same principles are in play.
Science remains the best way to find out what is true, all else being equal. No passenger would be tempted to troubleshoot a high-flying faulty airliner by the legislative process; to defer to a representative for the best way to perform life saving surgery.
https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/policy-based-evidence-making
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Thats why having principles sucks. It will be an improvement in this one case. But the expansion of legislative caprice can be broadly interpreted for a long time. There are equally useful alternative toys of power to exact justice. Torts maintain a comparatively narrower scope, and stay within the realm of liability.
I've read the Skrmetti case and the amicus brief, and I really hope the petitioners fail.
That said, I'd bet money that the amicus brief (an inherently one sided argument) is broadly accurate in its claims, and is far closer to ground truth that the current US medical consensus. IMO the APA, AMA, and WPATH are completely out to lunch with regard to gender care, peddling harmful anti-science bullshit. I think trans insanity is waning slowly but surely, but the remedies proposed in Skrmetti set a precedent I don't like on principle. And principles are occasionally bitter pills to swallow, otherwise they're not principles.
If Skrmetti prevails (and I think it will), the effect will be a long standing precedent in case law that legislatures can eschew a medical consensus. Science will be decided in the courtroom; then the legislature. Granted, I think the US scientific consensus is wrong in this case, but I'm hewing to my principles, which sucks big fat amputated cock in this case. I want doctors, not legislators, to determine medical care. I don't want legislators deciding if mifepristone is safe, if my doctor/psychiatrist can prescribe me therapeutic ketamine, testosterone, MDMA, a lethal dose of whatever if I'm terminal, etc.
I loath safteyism, and won't clutch my pears and "think of the children" because other avenues of justice are available, namely torts. Suing doctors for negligence will change medical standards without opening a wider door permanent legislative intrusion. Torts have worked before. Anyone remember when fake tits were (erroneously, in retrospect) deemed unsafe for a period in the 90's? (In re Dow Corning Corp, 1996).
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
As I said, its clearly an extemporaneous conversation. They shoot the shit with their guests. They warn listeners repeated not to get their info from them. They have no pretense about being news or doing research. Its just stand up comics shooting the shit and occasionally googling things, often for as little as 30 seconds. This is what makes them enjoyable. I like the format. I listen to them all the time. The real novelty (and value add imo) is the long format and lack of editing. Its awesome. In some ways I find them more illuminating and informational than short news segments. But they're distinct from comedy news shows which have production budgets and teams given at least a week to craft a narrative and write a (hopefully) comedic script.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Just read about the limitations of a steelman. For example, its possible to steelman creationism or flat earth science. That doesn't make it an illuminating endeavor. Many or most Americans do not (more likely cannot or will not) see anything wrong with Trumps handling of the 2020 election. When asked in a 2019 survey, about 40% of Americans don't see anything wrong with asserting the Earth is less than 10,000 years old either.
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
The evidence on chess and IQ is mixed, with several studies finding no correlation between IQ and Elo within players. However, this meta analysis found huge correlations (~0.25). Still, lots of room for other factors. Many top GM's are adamant that chess players aren't particularly smart. Perhaps they're all being humble but it makes a lot of sense. Chess ability is comparatively narrow compared to IQ testing. Magnus has the best brain for chess, but much of that might not generalize to IQ. (iirc Magnus has given interviews where he tries to dispel the notion that he is a genius, stating that he was never at the top of the class academically).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301593
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
Those were comedy politics shows written and produced by teams of people that covered politics. These are podcasts hosted by stand up comics who just talk to people extemporaneously about whatever. It'd still be a valuable cultural commodity if people could open the NYT, or WaPo, or watch CNN or Fox News, and go "yeah, that's probably true enough".
justmotteingaround
1mo ago
But society does need genuinely trustworthy, credible institutions. Trumps has been going on mostly comedy podcasts. They might be bigger and better than the dying MSM, but they're not a solution for what is needed.
Some further digging and it seems "election prediction by SM (usually twitter) sentiment analysis" is an academic area of research with dozens of papers going back at least to 2010, getting more advanced. However I can't find anyone doing publicly. This is why I wish the election prediction markets were more accessible and liquid. Eventually it'd be profitable to build the most accurate model even if you gained only a few percentage points in accuracy. With enough to be gained you'll get a Jim Simons team of election forecasters.
More options
Context Copy link