This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
IIRC (from steve hsu?), GWASes have found, in the modern environment, little antagonistic pleiotropy between traits.
Can you give a specific example of how intelligence might trade off negatively? Reading about hunter gatherers has given me a general sense that intelligence was generally valuable there too. Untrustworthy people of similar equal IQ trick or harm each other all the time - intelligence changes the dynamics a bit, but I don't see it making that significant of a difference, compared to the potential benefit.
It's more energy expensive to run that mostly unnecessary 4070. The ability to focus on concrete issues is another obvious problem. Dumb+dilligent has advantages over the common mix of smart+absent-minded. When dealing with necessary, repetitive, simple tasks, I've often observed that "dumber" people seem to have a better capacity to just shut up and flowstate.
I think this is a modern thing (relative to hunter-gatherers at least) - it's much easier to not 'shut up and flowstate' when it's possible to survive without doing boring repetitive tasks for many hours a day, and when there are more interesting options (books, computer, etc).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There must be some pleiotropy, because most species sit in local optima for most of the time.
You know, there isn't that a 4-million dataset is open for everyone for study. For privacy reasons, large GWAS studies are only combing linear correlations together. We know incest is bad yet those GWAS studies fail to show it. This is very crude model and you shouldn't take it too seriously.
examples
Pursuing search for eternal life instead of reproducing oneself.
Low SMV (for men), ceteris paribus.
Being a cuck.
Writing long, elaborate, texts into defence for being a cuck.
In a broad sense 'antagonistic pleiotropy' is everywhere, stuff like having a human-sized brain means you are intelligent but consume more energy, better wound healing -> cells that replicate more -> cancer, etc.
That's different from antagonistic pleiotropy among existing, common genetic variants in the current human population, which (according to steve, by my memory) is uncommon.
Among animals in general, this meta-analysis found that inbreeding is very common and often not avoided at all.
I don't think Hsu is that concerned antagonistic pleiotropy. I think he'd prefer increasing IQ via PGS even if it's say decreased athleticism and many other traits.
Isn't it that to getect genetic effect, we need sample size of N, but to detect pleiotropy, we need N^2?
I don't understand your point here, avoiding it has costs also. Doesn't mean it's bad for individual.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You think you're smarter than the people around you, which is true. This leads you to believe that you're smart enough to get away with grifting one of them, which is also true. This leads you to think you're smart enough to get away with making a habit of it, which turns out to be false because of complex social dynamics that you aren't smart enough to navigate flawlessly. You get a bad reputation, the tribe cuts you out and you die alone, or maybe you get your head smashed in with a rock.
Pride, arrogance, hubris, these are vices that elevated intelligence encourages. See also the monotonous failure of technocracy from the Enlightenment to the present day. Just because you're the smartest person in the room doesn't mean you're smart enough to pull off whatever crazy plan your ego talked you into.
I don't think this works, but it is hard to speculate on this stuff.
Reasons to believe otherwise include the phenomena of cults and cult leaders. They tend to be more intelligent than their followers, and they benefit massively from stringing the followers along in a massive grift. In general, the outsized benefits of such a successful grift, e.g. the 'access to women' one sees in said cult leaders (compare to polygamy where the chief has many wives), probably outweighs it failing often.
Someone might also notice the grifting repeatedly fail, and then stop doing it - this might permanently slightly reduce his reputation in the tribe, without him being kicked out or smashed with a rock.
this substack on the "The evolutionary anthropology of deception, magic, and violence.", often gets into how deception or one persongroup taking advantage of another were common in premodern societies - also making the above seem less plausible.
Plus, anecdotally from normal-IQ friends, people-of-normal-intelligence successfully scam or trick each other all the time. If it's sometimes a successful strategy for people of similar IQ, it should often be successful for those of higher Iq as well.
But as I said, hard to make accurate statements about the way intelligence evolves.
I'm not exactly sure what 'technocracy' means here, but the current state of society seems like a 'success' for technocracy in the natural-selection sense of 'reproducing'.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link