curi blog comments http://curi.us/comments/recent Explanations for the curious en-us Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 19 Feb 2019 12:18:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11866 http://curi.us/comments/show/11866 Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> Love is the delightful interval between meeting a beautiful girl and discovering that she looks like a trout.

For women, this pulls strings of *it's important that men love you and the way to get them to love you is to be beautiful so you'd better get busy working on looking beautiful and continuing to look beautiful even after you've caught a man*.]]>
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:33:37 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11865 http://curi.us/comments/show/11865
Anonymous Open Discussion
- aesthetics aren't the only issue with wobbling

- wobbling could be banned in an objective way with a patch

- wobbling affects game balance for players at low and medium skill levels (who comprise the majority of players)

One point I have a comment on:

> [wobbling is] a bug

I thought that Melee physics explained why wobbling works: roughly, the target is repeatedly re-stunned by an attack while he is unable to act due to already being stunned. In doubles, two players can execute a [team wobble](https://www.ssbwiki.com/Team_wobble) which works by the same principles as the Ice Climbers' wobble.]]>
Tue, 19 Feb 2019 09:31:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11864 http://curi.us/comments/show/11864
Anonymous Open Discussion
straw man. it's strategically undesirable too. bad game design (though of course it wasn't game design, it's a bug).

> There is no clear line where you begin to do [it].

that would be solvable by adding an option to remove wobbling to the game patches (UCF) that are already used by most tournaments. it could define a clear line, e.g. all characters automatically break out of any grab after 10 seconds.

> and it would affect a character that isn't even a problem to the metagame in and of themselves.

that's false. ICs are the best character in the game up until around top 100 skill level. (starting at a somewhat decent skill level player that can e.g. wobble and recover when hit off stage. below that who knows or cares). this affects the vast majority of smash players. it affects tons of people's tournament experiences. ICs punish you extremely hard for not having perfect tech skill (the kind of stuff even top 10 players screw up sometimes, though on average they are good enough to beat ICs). if you aren't a professional player, playing vs ICs is unfun and unfair. the reason it's unfair is wobbling doesn't take much skill and it's punishing you in a huge way for not having 10 times the skill the ICs player has. you can outplay them over and over and grab them 10 times for each time they grab you and still lose. you can hit them way more than they hit you and still lose. you might say "well then everyone who isn't top 100 should pick ICs" but most ppl don't want to be ICs players and do wobbling themselves, and would have less fun that way and not play the game.

(btw at the top skill levels, call it top 100, the character that passes ICs and takes first place is puff, which is also a character that gives a ton of value relative to difficulty of using them and which can 1shot kill you to punish your mistakes. and puff is hard to punish in general since you mostly can't edge guard her and she can get out of a ton of combos b/c she gets hit too far away and doesn't fall very fast.)

(btw ppl talk about "there's only one puff that does really well" as if that means puff isn't OP. but most of them don't see to notice there's only one fox main who does really well, leffen. the other top players you see playing fox are mostly doing it as a second or third character, and most often for the purpose of fighting puff because puff counters their main character – falco, marth, sheik or peach – so hard that they think the matchup isn't playable.)]]>
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:25:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11863 http://curi.us/comments/show/11863
ph00tbag smashboards post against banning wobbling Anonymous Open Discussion
https://smashboards.com/threads/so-there-seems-to-be-a-recent-freakout-about-the-ics-because-of-wobbles-performance-at-evo.338636/post-15735871

> Stage bans are much easier to countenance. The primary reason they're so defensible is because they are, first and foremost, discreet. Furthermore, there's an in-game mechanic for making stages unplayable in random select, indicating that preventing play on certain stages because their impact on gameplay is undesirable is an intended part of the game. Turning off items is a similar situation.

> Wobbling ... suffer[s] from the fact that [it isn't] discreet. There is no clear line where you begin to do [it]. Furthermore, there's no in-game mechanic for removing [it]... Banning Wobbling would be simply because you find it to be aesthetically undesirable, and it would affect a character that isn't even a problem to the metagame in and of themselves.

> And yeah, aesthetics is really the only reason to ban Wobbling. That's what you're saying when you spout platitudes on "what Melee is all about." I don't even know what you mean when you say that. I doubt you do, either.]]>
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 22:06:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11862 http://curi.us/comments/show/11862
Wobbles' smashboards post against banning wobbling (2013) Anonymous Open Discussion
> 2) I didn't get second because of Wobbling. I got second because of wobbling *combined with everything else I did right*. If you want to point out the big powerful thing that gave me awesome punishes, you should also point out the times where I had to win on the strength of a single ice-climber. My 3rd game against Mango consisted of 3 stocks that I took *without landing a grab*. There's no dispute I wouldn't have gotten second without the infinite! Does that mean we should look for *every strategy that has ever made a difference in somebody's placing* and force people to replay the matches without them, to see who is TRULY BETTER?
>
> No. Because that's dumb.
>
> 3) You are trying to pigeon-hole Melee into your own definition of "what Melee is truly all about, deep down." You're using fuzzy, emotional arguments that don't bear on actual competitiveness. When you start saying "that's not what the game is really about" your argument becomes about as valid and intellectually fulfilling as "edge-guarding is too cheap," and "stop using glitches and exploits" and "projectiles are for pansies, fight up close like a man."
>
> Do you know what Melee *really is*? Melee is the closed set containing all things programmed into the game. Anything else is your construction. We did not make the gamespace, we just explored it. [...]

> You don't see Fox players stop using u-throw u-air because it's so good, even though we've known about it *SINCE THE PREVIOUS INSTALLMENT OF THE GAME*. Don't you find it abhorrently ridiculous that Fox players would stoop to using such a brutally efficient combo when they have so many more tools, and it would truly demonstrate their skill as a Fox main if they didn't rely on such an old and already explored combo?]]>
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:47:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11861 http://curi.us/comments/show/11861
Armada is against banning wobbling Anonymous Open Discussion
> “If we’re going to ban everything that might hurt the game… that might hurt the game even more in the long run.”]]>
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:43:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11860 http://curi.us/comments/show/11860
Wobbling banned in Melee at GOML 2019 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 18 Feb 2019 19:43:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11859 http://curi.us/comments/show/11859 Anonymous Open Discussion https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/18/apples-management-doesnt-want-nvidia-support-in-macos-and-thats-a-bad-sign-for-the-mac-pro
via Instapaper

> “What we found was support inside the Spaceship for the idea, but a lack of will to allow Nvidia GPUs. We've spoken with several dozen developers inside Apple, obviously not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, who feel that support for Nvidia's higher-end cards would be welcome, but disallowed quietly at higher levels of the company.

> "It's not like we have any real work to do on it, Nvidia has great engineers," said one developer in a sentiment echoed by nearly all of the Apple staff we spoke with. "It's not like Metal 2 can't be moved to Nvidia with great performance. Somebody just doesn't want it there."

> One developer went so far as to call it "quiet hostility" between long-time Apple managers and Nvidia.

> For sure, somebody at Apple in the upper echelons doesn't want Nvidia support going forward right now. But, even off the record, nobody seemed to have any idea who it is. The impression we got is that it was some kind of passed-down knowledge with the origin of the policy lost to the mists of time, or an unwritten rule like so many in baseball.

> Two years ago, pre-eGPU support, this block may have made at least a modicum of sense. Any Macs with PCI-E slots were aging, and the user base was dwindling through attrition alone. But, the drivers are available for High Sierra and are getting updated to this day —and we can testify that they still work great in a 5,1 Mac Pro, including the 1000-series cards.

> The Nvidia driver can be shoe-horned onto High Sierra machines who want a Nvidia card in an eGPU. We're not going to delve into it here, but there is a wealth of information over at eGPU.io, if you're so inclined. And, don't upgrade to Mojave if you do so.

> This decision makes absolutely no sense with eGPUs now being explicitly supported in macOS. They work fine in Windows, so it's not a technical limitation. Some tasks perform better on AMD, and some on Nvidia, it is a fact of silicon. There is no reason beyond marketing and user-funneling to prohibit use of the cards on a software level.

> No, there aren't a ton of eGPU installs. Yes, a good portion of those users are fine with AMD cards. But, it is absolutely overly user-hostile to not allow Nvidia to release the drivers not just for future eGPU use, but for the non-zero percent of those users who are keeping the old Mac Pro alive. And if this is some kind of ancient Apple secret or preserved grudges that are preventing it, that's even worse.

> And, it makes us worry what "modular" means for the forthcoming Mac Pro.”]]>
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:14:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11858 http://curi.us/comments/show/11858
Anonymous Open Discussion https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=66727
via Instapaper

> “What makes individuals choose to undergo the painful, expensive, and virtually irrevocable process of tattooing? Having listened to an unspecified number of tattooed members of the middle classes, the author identifies several motives, all of which struck me as unflatteringly revealing of the soul of modern man.

> First there is the assertion of individuality. One of the author’s informants says,

>> [Being tattooed] separates me from anybody else. No one else has anything like what I have. I feel a little bit different from Joe Shmoe in the street, and I guess it makes me feel special.

> This is infinitely sad. That a person’s individuality should be made to depend upon so crude an outward sign as a tattoo is in fact an indication of the fragility of that person’s identity”]]>
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 08:00:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11857 http://curi.us/comments/show/11857
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm?blog_id=66727

> I was recently consulted in the prison in which I work by an inmate who was the proud father of two children. I asked him whether he still saw them: continued contact with their biological offspring being something of a rarity among the imprisoned paternal community. Instead of answering me directly, he rolled up his sleeves and pointed to two tattoos on his forearm, red hearts with scrolls across them bearing the names of his children—two tattoos among many others, needless to say. He hadn’t seen either of his children for years, and had never contributed anything to their upkeep. Indeed, the idea that he should have done so was so completely alien to him and to the mores of the world in which he moved that the thought had never crossed his mind, even fleetingly. By contrast, he obviously believed that his tattoos were a sign of genuine devotion to his children. Their names were engraved, if not on his heart exactly, at least on hearts painfully engraved on his skin, and one could easily imagine a touching deathbed scene in which he would be reunited at last with his children and would there show them the tattoos as proof that he had never really forgotten or abandoned them. They would probably accept this as having been true, and therefore forgive him his dereliction of duty]]>
Mon, 18 Feb 2019 07:50:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11856 http://curi.us/comments/show/11856
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:13:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11855 http://curi.us/comments/show/11855 curi Open Discussion
If I were president, I would have hired you. Trump didn't. He surrounded himself with people who dislike the MAGA movement, and he naively thought the swamp (both dem and GOP) would be reasonable. And he didn't prioritize the wall on day 1.]]>
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:13:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11854 http://curi.us/comments/show/11854
Anonymous Open Discussion
![](https://curi.us/img/eQgS6iFHAnnXyWY-744x369.png)

I'm more inclined to agree with Cernovich. Anyone agree with Horowitz?]]>
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 16:07:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11853 http://curi.us/comments/show/11853
curi Submit Podcast Questions
I don't know.]]>
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 15:26:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11852 http://curi.us/comments/show/11852
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Sun, 17 Feb 2019 15:25:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11851 http://curi.us/comments/show/11851 Anonymous Open Discussion
>As a former Marxist in his early years, Goebbels once stated "how thin the dividing line" was between communism and National Socialism, which had caused many Red Front Fighters to "switch to the SA".[15] Goebbels expressed that sentiment in a 1925 public speech, declaring that "the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight".[16]]]>
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 14:04:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11850 http://curi.us/comments/show/11850
Anonymous Open Discussion

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4203101&forum_id=2#37793755

> Date: February 16th, 2019 7:09 PM
> Author: Upset Jew

> Was visiting friend in Brooklyn and traffic was bad so I opted to take the "subway".
> Firstly, there are homeless encamped all through my local station. Secondly, I get down to the train platform. It is mobbed because the trains are delayed.

> Finally, a train pulls into the 8th Avenue L station, and I mean creaks in at like 0.3 mph. The outside of the train looks dirty and some of it appears to be splashed with some brown, slime like substance.

> I enter the train and it quickly gets packed to beyond standing room only. The train remains this way until I reach my stop, Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn. I exit the train and the station literally smells like diesel fuel. It clicks in my head I read an article about this the other day. The city states that the smell "poses no threat to human life." I laugh to myself, because it smells like a fucking coal mine.

> I walk with a throng of humans to exit the station. The exit is being repaired because the passageway is crumbling and everyone is forced into two narrow exit lines because the passageway is split in half due to construction. I choose one, and it ends up leading me round a corridor to a huge puddle right before the stairs to exit the station, because the ceiling is leaking water from...somewhere.

> What a magical experience.]]>
Sun, 17 Feb 2019 10:05:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11849 http://curi.us/comments/show/11849
Anonymous Open Discussion
> No one could classify all possible kinds of errors and fallacies that human beings engage in and there would be no point in any such exhaustive classification. So, some errors have no particular name, either in English or in latin. If someone says to you, all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore, Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo, there is no particular fallacy that you can accuse him of the best thing in such a case is just to say, he's crazy.

He's so incompetent! It's a non sequitur. (BTW non sequitur is on Peikoff's list of fallacies presented in the course, along with plenty of less well known ones.)]]>
Fri, 15 Feb 2019 13:33:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11848 http://curi.us/comments/show/11848
Anonymous Open Discussion
Immigration Landmines in the Funding Bill
Mark Krikorian

The text of the funding bill was released last night/this morning, and lawmakers are expected to vote on the 1,169-page measure as early as this evening. The bill is disappointing in many respects, but if it had been as advertised earlier, it might have been tolerable.

But my fears that senators Durbin and Leahy would trick the Republican conferees (none of whom knows the first thing about immigration policy) were realized. Standing out among the many distasteful provisions are two poison pills that I hope the Republican committee members either didn’t know about or didn’t understand.

The first regards the fence. I’m not fence-first guy, but physical barriers really are needed on some parts of the border, and the president has been flexible on this in the face of implacable Democratic opposition. Thus the news that the Dems agreed to $1.375 billion for the construction of “primary pedestrian fencing” (i.e., high barriers, not the low ones intended simply to stop vehicles, in places where there’s none now) seemed like a win.

It’s not. That’s because the bill allows the fencing to be built only in the Rio Grande Valley Sector in South Texas. It’s surely needed there, but real barriers are also needed elsewhere, such as the parts of the Arizona or New Mexico borders where there’s only vehicle fencing.

But the Democrats had a reason for this limitation. The bill states:

Prior to use of any funds made available by this Act for the construction of physical barriers within the city limits of any city or census designated place…Department of Homeland Security and the local elected officials of such a city or census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mutual agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within that city or the census designated place.

In other words, local governments would have an effective veto over whether barriers would be constructed. And which party controls all local government in South Texas? Go ahead, look it up, I’ll wait. Rio Grande City is the least Democratic community in the area, and even there voters supported Hillary Clinton in 2016 by more than three to one.

Add to that the bill’s prohibition on border barriers in a range of public parks and spaces — such as the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, the Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, La Lomita Historical Park, or the National Butterfly Center — and the 55 miles of new fencing supposedly provided for in the bill might never get built at all.

The second poison pill is even worse. Section 224 states:

None of the funds provided by this act…may be used by the Secretary of Homeland Security to place in detention, remove, refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings, or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or member of a household of a sponsor or potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child.

In other words, this would mean that ICE cannot detain or remove anyone who has effectively any relationship with an “unaccompanied” minor — either because they’re sponsors, in the same household as sponsors, or even just “potential sponsors” (or in the household of potential sponsors!) of such a child.

There’s already a huge incentive to bring a child with you if you’re planning to infiltrate the border, because kids can’t be held more than 20 days, according to the Flores agreement, and we don’t separate parents from kids, so if you sneak across with a kid in tow, you’re released into the U.S.

The new provision would create an incentive for illegal aliens already here to order up kids from Central America as human shields against deportation. After all, 80 percent of the sponsors of unaccompanied children are in the country illegally in the first place — usually parents or other relatives paying criminal gangs to bring the kids to the U.S., knowing that the likelihood that they’ll be repatriated is virtually nil.

One of the members of the conference committee supposedly writing the funding bill, Tom Graves (R-Ga.), refused to sign the report because he wasn’t permitted even to see the text until shortly after midnight this morning, and was given an hour to read the whole thing and decide.

This is no way to run a government. The president should make clear his earlier willingness to sign the package was based on the summaries that had circulated, not this specific language. The responsible thing to do now would be to pass a continuing resolution (extend spending at current levels) for a week or so, to avoid another partial government shutdown but give lawmakers time to actually go over the thing carefully and pull out the poison pills.]]>
Thu, 14 Feb 2019 17:02:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11847 http://curi.us/comments/show/11847
Anonymous Open Discussion
It continues to look grim.]]>
Thu, 14 Feb 2019 15:40:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11846 http://curi.us/comments/show/11846
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
“Famous” pulls the string of *lots of other people like this place so I'll gain a bit of social status for going there*.

“Famous” also pulls the string of *it's famous so the food must taste good*.]]>
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:04:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11845 http://curi.us/comments/show/11845
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> Champagne or wine: Go to a liquor store. Grab some alcohol. Pay. Leave store.
>
> Flowers: Go to Trader Joe's OR a local florist. Buy flowers. Go home.

This pulls strings of *You have to love your girlfriend/wife. You have to show her you love her by buying certain kinds of things for her on Valentine's Day. If you don't do it you're being lazy or you're being bad at relationships, both of which are bad things.*]]>
Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:56:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11844 http://curi.us/comments/show/11844
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:31:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11843 http://curi.us/comments/show/11843 Anonymous Open Discussion

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4200269&forum_id=2#37770711

Date: February 12th, 2019 2:44 PM
Author: Muscadine wine

Here's the way this works. It will come out "no collusion," MSM will begrudgingly talk about it for a day or so, then nobody says shit about it.
College students still carry signs saying Trump sucks Putin's dick. Every now and then NYT points out that Trump was proved to be compromised by a foreign power, no one says anything about it.

Nobody cares. In a week or so, there will be some other outage that they're talking about.]]>
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:32:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11842 http://curi.us/comments/show/11842
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:05:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11841 http://curi.us/comments/show/11841 Anonymous Open Discussion
that is what you should say along with the link. that's a huge amount of context compared to none. it could say your opinion more clearly (i can figure out you'd save the child but better to say that directly).]]>
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:01:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11840 http://curi.us/comments/show/11840
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:58:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11839 http://curi.us/comments/show/11839 Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
Title:
> Amy Klobuchar Trolls Hillary: ‘There Wasn’t a Lot of Campaigning in Wisconsin in 2016’

The article that this one gets its information from is:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/politics/amy-klobuchar-hillary-clinton/index.html

Title:

> Amy Klobuchar's not-so-subtle troll of Hillary Clinton

The word *trolls* in the titles pulls two strings.

1) This news source is not elitist. It uses words that you the reader would use in your everyday life.

2) Women in power try to hurt each other, even when they're supposedly on the same side.]]>
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:27:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11838 http://curi.us/comments/show/11838
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings >
> Pulling a string would be like a particular tweet that brings up race to manipulate its audience.

Ahh yes. Thank you.]]>
Tue, 12 Feb 2019 08:39:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11837 http://curi.us/comments/show/11837
Anonymous Open Discussion
this is what i had written as commentary before posting the quotes from survey:

There’s some ambiguity in the question (do the respondents think they’re violating the parent’s property rights or parental rights or some other rights?) but the focus seems to be on property rights. Property rights are about ensuring that I get to dispose of the fruits of my labor according to my own judgment. This is necessary for me to have any liberty or indeed to have a life at all. If the fruits of my labor are disposed of according to someone else’s judgment, I have no control over my life, and might even starve at their whim.

Property rights don’t extend to using your property to murder people. For example, I can’t assert my property right in a gun and bullets as a defense if I shoot an innocent person. The gun and bullets were purchased with the fruit of my labor and can be used in certain situations (self defense, shooting targets at a range) and not others.

But a significant number of libertarians took a conception of rights unmoored from the purposes of those rights and unmoored from reality, and used that conception of rights to say that they’d be violating the parents’ rights if they stopped parents from cruelly starving a baby to death. By the way, I think it’s interesting that there were a decent number of people who thought helping the child would violate the parents’ rights but did it anyways. It’s good that they didn’t let their rationalism permit them to condone murder, but OTOH, lacking resolution to those sorts of moral quandaries is part of what causes people to give up on serious intellectual thinking. So it’s a very serious issue.]]>
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:30:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11836 http://curi.us/comments/show/11836
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Terrible survey design. I would not cross the lawn and help the child. Because, duh, *I'm not a cop*. I'd call the fucking cops to do that. I absolutely shouldn't take law enforcement into my own hands. The people writing this have no fucking concept of law and order, and putting the use of force under objective controls. The moment they see a child in a window who will die in a e.g. 2 weeks, they think its time for vigilante action?

Gp.

> (Normally I might call child protective services or something like that instead of the cops, but, given the threat to treat people as trespassers, I think some cops better come.)

> Also what kind of idiot thinks it violates the parents' rights and would do it anyway?

Lots of people think rights contradict. I can see someone thinking they're violating the parents' property rights but that the parents don't have a right to kill their kid, and so helping the kid is overall doing the right thing cuz life > property, something like that.

> Also you omitted any statement of what you think, presumably to evade the possibility of criticism (ineffectively since I just criticized the method itself).

i was looking for examples of libertarians engaging in rationalism and specifically applying the NAP in silly ways. i thought the survey results indicated some people doing that.

your comment regarding survey design is helpful cuz it points out a meta level disengagement from reality. the very framing of the choices of the survey was unrealistic.]]>
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:16:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11835 http://curi.us/comments/show/11835
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
Pulling a string would be like a particular tweet that brings up race to manipulate its audience.]]>
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:57:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11834 http://curi.us/comments/show/11834
Anonymous Open Discussion
Terrible survey design. I would not cross the lawn and help the child. Because, duh, *I'm not a cop*. I'd call the fucking cops to do that. I absolutely shouldn't take law enforcement into my own hands. The people writing this have no fucking concept of law and order, and putting the use of force under objective controls. The moment they see a child in a window who will die in a e.g. 2 weeks, they think its time for vigilante action?

(Normally I might call child protective services or something like that instead of the cops, but, given the threat to treat people as trespassers, I think some cops better come.)

Also what kind of idiot thinks it violates the parents' rights and would do it anyway?

Also you omitted any statement of what you think, presumably to evade the possibility of criticism (ineffectively since I just criticized the method itself).

> extensive survey

> 2% (one respondent)

Wait, around 50 people is extensive? Ugh.]]>
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:54:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11833 http://curi.us/comments/show/11833
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:42:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11832 http://curi.us/comments/show/11832 Libertarian Survey Results Anonymous Open Discussion
>But one always-fascinating source is Liberty’s decennial readers’ survey (No, not that Liberty, and not that one either. This one). First in 1988, then again in 1999, and finally in 2008 (before the magazine’s demise as a print periodical in 2010), Liberty published the results of an extensive survey of their readers and other libertarians. In each of these surveys, respondents were asked to provide demographic information, name their intellectual influences, say whether they agreed or disagreed with various moral, political, and religious beliefs, and analyze a handful of applied moral problems.

> For instance, in 1988, the survey asked a pair of questions about a scenario labeled, “How much is that baby in the window?”
>> Suppose that a parent of a new-born baby places it in front of a picture window and sells tickets to anyone wishing to observe the child starve to death. He makes it clear that the child is free to leave at any time, but that anyone crossing his lawn will be viewed as trespassing.
> The questions asked were, 1) Would you cross the lawn and help the child? And 2) Would helping the child violate the parents’ rights?
> In 1988, 89% of respondents said they would cross the lawn. 26% said that doing so would violate the parents’ rights. In 1999 those numbers were 87% and 31%, respectively. And in 2008 they were 90.9% and 24.1%.

>> Suppose that you are on a friend’s balcony on the 50th floor of a condominium complex. You trip, stumble and fall over the edge. You catch a flagpole on the next floor down. The owner opens his window and demands you stop trespassing.
> In 1988, 84% of respondents said they believed that in such circumstances they should enter the owner’s residence against the owner’s wishes. 2% (one respondent) said that they should let go and fall to their death, and 15% said they should hang on and wait for somebody to throw them a rope. In 1999, the numbers were 86%, 1%, and 13%. In 2008, they were 89.2%, 0.9%, and 9.9%.]]>
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:41:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11831 http://curi.us/comments/show/11831
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:12:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11830 http://curi.us/comments/show/11830 Anonymous Open Discussion
Why is Ted Cruz praising lies and lip service? He's made himself a dupe of such obvious, superficial faking.]]>
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:31:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11829 http://curi.us/comments/show/11829
Anonymous Open Discussion
Labor involves performing work -- doing something in the world. Having an emotional experience isn't performing work]]>
Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:47:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11828 http://curi.us/comments/show/11828
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
So they say something that's not true. I think they do this cuz demonstrating a certain level of shock and disbelief is part of the public performance of mourning]]>
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 18:38:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11827 http://curi.us/comments/show/11827
Anonymous Open Discussion
>In February 1942, as Japanese forces tightened their grip on the Philippines, MacArthur was ordered by President Roosevelt to relocate to Australia.[148] On the night of 12 March 1942, MacArthur and a select group that included his wife Jean, son Arthur, and Arthur's Cantonese amah, Ah Cheu, fled Corregidor. MacArthur and his party reached Del Monte Airfield on Mindanao, where B-17s picked them up, and flew them to Australia.[149][150] His famous speech, in which he said, "I came through and I shall return", was first made on Terowie railway station in South Australia, on 20 March.[151] Washington asked MacArthur to amend his promise to "We shall return". He ignored the request.[152]]]>
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 17:26:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11826 http://curi.us/comments/show/11826
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 10 Feb 2019 16:48:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11825 http://curi.us/comments/show/11825 Anonymous Open Discussion
seagull is a smart person. at least he was. he talks like an idiot now. i watched him a little in the past and it was different. he changed to be more social as a streamer. (I remember Trump, the hearthstone streamer, actually trying to learn to be more socially normal while streaming, and getting tips from his viewers, and trying to please them and stuff. He was really nerdy in terms of his manner, and he's asian, so ppl thought he was smart and good at the game and overestimated his skill.)

seagull was playing smarter than his teammates but still pretty dumb. the game is slow paced, lots of waiting and not doing much, just like prior games in the genre. and it's a big FFA, aimed at being casual. it encourages ppl to play dumb.

seagull and his teammates kept complaining about luck, like whenever they died early game they blamed other ppl getting better weapons/armor drops. late game deaths were generally blamed on it being an FFA and there being multiple enemies from different directions. but they didn't try to recognize when they were outgunned and retreat to find more guns, they would just fight, die, and whine.

the stream provided tons of social interaction examples. they were chatting more than playing (i mean they were playing the whole time, but not actual combat, most of it was ez/slow/boring, just walking around and picking up gear and waiting for the play area to shrink.)

one interaction in particular went something like this. these are not exact words, just the ballpark:

guy: where do you live, seagull?

seagull: with my girlfriend.

some brief back and forth chat where the guy got more details. i think he asked if seagull had a house. seagull is moving soon but it's still just an apartment.

then referring to the first part of the conversation:

guy: it felt like you said "i live with my girlfriend, idiot"

["it felt like you said" wasn't said directly but i forget how he put it. "idiot" at the end of the sentence, after a comma, is an exact quote]

seagull: i'm sorry, i was just unsure what was going on, the question caught me off guard, so i just tried to answer it. i wasn't trying to be a jerk, you're awesome.

guy: i was trying to be a good friend and learn more about my buddy and get to know him more.

---

all this over a question and then a direct answer. why? what's the subtext?

it's like "i was super brave to ask you a question. i put myself on the line. what if it was a bad question? what if i looked dumb? i took a risk so we could get to know each other and you didn't support me. you just answered the question like it was a short, simple, easy question and you didn't reassure and encourage me. so now i don't really want to ask you a question ever again. i felt like an idiot that my question had a simple answer that i didn't know, and that you didn't give me a good excuse for not having already known the answer and needing to ask. asking questions shows weakness – that i didn't know the answer already – and you didn't do your part in making it ok, in softening that and praising me for the question and making things really friendly."

and seagull was apologetic about this, didn't disagree. and then the guy kept at it even after seagull already acknowledged the justice of the cause *and* did some reassuring and friendly fluff. the guy kept pushing and aggressively explained how he had been doing something friendly which is praiseworthy.

they're so immoral, anti-intellectual, and focussed on conformity to social norms.

btw a social rule i've observed is "never defend yourself". these ppl flame each other all the time and aggression is fine but contradicting ppl is not ok, and being hurt is not ok, so you can almost never defend yourself. all of the flames are half-serious and ambiguous – maybe it's a joke, maybe it's sarcastic, etc. that also prevents defending – if you get all serious mode about a joke ppl will just say you can't take a joke, will abandon that particular flame as something they didn't actually mean, and will think you're revealing that you can be hurt, and how, and that you wouldn't defend yourself unless you were actually hurt (and even then probably not, better to make a show of fake strength, so defending implies either being really bad at social interaction or being really hurt).]]>
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:46:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11824 http://curi.us/comments/show/11824
Anonymous Open Discussion
it reminds me of improv. i don't know much about improv but i know you're generally not supposed to contradict the other ppl doing the scene. whatever they make up, you go along with it and find a way to work with it, continue it, help it along. that's how people do conversations. that's standard social dynamics. it's fucking everywhere.]]>
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 15:27:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11823 http://curi.us/comments/show/11823
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:56:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11822 http://curi.us/comments/show/11822 Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
I noticed some things that the host, Michael Barbaro, does to pull the audience's strings of *this guy is thoughtfully listening to the neutral facts and drawing conclusions in a reasoned way so therefore he's someone I should trust and agree with*.

Sometimes after the guest, Mujib Mashal, says something, Barbaro says “hmm”, as if he just got some new information and is now mulling it over. I heard that kind of “hmm” at around 8:13, 14:15, and 20:39.

At 14:20 we hear Barbaro pausing a bit in the middle of his questions, as if he's just thinking of them now in response to what he is hearing.

Barbaro sometimes asks a question to get Mashal to restate what he just said so the audience hears it again (18:48, 20:15). At the end of the question at 20:15, Barbaro adds “That's intriguing”, as if he just became aware of the idea.

At 23:52 Barbaro starts a question with “I wonder”, again as if he just thought of the idea he's about to ask about.]]>
Sun, 10 Feb 2019 14:16:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11821 http://curi.us/comments/show/11821
Anonymous Open Discussion
>> Supporters say people could use the extra cash to cover unexpected emergencies, increase their savings and improve their *health*.

> Emphasis added. Chicago wants to give people $1000/month for free at taxpayer expense. I think it's notable that *health* was used as a justification for this. Another example of the medicalization of everyday life and of moral issues.

good call.

i think it's interesting that they want to give money to increase people's savings. they're really rejecting the old frame of means-testing to try to help only the "truly needy" or whatever. it's just a pure cash grab from the victim-taxpayers now. maybe some of the taxpayers would like to have more savings too? fuck them, i guess! :\]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 16:28:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11820 http://curi.us/comments/show/11820
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Supporters say people could use the extra cash to cover unexpected emergencies, increase their savings and improve their *health*.

Emphasis added. Chicago wants to give people $1000/month for free at taxpayer expense. I think it's notable that *health* was used as a justification for this. Another example of the medicalization of everyday life and of moral issues.]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:49:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11819 http://curi.us/comments/show/11819
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> One example:
> https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-18-Piece-Dinnerware-Set-Service/dp/B019EEUQ2O/ref=pd_bxgy_79_img_2

interestingly, Amazon was recently banned from selling their Basics products (and other products) in India https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Amazon-pulls-products-from-India-website-to-comply-with-new-rules]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 14:06:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11818 http://curi.us/comments/show/11818
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Fri, 08 Feb 2019 13:39:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11817 http://curi.us/comments/show/11817 Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
One example:
https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-18-Piece-Dinnerware-Set-Service/dp/B019EEUQ2O/ref=pd_bxgy_79_img_2]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 13:32:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11816 http://curi.us/comments/show/11816
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> (b) Sexual assault, interpersonal violence, and bullying are pervasive and serious public health concerns, placing impacted youth at increased risk for unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, low academic performance, truancy, dropout, self-harm, and other harmful behaviors. [1]

Calling things “public health concerns” pulls strings of concern and unity. Most people want the public to be healthy. This phrasing is used to help make the bill seem good and non-controversial even though the bill authors know that a substantial portion of people will not think the bill is good and non-controversial.

Using negative words like “truancy” and “dropout” and putting them in a list of “harmful behaviors” conveys that it's a bad thing for children not to go to school. It reinforces the idea that *society should force children to go to school because it's harmful to them to not go to school*.


[1] This is near the end of page 2. I couldn't get searching to work on this document either with or without the line numbers so I couldn't decide whether to leave the line numbers in or take them out. I took them out for readability.]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 13:30:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11815 http://curi.us/comments/show/11815
Anonymous Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
The blog post covers differences. You don't understand and ask about differences without specifics (like you aren't following up on a particular part of the blog post). The free, generic, impersonal version didn't work for you. That's actually the kind of case where paying for extra help makes sense. You aren't able to ask good, interesting questions that will get you extra help for free, and you don't understand, so you could buy some personal help.]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 12:27:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11814 http://curi.us/comments/show/11814
curi Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
I agree with the main theme that it's bad for opinions/judgments to be presented as facts.

It didn't have much info about what weaknesses the audience has and how those get manipulated. The focus was on what the "fact check" writers were doing, not on explaining the culture that enables that to work. That's OK but incomplete.]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 12:20:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11813 http://curi.us/comments/show/11813
PAS Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
I thought this was a good example of someone outside the FI community doing an analysis of puppet-string pulling. In this case, it's an analysis of NPR's "fact check" of Trump's 2019 State of the Union speech.

I thought it was better than most of what I've seen outside of FI because:
- It used specific quotes, repeatedly.
- It explained how and why each quote was designed to tell you what to think rather than just check facts.
- It was critical of methodology, even where the author claims to agree with most of the conclusions (he doesn't like Trump).]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 10:47:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11812 http://curi.us/comments/show/11812
Why Amazon banning powerpoint in favor of memos Alisa Open Discussion
> “The reason writing a good 4 page memo is harder than 'writing' a 20 page powerpoint is because the narrative structure of a good memo forces better thought and better understanding of what's more important than what, and how things are related,” he writes, “Powerpoint-style presentations somehow give permission to gloss over ideas, flatten out any sense of relative importance, and ignore the interconnectedness of ideas.”

> Each memo is designed to be a full logical argument, complete with a reflexive defense of potential objections:
>
> - The point or the objective being discussed
>
> - How teams have attempted to handle this issue in the past
>
> - How the presenter's attempt differs
>
> - Why Amazon should care (i.e., what's in it for the company?)]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 09:51:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11811 http://curi.us/comments/show/11811
Anonymous Open Discussion
Great cross examination of a leftie lying about Venezuela sanctions]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 07:51:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11810 http://curi.us/comments/show/11810
Anonymous Open Discussion
![](https://i1.wp.com/stonetoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/unhealthy-breakfast-comic.png)]]>
Fri, 08 Feb 2019 03:29:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11809 http://curi.us/comments/show/11809
GISTE Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
I think I’m a great test case.

I’ve been stuck for years and I hired Elliot (for email) and Ingracke (for calls and emails) and it’s been immensely helpful to the point that I’m no longer stuck and I’m making progress!

One of the main things I was stuck on was about how to make progress on improving my intellectual skills given my current intellectual skills and interests.

In the past I had tried many suggestions that were mentioned on FI email list that were meant for people in general and also suggestions that were meant for particular FI people but they didn’t work for me - either because my intellectual skill wasn’t good enough (overreaching) or because I found the suggested activities boring.

I recently explained how I’m stuck in an FI email and Elliot replied explaining some details clarifying my stuck problem (which is a super common problem). His email helped me better understand my stuck problem. I was able to apply those ideas to my discussions with ingracke. Then Ingracke (over the phone) gave me some suggestions for activities I could do that could result in progress and that I found interesting (based on her knowledge of my intellectual skills and my answers to her questions about what I find interesting). So I tried her suggestions (which consisted of writing emails to FI summarizing articles I was reading) and I had some success. And I also failed on some of these summaries but then I got some replies from anon that explained what I was doing wrong and what to do instead and it was very helpful, allowing me to continue to make progress on the failures (instead of just failing and not knowing what to do after that).

I also got a lot of awesome help in improving how I deal with my kids. It has been immensely helpful — as judged by me and my kids.

I very much like how Elliot and ingracke work. They keep me honest about issues that I have so far failed to be honest about. They are shining light on issues that I have not been shinning light on.

I highly recommend hiring Elliot and ingracke for anyone that wants to improve their life and that have been stuck for a while. You need tailored help and they are capable of providing it!]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 12:05:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11808 http://curi.us/comments/show/11808
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Why do you call that overrating if that first taste really does taste better?

Did you try to figure out why? Did you get stuck on some part of that project?

Are you looking to be handed the answer without much thought? What for? You won't learn much that way.]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 11:05:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11807 http://curi.us/comments/show/11807
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings Thu, 07 Feb 2019 05:41:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11806 http://curi.us/comments/show/11806 Anonymous Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
If the fundamental problem is people are bad at learning and therefore bad at learning to learn, why is it a big difference to get paid help?]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 05:34:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11805 http://curi.us/comments/show/11805
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> Together in Friendship
>
> Friendship is all about the moments we share together. This Friends Day, take a look back on the memories you've made with the friends in your life.

It makes business sense for Facebook to encourage people to have more Facebook friends.

But Facebook got the idea of friends being important from our culture. It's supposed to make us happy to have lots of friends and to do things with them. Facebook is adding a part to this about it also being good to post pictures of doing things with friends and to tag your friends in those pictures so your friends and your friends' friends will all think you have a satisfying life because they see pictures of you doing things with people.]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 05:32:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11804 http://curi.us/comments/show/11804
Anonymous Open Discussion
its interesting to see how the culture has changed and how it hasn't. Wikipedia entry on the old TV show The Honeymooners:

>Alice (née Alice Gibson), played in the first nine skits, starting in 1951, and ending in January 1952[9] by Pert Kelton, and by Audrey Meadows for all remaining episodes, is Ralph's patient but sharp-tongued wife of roughly 12 years. She often finds herself bearing the brunt of Ralph's insults, which she returns with biting sarcasm. She is levelheaded, in contrast to Ralph's pattern of inventing various schemes to enhance his wealth or his pride. In each case, she sees the current one's un-workability, but he becomes angry and ignores her advice (and by the end of the episode, her misgivings almost always are proven to have been well-founded). She has grown accustomed to his empty threats—such as "One of these days, POW!!! Right in the kisser!", "BANG, ZOOM!" or "You're going to the moon!"—to which she usually replies, "Ahhh, shaddap!" Alice studied to be a secretary before her marriage and works briefly in that capacity when Ralph is laid off. Wilma Flintstone is based on Alice Kramden.[8]

violent threats by a man to a woman -- regardless of being in the context of a loudmouth who never actually does anything violent -- would never fly now (as comedy, at least!). But marital fighting itself still totally okay.]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 05:02:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11803 http://curi.us/comments/show/11803
Anonymous 2 Open Discussion
Why do you call that overrating if that first taste really does taste better?]]>
Thu, 07 Feb 2019 03:57:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11802 http://curi.us/comments/show/11802
Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 06 Feb 2019 18:52:57 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11801 http://curi.us/comments/show/11801 Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 06 Feb 2019 17:09:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11800 http://curi.us/comments/show/11800 Anonymous Open Discussion
>Even this would have likely survived, except that the revolutionaries also insisted that each month have three weeks of ten days each. There were two problems with that. Firstly, it destroyed the seven-day week that included a religious Sabbath day. Secondly, workers still only got one day off per week. These were both intentional, and the calendar was part of a plan to destroy religion and make workers more productive. The ten-day week fell out of favor immediately, and the whole calendar was abolished in 1805.

The Metric System Is Anti-Human Central Planning
http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/06/metric-system-anti-human-central-planning/
via Instapaper]]>
Wed, 06 Feb 2019 16:28:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11799 http://curi.us/comments/show/11799
Anonymous Open Discussion
![](https://curi.us/img/Rh710UOXjpzeu4j-704x217.png)]]>
Wed, 06 Feb 2019 13:42:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11798 http://curi.us/comments/show/11798
Anonymous How Badly Run Are Cryptocurrency Exchanges?
Yeah that is weird]]>
Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:43:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11797 http://curi.us/comments/show/11797
Anonymous How Badly Run Are Cryptocurrency Exchanges? Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:40:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11796 http://curi.us/comments/show/11796 oh my god it's turpentine How Badly Run Are Cryptocurrency Exchanges? Wed, 06 Feb 2019 10:34:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11795 http://curi.us/comments/show/11795 Anonymous How Badly Run Are Cryptocurrency Exchanges? Wed, 06 Feb 2019 04:59:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11794 http://curi.us/comments/show/11794 curi Open Discussion
https://www.jbpdaily.com

There is no info about the forum. What software does it use? What does it look like? How does moderation work? Absolutely zero info is available for prospective customers. There's no FAQ. It's very bad marketing material.

The only info about the forum is that unspecified guests will come do AMAs at unspecified times. AMAs are not discussion – you don't actually get to have a discussion with the guest.

The marketing page tells you the price of some of the things which are thrown in for free, but does *not* tell you the price of signing up for the forum. That is hidden and only visible within the actual signup process. The price is $10/month or $100/yr.

I presume JP will participate little or none on the discussion forum.

Is there a plan to make it a good forum? Any way to shape the culture or any smart design choices or whatever? No info is given. Presumably not.

So: looks really quite shitty and like a half-assed money grab. I do not plan to try it.]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 18:52:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11793 http://curi.us/comments/show/11793
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
![](https://i.imgur.com/lXSWGjR.jpg)]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 15:04:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11792 http://curi.us/comments/show/11792
oh my god it's turpentine Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
Black and white photos are thought of as arty.]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:34:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11791 http://curi.us/comments/show/11791
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
Black and white photo. Plaid scarf. I think those hint at intelligence in our culture's eyes. I think people can imagine a professor or a person from Boston wearing that scarf. (Warning/disclaimer: I'm pretty bad at this kinda cultural trivia.)]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:32:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11790 http://curi.us/comments/show/11790
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> tbh the thot that ppl would interpret it as personal had not occurred to me

it's so fake. ik. lol sigh.

a recent, real example of how these are fake: when non-PR ppl try to give info for them, PR people tell them some stuff is unusable. Overwatch player Surefour was asked what he likes to do besides Overwatch. He said look at girls on Instagram. Blizzard PR said they can't use that. (He either tweeted this story or said it on his twitch stream, then i saw it on reddit. He has his own ways to communicate.)

Related story: Blizzard made all the Overwatch league players get rid of Pepe emotes from their social media.]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 13:30:22 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11789 http://curi.us/comments/show/11789
Anne B Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
Saying she loves chocolate cookies shows that she's not too much of a goody-two-shoes.

The picture is giving information too. It shows she's young and female and white and not super overweight. I think she's trying to look intelligent but I don't know why I think that.]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 05:41:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11788 http://curi.us/comments/show/11788
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> One goal is to get people to think this article is written by a friendly, regular person, not a soulless corporate lawyer.

I can see that but it seems so obvious to me that such bios are heavily tweaked things written for the public that it seems absurd to me that people would think personal info is being shared. so I didn't think of it]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 03:39:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11787 http://curi.us/comments/show/11787
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
One goal is to get people to think this article is written by a friendly, regular person, not a soulless corporate lawyer.]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 02:44:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11786 http://curi.us/comments/show/11786
Anonymous Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
> [image]

> That's an example of puppet string pulling. That is there to manipulate people.

> Examples are everywhere. Post a few dozen if you care to understand this and be manipulated less. Also try analyzing what's going on in this example.

One thing I have noticed before with these self-descriptions in general (especially on Twitter though can occur in other places as in above example) is a juxtaposition of serious and less serious things. I think the idea is to say something like "I don't take myself too seriously" by saying that some serious field is as important to you as some particular food or whatever. I think you see that above. Literature at least has a reputation as a serious field (and I think used to be more serious but now is a wasteland like all humanities) and it is being treated on hte same level of importance as chocolate cookies and coffee -- or maybe less cuz its actually mentioned last!

"Blog-curating writing maniac" is some bragging about how much she loves her job. I think the same goes for "Finds peace", though there there may also be some winking at new-agey culture stuff.]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 02:37:53 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11785 http://curi.us/comments/show/11785
curi Analyzing How Culture Manipulates You by Pulling Your Puppet Strings
![](https://curi.us/img/wepwjmJUkJVsbWl-769x213.png)

That's an example of puppet string pulling. That is there to manipulate people.

Examples are everywhere. Post a few dozen if you care to understand this and be manipulated less. Also try analyzing what's going on in this example.]]>
Tue, 05 Feb 2019 01:01:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11784 http://curi.us/comments/show/11784
curi Hardness, Emotions, Mental Automation Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:54:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11783 http://curi.us/comments/show/11783 curi Method Of Doing Things Soon Mon, 04 Feb 2019 19:03:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11782 http://curi.us/comments/show/11782 typo Anonymous Hardness, Emotions, Mental Automation
yeti stomps]]>
Mon, 04 Feb 2019 12:59:45 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11781 http://curi.us/comments/show/11781
curi Hardness, Emotions, Mental Automation
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/374961367

In this video I practice and gold medal 3 bosses, in addition to playing a bit of other stuff.

The first one is a yeti. I'd practiced him some before. I came back to him after doing other bosses more and getting better at playing in a consistent reliable way. And also I figured out a solution to the hardest part. The move where he jumps in the air and then stomps a bunch can hit like 5 times and then he can attack again right after. So you have to keep blocking during the move. The timing window there to stop blocking and start blocking the next move is short and I was not reliably getting the timing right. Note that my block (the sphere around me called mana amber) lasts 3 seconds maximum, I can't just keep blocking indefinitely, I have to stop and restart my block sometimes. So I started actually counting out how long the stomping lasts so I'd know when to restart my blocking. That worked well. Additionally I figured out that I can safely let go of block a little bit before the stomping animation ends. You have to keep blocking through like 90% of the move but not the whole thing. i think that's because the move is divided up into like 6 different hits. like you can be hit 6 times max. and once you block the 6th one you're safe. cuz the way the game usually works is if the boss has an attack that lasts 1 second, once you block it you're safe for the entire attack, and you don't have to worry about blocking again until there is a separate hitbox. there are pretty long attack moves where you just block it at the start and then you can attack during it cuz you're immune to the rest cuz it's all the same move and you already blocked that move. and with the yeti stops, they are small moves but i think they work that way so that one i block the last small stop i'm immune to the small amount of it still to come (the alternative is the last bit of the animation just can't hit you. i could test by standing back and walking into it right at the end and seeing if i get hit or not, but i don't really need to know that.)]]>
Mon, 04 Feb 2019 12:41:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11780 http://curi.us/comments/show/11780
curi Hardness, Emotions, Mental Automation
> I think the meaning of hard/easy used in the statement is the second one, i.e. hard/easy for me (now).
> Whether or not something is also considered inherently hard doesn’t matter. The key is whether it’s
> currently hard *for you* — whether your manager is going to have to do it.
>
> It’s still unclear to me whether “only do things which are easy" is suggesting that people not try to fix
> irrational thinking methods or figure out how to use FI if they consider those things to be hard.

there is a learning/doing distinction. first you learn how to do something, say dentistry, then you do it (fill cavities, etc). so one of the meanings is you should learn enough that dentistry is easy before it's your job. don't learn enough you can do it, learn enough that it is now easy. dentists should have *mastery* so they can do it with a low error rate (and VERY LOW rate of major errors) even when tired, distracted, unfocused, etc.

and also the learning process shouldn't really be hard. say you're trying to beat a level in a video game. if your goal is "beat the level" then that's hard. but that's about doing, not learning. if your goal is "try strategy X and see if it works or not", that could be a step towards learning to beat the level which is also easy. if strategy X is too hard, then you could have easy immediate goals like "try action X1" and "try action X2" and so on – try out individual parts of it before trying to do the whole thing.

in Vindictus there are lots of boss fights you can do by yourself and get a gold medal for being hit 3 times or fewer. success is hard in some sense. but the learning process doesn't have to involve hard steps. first you can just stand there and let the boss hit you and watch what he does. that's easy! after you watch a bit, you can start to figure out what his attacks are. lots of the bosses only have like 5 different attacks. if remembering is hard you can write them down. you can even record video clips of each attack. that's more work but it isn't *hard*. so this step of seeing what the attacks are can be pretty easy, especially if you aren't rushing yourself. like if you are trying to remember every attack after you've seen it once, that's hard. but if you take your time and are OK with remembering an attack after seeing it 10 times, then it's not very hard.

the next step is blocking/dodging attacks (each character in the game has a few defensive options, mostly dodges and blocks). you can figure this out without doing anything hard, too. for each boss attack, try your first defensive move at various different timings. you can get a good idea of the right timing by letting the boss hit you and seeing what you take damage. your defensive move should generally be used around .5 seconds before the time you took damage, though it varies by move. if this isn't working well, try your character's second and third defensive moves and see if they work better for dealing with this attack.

many boss attacks have multiple parts. like they swing their sword 3 times in a row, and it's a set pattern of those 3 swings. so you can figure out a series of 2-3 defensive moves to defend against all 3 sword swings. (sometimes attacks come close together and you can stop multiple attacks with one defense.)

for each attack, there is some kind of clue that it's coming. the main clues are animations like a boss moves his sword or shoulders back before swinging forward. you see them getting ready to attack in some way. so you also need to learn some kinda thing that you will react to – the signal that it's time to do that defensive pattern for that move.

this can all be done pretty intuitively but it can also be done by conscious design and you write a list of every attack, every signal its coming, and what defensive moves you plan to use for that attack.

which part of that is hard? no part. if you do it in this methodical way, every part is easy. it's not like you need super fast reactions times. the game isn't hard in that way. if you calmly watch for the signal that a specific attack is coming, and you aren't worrying about anything else, then you can block/dodge it with a bit of practice, it's not that hard (and if a different attack happens first you just let it hit you and wait until the boss does the one you're trying to stop).

the individual parts of the game aren't that hard. but the complexity adds up when you're watching for 10 different possible attacks (on the harder, more complicated bosses) while also doing your attacks and also there are other allies on your team who the boss might target (if the boss does a move aimed at you, or aimed at a guy off to your right, then the patterns of blocks and dodges that protect you, and the timing to do them, can be different. where the boss is aiming changes where his sword ends up at different times.) and also you can be remembering to drink health potions every 4 seconds and use your cat statue every 70 seconds and tracking how much SP you have (points for doing special moves) and then managing which special moves to use, when, and so on. and then your ally dies and you want to go resurrect him but that requires standing still for 3 seconds so you have to find a safe time to do that between boss attacks. etc.

but basically all of that can be learned as a sequence of easy steps, too.

once you learn to defend attacks you practice until it becomes more of an automatic habit. you get it to the point its easy to do all the attacks for a boss, it's second nature, its intuitive, your error rate is low. then you try attacking in between the bosses attacks. you'll already have a sense of how much downtime there is after which attacks since you've seen them a bunch. so you can estimate how big of an attack you can fit in after each boss attack, and you try it out and see what works. that's assuming you can already do your attacks easily. if you can't, no problem, you just practice attacking without worrying about defense (initially just do this in an empty area with no enemies). and then practice on easy enemies where getting hit isn't a big deal, so even if your error rate for defense is high, cuz you're focused on attacking, it doesn't matter much.

before you actually use your attacking or defending as a skill – before you try to DO it for real instead of doing it in a learning/practicing context – you need to get it to be easy, you master it so an automatic mental workstation can do it. so by the time you're trying to kill the boss, you have all the skills needed to do it, and it isn't scary or hard like it would be if you just went up to him the first time and tried to win.

and after you practice, you still don't expect to win. if your goal was to go straight from practice to success then that'd be hard. instead, you practice and then you try fighting the boss for real as a test to see how well you do. you're checking how effective your practice was, what your error rate currently is. that's easy cuz the goal isn't "make no errors", the goal is "see how many errors i make". so you do the blocking and attacking in easy, automated ways, which is important cuz now your conscious attention is mostly used for just watching to see how often you screw up. that's not a hard thing to do! you just autopilot attacking and defending while consciously watching how well it works. that's it. ez. then you can see if you need more practice, and if so for which parts. and you can also identify problems like a particular strategy for blocking a particular move is unreliable, so maybe you need more practice or maybe you need to change the strategy – do a different defensive option or do the first block after an earlier visual cue. there are other errors you'll see happen, like a boss can have two different attacks that look similar at first, so you mix them up and sometimes you do the defense for attack 1 when the boss is doing attack 2, so it doesn't work. so while you're autopiloting and seeing how it goes, you can watch for issues like that with your conscious attention, and then you can figure out a solution, like you can look at the attacks more closely until you find a difference which is pretty easy for you to recognize once you know what to look for, and then you can start looking for that and, with a little practice, autopilot doing that. or you can also find a defensive option that works for the first part of both attacks, so it's ok if you don't know which is which until you're doing the second defensive move.

people find the game hard cuz they are trying to e.g. do lots of attacking right now instead of just focusing their attention on defense. or they never practice alone, they just fight in groups where other people are always moving the boss around and creating chaos, and everyone is rushing to keep up with everyone else on doing damage. and if you are just *less ambitious* in the short term, you can make tons of stuff way easier. i was having trouble with some bosses in the last two days and what i started doing is only using my simplest attack which takes the shortest time. that immediately solved the problem of doing an attack that is too long and then i'm not ready to defend against the boss's next attack. and it meant attacking took even less attention and i could focus on defense more. the downside is that the simplest, fastest attack does the lowest damage. but so what? a bit of patience made it way easier and actually saved time overall (cuz it takes longer to kill the boss, but fewer retries, so actually that saves time). that works great on bosses where my goal is to get the gold medal one time – if it's 5 minutes slower but saves some retries that's fine. i don't need efficient offense for a boss where i just want one good kill. there are other bosses that you fight more often so you want to learn to do your offense more efficiently, but it's not needed in all cases. (also part of the issue is some of the old bosses i was fighting, which i only needed one good kill on, actually have different designs than some of the modern bosses that people fight more. some of them actually have overly short windows for you to attack during if you are playing alone. it's fine if you play with an ally cuz then half the time the boss attacks the ally and you can just go stand behind the boss and have time to attack. but for certain heroes, soloing some of the old bosses involves shorter attack windows than you're used to with the modern bosses, so partly you just need to be willing to use your small attacks and be content with that. and if you had to fight that boss every day it'd be annoying, but you don't, and the newer bosses you fight more often have some larger downtime parts built in, on purpose, to let you do your big attacks sometimes.)

the point of this example is if you approach things step by step, every step can be easy. cuz you have a specific goal in the current step which is *not* big picture success, and you just do that.]]>
Mon, 04 Feb 2019 11:52:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11779 http://curi.us/comments/show/11779
Another :) DW H 12 Rules for Life Typos in Rule 1
I’ve reached out to Penguin Random House here in Canada but haven’t heard anything back.

DW]]>
Sun, 03 Feb 2019 20:29:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11777 http://curi.us/comments/show/11777
Anonymous Open Discussion
Ask them about it directly.]]>
Sun, 03 Feb 2019 18:36:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11776 http://curi.us/comments/show/11776
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 03 Feb 2019 18:34:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11775 http://curi.us/comments/show/11775 Anonymous Open Discussion
Unusually stupid comment from patio11 (the fact people aren't dying does not indicate that regulation is the cause. there are other plausible causes like the companies wanting to stay in business and also not wanting to be murderers. lots of dead passengers would put them out of business and would be morally unacceptable to most business leaders just like it is to most people in all positions in our society. there are incentives there other than regulation. surely most people and most companies care more other aspects of dead bodies besides regulatory headaches.)]]>
Sun, 03 Feb 2019 18:25:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11774 http://curi.us/comments/show/11774
DeRoj Judging Experts by the Objective State of the Debate
Thank you, Curi. Much appreciated.]]>
Sun, 03 Feb 2019 04:21:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11772 http://curi.us/comments/show/11772
Anonymous Open Discussion Sat, 02 Feb 2019 18:56:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11771 http://curi.us/comments/show/11771 Anonymous Open Discussion https://freebeacon.com/national-security/why-democratic-socialists-support-totalitarian-regimes/
via Instapaper


> “The last straw for me was personal. I had written four reports on Nicaragua from 1983 to 1987 for the New Republic and other papers and reported on how within a few years of my first visit the country had taken a darker turn. After a trip to interview some of the thousands of refugees who had fled the country in Costa Rica and Honduras, I reported on the types of abuses of power taken against those citizens who differed with the revolutionary agenda. Later in 1987, I traveled through Central America, including Nicaragua, with the late New York City mayor Ed Koch , who had put together a small delegation of representative New Yorkers to assess the situation in the different countries.

> All of this activity made me a target of the democratic socialists. Howe was so upset about my trips and my writing about events in Nicaragua that he convened a small meeting of top editors from Dissent as well as some DSA leaders, who one by one condemned me for what I had written. The educator Deborah Meier was the angriest. "You may be right about what you say about the Sandinistas," she told me, "but while they are under attack by the American empire, we have a responsibility to extend our solidarity to them." The whole meeting appeared to me as a copy of the "criticism and self-criticism" sessions of the Chinese Communists during the Cultural Revolution. As Howe concluded the meeting, he told me, "We have agreed that you cannot write on Nicaragua in the pages of Dissent." My dissent, obviously, was too much for Dissent to bear!”]]>
Sat, 02 Feb 2019 11:39:38 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11770 http://curi.us/comments/show/11770
curi Judging Experts by the Objective State of the Debate
![](https://curi.us/img/UEOr2hwA6qHlTV3-1142x82.png)]]>
Sat, 02 Feb 2019 10:39:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11769 http://curi.us/comments/show/11769
Dawkins DeRoj Judging Experts by the Objective State of the Debate Sat, 02 Feb 2019 05:38:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11768 http://curi.us/comments/show/11768 curi Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
It's very hard to know that you're very interested in something before you've done much of it. It's hard to know what it's like to do without trying it.

And bad at what part of reason? Or bad in what way? If someone is bad at explaining why psychiatry is nasty or induction is false – if they lack certain particular skills like that – that's ok.

What if they are bad at learning, handling criticism without getting angry, choosing to spend time reading books, thinking of questions or ideas, or being willing to participate in discussion? Those are all indications that they are more interested in other things than they are interested in reason (reason is not their priority, due to relative lack of interest).]]>
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 15:25:15 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11767 http://curi.us/comments/show/11767
student Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
I'm guessing you have always been pretty good at reason. Do you think DD would have wanted so much interaction with you if you were interested in reason but bad at it? Would you want someone as a best friend who was interested in reason but bad at it?]]>
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 14:27:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11766 http://curi.us/comments/show/11766
Anonymous Open Discussion
> Virginia Democrat Kathy Tran Submitted Bill to Save Cankerworms on Same Day She Submitted Late-Term Abortion Bill

a 40 week old fetus can be killed, but cankerworms should be protected!?]]>
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 12:43:24 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11765 http://curi.us/comments/show/11765
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 01 Feb 2019 10:45:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11764 http://curi.us/comments/show/11764 curi Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help Fri, 01 Feb 2019 10:38:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11763 http://curi.us/comments/show/11763 curi Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
> How can I tell if I'm lying to myself about my interest in reason? I think I am interested in reason.

No easy way. Learn and use critical thinking skills. Learn about [lying](https://rationalessays.com/lying). Share situation for others to criticize. Think about (or share) what you have and haven't done to act on this interest in reason. Like how long have you been interested in reason, when/why did you get interested, and how vigorously have you pursued in since then? Good signs including doing lots of discussion and reading, and having lots of questions and ideas about what you discuss and read. For discussion, some good signs are if the majority is public, online, in text, and on reason-oriented forums (twitter and facebook are particularly bad). It's also a good sign to have identified some people and forums as being irrational and to have written down why you made that judgment. For reading, there are lots of fake intellectuals, so spotting some is a good sign, and writing your judgment down a better one (a good format is e.g. a blog post with book quotes). Having opinions/judgments about better and worse authors, and looking at a variety, is a positive sign.]]>
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 10:36:40 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11762 http://curi.us/comments/show/11762
student Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
How can I tell if I'm lying to myself about my interest in reason? I think I am interested in reason.]]>
Fri, 01 Feb 2019 06:36:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11761 http://curi.us/comments/show/11761
curi Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
Wanting this kind of help is the biggest bottleneck. It's hard to help people who don't want my help. And most people don't want help because they don't want reason.

For someone who is making lots of progress, amplifying it is relatively easy and reliable, thought the degree of amplification varies. But the much more common case is the person who may make near zero progress, and trying to change that into lots of progress, which is more of a binary success/failure outcome. The polarized outcomes add greater unpredictability. There is a jump, similar to a jump to universality, where people jump from low progress to high progress, and medium progress isn't really a thing. To a significant extent, you're stuck or you're not stuck.

If someone is unsure and has plenty of money, they should try it. Huge potential upside, not much downside.

The harder cases are people with borderline ability to pay *and* borderline interest. Then there's more potential for regretting buying consulting.

Most people in the world can't afford my personalized help. Of those who can, most of them are near the cutoff, and relatively few are way above the cutoff. Cuz of how wealth is distributed kinda like a pyramid. And most people are alienated from reason and don't really value their lives or minds much. Most of the exceptions are mixed cases, not John Galts. So unfortunately most potential customers are in the hard category: borderline interest and borderline ability to pay.

People lie to themselves about their interest in reason much more than about how much money they have. That's the one to be more wary of.

If someone doesn't rapidly become my best friend, that is a sign of there being some problem or limit with their interest in reason. I got thousands of hours of interaction with DD, for free, because interacting with rationality is so desirable and hard to come by.

I could help more people more if they would let me. They mostly won't. Unwillingness to hire my help is a relatively minor issue in what's going on there.

This wasn't really an answer, just some related thoughts.]]>
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:12:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11760 http://curi.us/comments/show/11760
student Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
I know this a difficult question to answer: How much easier is intellectual progress if someone pays you for consulting? That is, if someone paid you lots of money over time for consulting, would they in the long run end up only a little better at reason than they would without the private consulting? Or would they end up a lot better? How can we estimate this well?]]>
Thu, 31 Jan 2019 10:48:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11759 http://curi.us/comments/show/11759
Anonymous Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
A general indication is how involved they are in philosophy discussion, and how productive that is.

If not on a path, why not? Do they want to be? Are they interested? Did they consider some options for paths? What's going on?]]>
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:28:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11758 http://curi.us/comments/show/11758
student Differences Between My Free Resources and Paid Help
How could someone tell if they are on a path to get good at reason and intellectual progress?

How could someone get on such a path if they aren't on one now?]]>
Wed, 30 Jan 2019 14:26:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11757 http://curi.us/comments/show/11757
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:32:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11756 http://curi.us/comments/show/11756 curi Structural Epistemology Introduction Part 1 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:17:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11755 http://curi.us/comments/show/11755 Anonymous Open Discussion
Ben Shapiro is a socialism-sympathizing idiot.]]>
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 20:37:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11754 http://curi.us/comments/show/11754
Anonymous Open Discussion
consciousness = a manager who can go around to one work station at a time and tell them to change stuff or watch what they’re doing]]>
Tue, 29 Jan 2019 19:14:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11753 http://curi.us/comments/show/11753
Anonymous Open Discussion
> High School Students Disqualified From Debate After Quoting Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson

> A pair of Utah high school seniors lost a debate round because they read quotes from Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief Ben Shapiro and clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson, who were deemed “white supremacists” by the judge.

> Layton High School senior Michael Moreno and his debate partner, whom The Daily Wire will not name, were participating in a round with a topic relating to immigration. The specific topic of the round was “Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially reduce restrictions on legal immigration.” Moreno and his partner were arguing in the negative, meaning they were arguing against the other team’s plan to reduce restrictions on legal immigration.

> Instead of arguing in the affirmative, Moreno told The Daily Wire, the other team read a “slam poem” about how terms like “legal” and “illegal” are dehumanizing. In documents provided to The Daily Wire, these students quoted from numerous professors critical of assimilation and the notion that immigrants must act American to live “the good life.”

> “Promises of citizenship and the ‘good life’ force non-normative subjects into a slow death, working towards the unbelievable goal of the American dream," the students said.

> Moreno and his partner responded by arguing the other team did not actually articulate a position. The structure of this debate allowed for the affirmative to propose a plan and then have the negative argue against that plan. Since the other team did not propose solutions to reduce restrictions on legal immigration, Moreno said, his team had nothing to argue against and claimed this was unfair.

> “We argue that this is bad for debate as it's unfair to us, that we came here as the negative to argue against substantially reducing restrictions on legal immigration, not their slam poem,” Moreno said.

> The other team, during the cross-examination section of the debate, said Moreno and his partner could not talk about fairness because they were “white males.” Moreno said he then speed-read through quotes from Shapiro and Peterson pertaining to identity politics. He specifically cited comments Shapiro made at the University of Connecticut on January 24, 2018, where he said: ‘Evil things are still evil even if I’m a white well-off religious man and good things are still good even if I’m a white well-off religious man …. My identity has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.”

> Moreno also quoted Peterson saying, “It goes along with this idea of class guilt; Because your group membership is the most important thing, if your group at some point in the past did something reprehensible – which of course every group has done – then you’re de facto responsible for that.”

> At this point, Moreno began recording the debate, and posted the video to YouTube with the faces of the other debaters blurred. The judge ended the round after Moreno’s quotes from Shapiro and Peterson, as the other team continued to affirm that they had no standing as “white males.”

> The judge, who before the round told each team not to be racist, claimed Moreno and his partner’s “evidence” and “saying things like ‘your identity doesn’t matter'” were actually racist. The judge then joined the opposing team in claiming it was Moreno and his partner who turned the debate into a discussion of “identity politics” and claimed Shapiro and Peterson are “racists.”

> After another 10 minutes of this kind of back and forth, the judge said Moreno and his partner lost the round.

> Moreno then spoke to the tournament directors, who both work for Arizona State University (The Daily Wire will not name them as they did not respond to a request for comment). These two affirmed that the team has a “legitimate gripe” over their treatment, but that Moreno and his partner were there to debate for that particular judge, and their arguments failed to persuade him, whether he was impartial or not.

> “I think you are totally right that [the judge] overstepped a little bit by stopping the debate and deciding, but I also think it’s incredibly obvious that – regardless of how many ways you try to couch this argument in front of that judge – the bar for the other team to respond to it was going to be so low that the argumentative content that you chose, the strategy that you chose, for that judge and for his stated philosophy, was a poor choice on your part,” one of the directors tells Moreno in the video.

> Neither of the directors responded to a Daily Wire inquiry about what is going on in the debate community that allows one side to just yell “racism” and end the debate.]]>
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 17:12:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11752 http://curi.us/comments/show/11752
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 28 Jan 2019 14:34:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11751 http://curi.us/comments/show/11751 oh my god it's turpentine Submit Podcast Questions Mon, 28 Jan 2019 11:38:07 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11750 http://curi.us/comments/show/11750 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:44:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11749 http://curi.us/comments/show/11749 curi Submit Podcast Questions
I just read a little of the book and got bored. Is there a passage you think would offer value to me?]]>
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 09:19:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11748 http://curi.us/comments/show/11748
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Mon, 28 Jan 2019 02:56:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11747 http://curi.us/comments/show/11747 curi Submit Podcast Questions Mon, 28 Jan 2019 02:16:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11746 http://curi.us/comments/show/11746 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions
I don't think he is saying all memes are basically mind-parasites. He's making an analogy with symbionts and says there are three types of memes:

> parasites, whose presence lowers the fitness of their host;

> commensals, whose presence is neutral (though, as the etymology reminds us, they "share the same table"); and

> mutualists, whose presence enhances the fitness of both host and guest.

So he's saying parasites are one type of meme. He uses the term "parasitized" in an imprecise way in some parts of the article and in a way that seems to contradict his definition. Also:

> Some memes are like domesticated animals; they are prized for their benefits, and their replication is closely fostered and relatively well understood by their human owners. Some memes are more like rats; they thrive in the human environment in spite of being positively selected against--ineffectually--by their unwilling hosts. And some are more like bacteria or other viruses, commandeering aspects of human behavior (provoking sneezing, for instance) in their "efforts" to propagate from host to host.

So he is saying some memes became domesticated and others are undomesticated. Just thinking if this a useful analogy. Thots?]]>
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:56:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11745 http://curi.us/comments/show/11745
curi Open Discussion
https://innovationmemes.blogspot.com/2015/02/beginning-of-infinity-table-of-contents.html

Note there are links to additional notes for some sections.]]>
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:35:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11744 http://curi.us/comments/show/11744
curi Submit Podcast Questions
But OK let's take a look. I didn't want to watch a video so I found this:

https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/MEMEMYTH.FIN.htm

First paragraph was bad, e.g. didn't say what a meme is, but then I got to the end:

> My talk will be

Oh, it's a talk transcript. I wanted an article. Skimmed a bit. Looked bad. Then:

> After all, even agriculture, in the long run, may be a dubious bargain if what you are taking as your summum bonum is Darwinian fitness (see Diamond, 1997, for fascinating reflections on the uncertain benefits of abandoning the hunter-gatherer lifestyle).

Worrying comments.

He goes on to talk about memes as basically mind-parasites as if good ideas don't also replicate. I think he has (in 1998) a vague concept of what a meme is instead of taking seriously that it's a replicator and then analyzing it that way. Cuz how do you get from "replicator" to (exclusively) "parasite"? What about, say, a cooking recipe, doesn't that replicate? Moms tell recipes to their daughters and people print copies of them in cookbooks and so on. If someone's analysis has missed that, that seems rather bad to me.

I skimmed to the end and it strikes me as a typical popular fake intellectual stuff that doesn't have much substance.]]>
Mon, 28 Jan 2019 00:33:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11743 http://curi.us/comments/show/11743
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:41:36 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11742 http://curi.us/comments/show/11742 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Sun, 27 Jan 2019 23:40:04 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11741 http://curi.us/comments/show/11741 curi Submit Podcast Questions
Note that "parallel universes" is a high level approximation. The actual underlying issue is reality has more complexity than is readily visible.]]>
Sun, 27 Jan 2019 14:30:28 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11740 http://curi.us/comments/show/11740
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Sun, 27 Jan 2019 13:57:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11739 http://curi.us/comments/show/11739 curi Submit Podcast Questions Sun, 27 Jan 2019 09:48:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11738 http://curi.us/comments/show/11738 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Sun, 27 Jan 2019 09:47:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11737 http://curi.us/comments/show/11737 Anonymous Open Discussion https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/03/15/the-age-of-rage/
via Instapaper

> “The judge did not in the slightest exonerate the rapist in this case. We “must not put responsibility on them [women] rather than the perpetrator,” she explicitly said. She merely made the sociological generalization that drunkenness made women more vulnerable to rapists (and no doubt other predators), and that they should therefore be cautious about being drunk in public.

> If the judge had said that women who were drunk were more vulnerable to robbery, it’s hard to imagine her being accused of implying lesser culpability on the part of the robber. She would probably have been taken to mean that a drunk woman was less able than a sober one to defend herself, or run away from a threat to her safety—that being drunk rendered her more likely to be picked upon by a potential robber. That would have struck people as so obvious as to not need saying.

> Everyone accepts that it is no excuse for a burglar that a house’s front door has been left open; moreover, a householder has a perfect right to leave his front door open if he so wishes. But equally no one would say that a householder who does not want to be burgled acts prudently if he insists upon exercising his perfect right (a much more perfect right than that to get drunk in public) to leave his front door open.

> Why, then, did the judge’s remarks cause such outrage? I think it was largely because outrage is so enjoyable, and therefore people are particularly prepared to be outraged. They are actually looking for pretexts to indulge in their favorite emotion.

> But why should outrage be such a pleasant emotion?

> Not only does it assure him who feels it that he is a good person, but—so long as it lasts, which can be for a long time—it answers, or at least buries, the deep existential questions of what life is for, and how it should be lived.”]]>
Sun, 27 Jan 2019 05:28:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11736 http://curi.us/comments/show/11736
Anonymous Open Discussion Sat, 26 Jan 2019 13:00:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11735 http://curi.us/comments/show/11735 Anonymous Open Discussion Author: Hula Hula Boys (Dr. Thunder)

it's a sign of the times.
more than almost anything, people innately crave an IDENTITY. this is why young people with no direction and few friends often turn to gangs, cults, and terrorist groups -- because they desperately want to BELONG to something.

people also deeply crave reassurance of their own SUPERIORITY and that they are DOING THE RIGHT THING with their lives.

in 2019 America, liberalism is a cult that reassures its members of their MORAL, INTELLECTUAL, and SOCIAL superiority.

and you can easily signal your membership to this ENLIGHTENED GROUP via SOCIAL MEDIA, where numerous others can virtue signal their own memberships to this ELITE CLUB and reassure each other of their SUPERIORITY.

members of this club do not deign to besmirch themselves by mingling with those of lesser status and opposing beliefs, lest they be judged for their company. additionally, they do not want to hear anything that may question the legitimacy of the thought processes they have fully adopted.

http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4187248&forum_id=2#37667694]]>
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 12:59:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11734 http://curi.us/comments/show/11734
curi Submit Podcast Questions Sat, 26 Jan 2019 11:41:52 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11733 http://curi.us/comments/show/11733 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Sat, 26 Jan 2019 11:35:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11732 http://curi.us/comments/show/11732 Anonymous Open Discussion Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:45:21 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11731 http://curi.us/comments/show/11731 Justin Mallone, wearing his lawyer hat Open Discussion
> It's legal in that I wouldn't have gone to jail

You are confused about the definition of "legal."

Legal means "permitted by law" (source: Google, and also i am a lawyer).

Imprisonment is a *punishment* for *certain* violations of the law. But there are all sorts of ways violations of the law get handled, from imprisonment to fines to money damages.

What you are describing with the note is a contractual situation. You are absolutely supposed to fulfill your contractual obligations under the law. Violating your contractual obligations is not accepted by the state's laws -- including the contract enforcement mechanism -- that you implicitly accept when you sign a contract.

When you agree to a contract, you are agreeing to accept the context in which that contract exists. This includes the enforcement mechanisms. Typically, the remedy for breach of contract is money damages. This can include stuff like wage garnishment or collection against other assets. These mechanisms involve the use of state force to seize your wealth due to your violation of the contract. This force is invoked against people -- and rightly so -- when they have violated the law.]]>
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:43:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11730 http://curi.us/comments/show/11730
PAS Open Discussion
The guy explained the situation:
> It's legal in that I wouldn't have gone to jail. It's theft because the money isn't mine. I would have stolen it. Long story short, I know the vice president of a bank and he put my house on an unsecured note temporarily because we didn't have enough time to do it officially. I could have gotten the house for free but burned the bridge and hurt my credit score. It would have been technically legal, but immoral in my opinion. Do you still hold that it would have been moral and ethical to steal? Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it ethical and vice versa.

So...he is contractually obligated to pay the $100k. He wouldn't go to jail for not paying, but that would also be true if the note was secured by the house. The only difference is, instead of taking the house they would have to get a judgment and then collect against other assets or garnish his pay. The only way he'd get out of paying is by declaring bankruptcy and then *actually being bankrupt*.

Thinking he could "just take" an unsecured loan and not pay it back with the only consequence being a reduction in credit score is incredibly stupid on his part.]]>
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 07:08:51 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11729 http://curi.us/comments/show/11729
curi Open Discussion
https://www.reddit.com/r/aynrand/comments/ajvdzp/moral_grayness/]]>
Sat, 26 Jan 2019 00:59:12 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11728 http://curi.us/comments/show/11728
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:51:05 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11727 http://curi.us/comments/show/11727 wrote a reddit comment curi Open Discussion
> I feel damn good being morally pure as possible and know how much of an amazing person I am for having literally no price that I would sell-out for.

Morality is practical, which this description neglects.

> Real life example: I could have legally stole 100k from a bank with no repercussions other than a burnt bridge and slightly hurt credit score, yet I did not.

Gifting 100k to a bank instead of using it to improve your life or your children's life is, in general, immoral. Morality is about making your own life better in a practical way, not about sacrificing yourself to help others. Banks are sophisticated counterparties which are responsible for the contracts they sign. Legally getting money from a bank is, in general, not stealing and not bad.]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:44:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11726 http://curi.us/comments/show/11726
curi Submit Podcast Questions
evo is metaphor (except with genes)

it's not just amateurs who are like this. ppl talk about this stuff in books and it's all vague handwaving. only DD took memes seriously and came up with a technical theory about them. no one else has done good work in the field, period (except ppl building on DD).

ppl don't get the epistemology tie ins

ppl don't take seriously static memes and what it means about their lives – that they are puppets of memes in major ways. they don't view that as a major, urgent problem – this serious lack of control over their own lives – and they don't focus much on researching what is going on there, what can be done about it, how can it be detected or defended against, etc. instead ppl just intuitively feel like it's false or something, and then trust their intuition. but vague intuitions are actually just the kind of things the static memes can control/influence/manipulate more easily (as against like objective scientific statements and math are places where it's harder to be biased).]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 12:12:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11725 http://curi.us/comments/show/11725
Anonymous Open Discussion
Funny but also actually important. Corporate censorship like this to have a "clean image" matters. It gives people a misleading impression about what the world is like.]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 11:33:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11724 http://curi.us/comments/show/11724
Anonymous Open Discussion
HB sends stuff out to former members. This email had the subject line: "Monthly Enticement: Dealing with objections with limited time" and is from jan 24 or 25 depending on time zone. Here's a copy/paste of the html email, with some formatting lost but the blockquoting added back in:

---

Re: Ian McClure’s post 25137 of 1/10/19


Mr. McClure sent me this question in a private email, and I asked him to post it, so I could post my answer. While I agree with Jim Allard’s and Adam Reed’s replies on this topic, I want to clarify what evasion is.




> The topic was whether it’s a form of evasion to ignore objections to an Objectivist position or argument when you can reasonably surmise that they will not work out, even though you don’t have an actual refutation at that time. One example that came up was if someone claimed that lower taxes don’t work and backed that up with a citation.


>Our conclusion was that the criterion to use is coherence with the rest of our knowledge. . . . Do you think this is right?




No, the answer to the objection goes much deeper. Evasion is the unjustified ejection of material from conscious awareness. One tells oneself that the nascent thought is either false or unreal or unimportant, when one knows or senses that this isn’t true,. Evasion is a form of lying to oneself.


On the other hand, deciding consciously and honestly not to pursue a line of thought is not evasion, even if that decision is mistaken. The issue is: is the judgment conscious? If one consciously thinks, “I’m not going to think about this for the following reason . . .” that’s not evasion–even if that decision is mistaken. Evasion is slamming your mind shut. Consciously prioritizing one’s mental efforts is not that; it is in fact a virtue.


If one decides consciously and honestly not to spend time on the objection, one remains open to thinking about it on a future occasion, should it arise. But to evade it is to close the book on it (without a good reason).


Now in naming a reason to not spend time on an objection, it is possible to rationalize. One might think, “I can’t waste time fighting off everything that anyone throws at me.” That’s a rationalization–a straw man. But rationalization is an automatic process. That is, one’s subconscious feeds one the rationalization, and that’s not culpable because not volitional.


But how you deal with the rationalization is volitional. You can be aware that a rationalization “doesn’t sit right” with you. But the main thing is that a rational, non-evading person is willing to look at anything—he’s not permanently refusing to face anything—even whether a thought he accepted was in fact a rationalization. He is fine with: “Yeah, last week I said to myself ‘X’ and I went with that, but looking back, ‘X’ doesn’t make sense.”


Evasion, in summary, is the denial of the reality of something you know or sense is real. The rational policy does not concern the particular path you take, mentally, but that you are aware of the path you take, of your reason for taking it, and of the possibility of other paths being taken.


NOW, on the concrete about taxes. The objection is right and you guys are wrong. Had you pursued it, looking at both “sides,” you probably could have found the reason. (The reason is that spending—not any particular means of extracting the funds for it—is what matters.)


And that exemplifies why the best attitude is: if it isn’t a sophistical objection, there’s something positive to be learned in pursuing it, trying to put yourself in the objector’s shoes, and looking at the whole context.


There is a value to be gained, but that may or may not outweigh the costs in time and forgone other pursuits.]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:53:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11723 http://curi.us/comments/show/11723
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.gofundme.com/buying-ed039s-tv-collection-for-a-new-uk-major]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:23:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11722 http://curi.us/comments/show/11722
Anonymous Open Discussion
> This time, they are taking care to contradict their own narratives with meek observations of reality, so that their attention-getting sensationalist headlines are hedged by later paragraphs of sheepish acknowledgments that effectively admit that the entire premise of their articles is just tabloid-esque filler. We know why: these articles aren't trying to establish a pattern of accurate, reliable reporting; they're merely fluff content blown out to induce outrage in order to drive the social media engagement that supports their surveillance advertising clickbait revenue model.”

Apple in 2019 and the case of the expensive iPhone
https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/01/24/apple-in-2019-and-the-case-of-the-expensive-iphone
via Instapaper]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:44:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11721 http://curi.us/comments/show/11721
Anonymous Open Discussion
> But discrimination on the basis of skin color has been outlawed in this country for more than 60 years. One might reasonably ask, “WTF is white privilege”?

> Here’s my politically incorrect answer: White privilege is the gift of being the only racial/ethnic group on the planet which it is okay to single out for abuse.

> Indeed, such abuse is obligatory for all who regard themselves as “woke,” and who aspire to promote “social justice.”

> This is a category that includes the media, the popular culture, the educational system, and such shapers of public opinion as Don Lemon; Joy Ann Reid; Joy Behar; Brian Stelter; Rachel Maddow; the editorial boards and reporters of the New York Times and the Washington Post; and the Democratic Party.”

David Horowitz: 'White Privilege' Is a Racist Idea | Breitbart
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/24/david-horowitz-white-privilege-is-a-racist-idea/
via Instapaper]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 08:38:14 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11720 http://curi.us/comments/show/11720
Anonymous Open Discussion
Is Objectivism a Cult? (Part Two)
https://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html
via Instapaper]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:11:30 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11719 http://curi.us/comments/show/11719
Anonymous Open Discussion
>Means countercharged that I had misquoted an article of his which appeared in the quasi-Marxist Mother Jones magazine entitled "For the World to Live the West Must Die." Mother Jones magazine, by coincidence, was just a few blocks from my bookstore in San Francisco. I went to them and got permission to reprint the article exactly as written. This was then distributed to all the Seattle delegates along with a short note saying: "Russell Means contends I have misquoted him. Here is the entire article as it appeared. Judge for yourself." Every delegate got a copy and Russell lost the nomination in a landslide.”

Is Objectivism a Cult? (Part Two)
https://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/obj_cult2.html
via Instapaper]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:11:08 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11718 http://curi.us/comments/show/11718
Anonymous Open Discussion Fri, 25 Jan 2019 06:24:35 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11717 http://curi.us/comments/show/11717 Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Fri, 25 Jan 2019 05:21:50 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11716 http://curi.us/comments/show/11716 Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOdu-lXCPFI]]>
Fri, 25 Jan 2019 02:11:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11715 http://curi.us/comments/show/11715
Anonymous Open Discussion
That's Harry Binswanger rejecting moral responsibility for most of what people think and do (because the subconscious has such a large role in life).]]>
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 22:59:42 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11714 http://curi.us/comments/show/11714
curi Submit Podcast Questions
I watched the first one. I forget if I watched the second one. I did not watch the third one. So I can't really do a podcast on this.

The big picture reasons they're bad are that the people who made them are like ARI or worse. I did a podcast on ARI recently.]]>
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:49:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11713 http://curi.us/comments/show/11713
Anonymous Submit Podcast Questions Thu, 24 Jan 2019 13:39:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11712 http://curi.us/comments/show/11712 curi Analyzing How Far I'll Go Thu, 24 Jan 2019 11:06:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11711 http://curi.us/comments/show/11711 Anonymous Analyzing How Far I'll Go I think you read it wrong because it shows the correct spelling...lol]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:26:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11710 http://curi.us/comments/show/11710 Anonymous Analyzing How Far I'll Go I think you read it wrong because it shows the correct spelling...]]> Thu, 24 Jan 2019 10:26:11 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11709 http://curi.us/comments/show/11709 Lengthy description of video of Covington Catholic incident Anonymous Open Discussion
> It turned out that the “four African American young men preaching about the Bible and oppression” had made a video, almost two hours in length, and while it does not fully exonerate the boys, it releases them from most of the serious charges.

> The full video reveals that there was indeed a Native American gathering at the Lincoln Memorial, that it took place shortly before the events of the viral video, and that during it the indigenous people had been the subject of a hideous tirade of racist insults and fantasies. But the white students weren’t the people hurling this garbage at them—the young “African American men preaching about the Bible and oppression” were doing it. For they were Black Hebrew Israelites, a tiny sect of people who believe they are the direct descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel, and whose beliefs on a variety of social issues make Mike Pence look like Ram Dass.

> The full video reveals that these kids had wandered into a Tom Wolfe novel and had no idea how to get out of it.



> It seems that the Black Hebrew Israelites had come to the Lincoln Memorial with the express intention of verbally confronting the Native Americans, some of whom had already begun to gather as the video begins, many of them in Native dress. The Black Hebrew Israelites’ leader begins shouting at them: “Before you started worshipping totem poles, you was worshipping the true and living God. Before you became an idol worshipper, you was worshipping the true and living God. This is the reason why this land was taken away from you! Because you worship everything except the most high. You worship every creation except the Creator—and that’s what we are here to tell you to do.”

> A young man in Native dress approaches them and gestures toward the group gathering for its event. But the Black Hebrew Israelites mix things up by throwing some dead-white-male jargon at him—they are there because of “freedom of the speech ” and “freedom of religion” and all that. The young man backs away. “You have to come away from your religious philosophy,” one Black Hebrew Israelite yells after him.

> A few more people in Native costume gather, clearly stunned by his tirade. “You’re not supposed to worship eagles, buffalos, rams, all types of animals,” he calls out to them.

> A Native woman approaches the group and begins to challenge its ideology, which prompts the pastor’s coreligionists to thumb their Bibles for relevant passages from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. He asks the woman why she’s angry, and when she tells him that she’s isn’t angry, he responds, “You’re not angry? You’re not angry? I’m making you angry.” The two start yelling at each other, and the speaker calls out to his associates for Isaiah 58:1.

> Another woman comes up to him yelling, “The Bible says a lot of shit. The Bible says a lot of shit. The Bible says a lot of shit.”

> Black Hebrew Israelites believe, among other things, that they are indigenous people. The preacher tells a woman that “you’re not an Indian. Indian means ‘savage.’ ”

> Men begin to gather with concerned looks on their face. “Indian does not mean ‘savage,’ ” one of them says reasonably. “I don’t know where you got that from.” At this point, most of the Native Americans who have surrounded—“mobbed”?—the preacher have realized what the boys will prove too young and too unsophisticated to understand: that the “four young African American men preaching about the Bible and oppression” are the kind of people you sometimes encounter in big cities, and the best thing to do is steer a wide berth. Most of them leave, exchanging amused glances at one another. But one of the women stays put, and she begins making excellent points, some of which stump the Black Hebrew Israelites.

> It was heating up to be an intersectional showdown for the ages, with the Black Hebrew Israelites going head to head with the Native Americans. But when the Native woman talks about the importance of peace, the preacher finally locates a unifying theme, one more powerful than anything to be found in Proverbs, Isaiah, or Ecclesiastes.

> He tells her there won’t be any food stamps coming to reservations or the projects because of the shutdown, and then gesturing to his left, he says, “It’s because of these … bastards over there, wearing ‘Make America Great Again’ hats.”

> The camera turns to capture five white teenage boys, one of whom is wearing a maga hat. They are standing at a respectful distance, with their hands in their pockets, listening to this exchange with expressions of curiosity. They are there to meet their bus home.



> “Why you not angry at them?” the Black Hebrew Israelite asks the Native American woman angrily.

> “That’s right,” says one of his coreligionists, “little corny-ass Billy Bob.”

> The boys don’t respond to this provocation, although one of them smiles at being called a corny-ass Billy Bob. They seem interested in what is going on, in the way that it’s interesting to listen to Hyde Park speakers.

> The Native woman isn’t interested in attacking the white boys. She keeps up her argument with the Black Hebrew Israelites, and her line of reasoning is so powerful that it throws the preacher off track.

> “She trying to be distracting,” one of the men says. “She trying to stop the flow.”

> “You’re out of order,” the preacher tells the woman. “Where’s your husband? Let me speak to him.”

> By now the gathering of Covington Catholic boys watching the scene has grown to 10 or 12, some of them in maga hats. They are about 15 feet away, and while the conflict is surely beyond their range of experience, it also includes biblical explication, something with which they are familiar.

> “Don’t stand to the side and mock,” the speaker orders the boys, who do not appear to be mocking him. “Bring y’all cracker ass up here and make a statement.” The boys turn away and begin walking back to the larger group.

> “You little dirty-ass crackers. Your day coming. Your day coming … ’cause your little dusty asses wouldn’t walk down a street in a black neighborhood, and go walk up on nobody playing no games like that,” he calls after them, but they take no notice. “Yeah, ’cause I will stick my foot in your little ass.”

> By now the Native American ceremony has begun, and the attendees have linked arms and begun dancing. “They just don’t know who they are,” one of the Black Hebrew Israelites says remorsefully to another. Earlier he had called them “Uncle Tomahawks.”

> The boys have given up on him. They have joined the larger group, and together they all begin doing some school-spirit cheers; they hum the stadium-staple opening bars of “Seven Nation Army” and jump up and down, dancing to it. Later they would say that their chaperones had allowed them to sing school-spirit songs instead of engaging with the slurs hurled by the Black Hebrew Israelites.

> And then you hear the sound of drumming, and Phillips appears with several other drummers, all of them headed to the large group of boys. “Here come Gad!” says the Black Hebrew Israelite excitedly. His religion teaches that Native Americans are one of the 12 tribes of Israel, Gad. Apparently he thinks that his relentless attack on the Native Americans has led some of them to confront the white people. “Here come Gad!” he says again, but he is soon disappointed. “Gad not playing! He came to the rescue!” he says in disgust.

> The drummers head to the boys, and keep playing. The boys, who had been jumping to “Seven Nation Army,” start jumping in time to the drumming. Phillips takes a step toward the group, and then—as it parts to admit him—he walks into it. Here the Black Hebrew Israelites’ footage is of no help, as Phillips has moved into the crowd.

> Now we may look at the viral video—or, as a CNN chyron called it, the “heartbreaking viral video”—as well as the many others that have since emerged, none of which has so far revealed the boys to be chanting anything about a wall or about making America great again. Phillips keeps walking into the group, they make room for him, and then—the smiling boy. One of the videos shows him doing something unusual. At one point he turns away from Phillips, stops smiling, and locks eyes with another kid, shaking his head, seeming to say the word no. This is consistent with the long, harrowing statement that the smiling boy would release at the end of the weekend, in which he offered an explanation for his actions that is consistent with the video footage that has so far emerged, and revealed what happened to him in the 48 hours after Americans set to work doxing him and threatening his family with violence. As of this writing, it seems that the smiling boy, Nick Sandmann, is the one person who tried to be respectful of Phillips and who encouraged the other boys to do the same. And for this, he has been by far the most harshly treated of any of the people involved in the afternoon’s mess at the Lincoln Memorial.]]>
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 08:57:46 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11708 http://curi.us/comments/show/11708
Anonymous Open Discussion
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/07/AR2007100701412.html

> At Metro's headquarters in downtown Washington, the lights pop on at 5:30 every weekday morning. Hours before the masses arrive for work, the building glows like a silent, hulking eight-story spaceship.

> Every evening, most employees go home at 5, but the lights stay on for three more hours, bright enough that passersby can see the artwork in individual offices. No "Starry Night," apparently.

> The electric bill was $1,775,194.96 last year: nearly $1,400 per employee.

> Workers worried about global warming -- or Metro's budget deficit -- might be inclined to turn the lights off when they're not needed, but they can't. Metro offices have no individual switches.

> Used to be, the lights were on all the time. About two decades ago, Metro installed a computer system to control them, which was considered energy-efficient at that time, officials said.

> Needless to say, no one thinks that anymore.

> "That wouldn't be efficient. That's obvious," said Jeff Niesz, business development director for Pepco Energy Services, which Metro has hired to reduce energy costs.]]>
Thu, 24 Jan 2019 06:26:39 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11707 http://curi.us/comments/show/11707
Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare
Exactly. They don't cover that at all. Also, there are any number of queries people could run for stories on either topic. For example, one could search for "Sophia Renken" (another of the victim's name from the first topic).

> Total article counts from google are not reliable. I'm seeing 3080 for Connie Koontz. And they aren't a very good proxy for amount or reach of coverage.

Agreed.

> And most people who do google searches don't go to the second page of results.

True. And given that there are at least a page of results for each of the queries, we could use the metric introduced above ("avg amount of results seen (amount of coverage in front of a news seeker)"), to claim that the amount of coverage is *equal* for both topics.

> And the long tail of results is often full of irrelevant crap. Given the imprecision, maybe he should have said 10x instead of 11. But none of these are the complaints the anon in #11704 made.

Yes. Those are additional issues. This is another illustration that Vdare's fact-checking is inadequate.]]>
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:40:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11706 http://curi.us/comments/show/11706
Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare
The reach of material depends on a weighted average of searches done and its prominence on each of those searches.

Total article counts from google are not reliable. I'm seeing 3080 for Connie Koontz. And they aren't a very good proxy for amount or reach of coverage. And most people who do google searches don't go to the second page of results. And the long tail of results is often full of irrelevant crap. Given the imprecision, maybe he should have said 10x instead of 11. But none of these are the complaints the anon in #11704 made.]]>
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:10:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11705 http://curi.us/comments/show/11705
Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare
The vdare article is trying to compare the news coverage of two topics: a crime by an illegal alien and the #covingtoncatholic incident. They do this by counting the number of stories on each topic. 554 and 661 are the number of results for two different queries for stories on the first topic. 6770 is the number of results for a query for stories on the second topic. I'll assume that the queries are fairly accurate for counting the number of stories on each topic (otherwise, what's the point?).

If topic 1 gets X times the coverage of topic 2, it should be the case that (number of stories on topic 1)/(number of stories on topic 2) = X. In order for a factor of 11 to make sense, there would have to be 615 stories on the first topic, because 6770/11 = about 615. But that doesn't work, because the smallest possible number of stories on the first topic is 661, yielding a factor of about 10.25. That would happen if all 554 stories were included in the 661. If any of the 554 stories were *not* included in the 661, then the number of stories on the first topic would be even larger, yielding a factor even smaller than 10x.]]>
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:59:06 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11704 http://curi.us/comments/show/11704
Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:25:49 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11703 http://curi.us/comments/show/11703 Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:21:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11702 http://curi.us/comments/show/11702 Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare Wed, 23 Jan 2019 09:03:41 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11701 http://curi.us/comments/show/11701 More Vdare math Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare
> I tested it by searching for the name of one of the earliest victims, Connie Koontz, 56. A search for “Connie Koontz” in news comes up with 554 results.
>
> A search for "Wilbur Martinez- Guzman", the illegal alien suspect in custody comes up with 661 results.
>
> And a search for Nathan Phillips MAGA hat comes up with 6,770 results. That's ELEVEN times the coverage.

How are they arriving t a factor of 11x there? 6770/661 is about 10.25. 6770/554 is 12.22.]]>
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:08:09 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11700 http://curi.us/comments/show/11700
Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare Wed, 23 Jan 2019 08:00:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11699 http://curi.us/comments/show/11699 Anonymous Bad Scholarship on VDare
> If the video gave you second thoughts about whether or not to stand behind the young Templars, you’re part of the problem, *fellow white person*! It betrays a willingness to accept nothing other than the unconditional surrender of whites in any confrontation with non-whites. Stop it. You’re digging *your posterity* an early grave.

What do people think about Vdare explicitly addressing whites like that?]]>
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:57:32 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11698 http://curi.us/comments/show/11698
Anonymous Open Discussion Wed, 23 Jan 2019 01:16:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11697 http://curi.us/comments/show/11697 Anonymous Rand on Nurture
> http://fallibleideas.com/discussion

Thank you for the info. I'll make sure to look into it.]]>
Wed, 23 Jan 2019 00:05:55 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11696 http://curi.us/comments/show/11696
Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:52:44 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11695 http://curi.us/comments/show/11695 Anonymous Open Discussion Tue, 22 Jan 2019 15:50:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11694 http://curi.us/comments/show/11694 curi Rand on Nurture
The primary FI forum is the email group. There's more discussion there.

http://fallibleideas.com/discussion

There are currently ongoing discussions about *bounded* discussion/learning/thinking. (There's also a discussion about Kate's multi-year history of evasion. I'd advise skipping Kate's discussions and reading other ones instead.)

Some of the posts about it:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/fallible-ideas/0b_LiYy96aQ/DxJimli0GwAJ

I think I'm about equally responsive here and on the email group. But other people aren't.

Another factor is that people often think I can answer something better than they can, so they don't answer. Often I can get people to talk more if I don't comment on an issue.

> What would be the issue requiring time here? I reckon it is the time to develop our understanding of the underlying processes and how to learn them, and not a hardware issue. Did I understand you correctly?

A lot of philosophical progress is needed.]]>
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:40:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11693 http://curi.us/comments/show/11693
curi Rand on Nurture
> How do they explain this when the human brain evolved tens of thousands of years before we invented stuff like maths and art. Those things happened within the last ten thousand years. Considering humanity and its ancestors spent much much longer making stone tools it would be more plausible to argue we have stone-tool modules. Some of us should have in-born talent for making stone tools. There should be stone-tool savants. But that's not a thing.

(FYI I used the "quote" link to auto-generate the quotes above.)

I think their best answer is: the brain modules listed are just examples. Science has not yet discovered the actual list of modules, and a lot about how they function is unknown. The "math" one is presumably one that's pretty good at math, but it could have evolved for some other purpose (like, say, estimating numbers of bison in a herd, or comparing distances, which are mathy things) and have more functionality than just math.

That vagueness gives them enough wiggle room to deal with a fair amount of object criticism. But it leaves them open to criticism of the vagueness. What can be done about that? Keep it vague how vague their position actually is! By lacking representatives who will debate and answer questions or criticisms, lacking clear statements of their position (so they can claim there is a better, more precise version specified at an unspecified place by an unspecified very smart person), and lacking paths forward.]]>
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 12:28:18 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11692 http://curi.us/comments/show/11692
DeRoj Rand on Nurture Tue, 22 Jan 2019 09:50:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11691 http://curi.us/comments/show/11691 DeRoj Rand on Nurture
"> Yes. Sexuality is a preference and preferences are ideas. How would it work if we couldn't change it?"
(Let's see if I got the quote mechanics right ;) Appreciate the tip.)

Well put.

"> There is evidence but I think it's better to focus on concepts."

This is why I think you are the best, Elliot. You help clearing up the thinking and do not just give answers or data.

That was a good explanation that cleared up quite a lot for me.

---

"> Maybe in a thousand years when people are much wiser. Today, people have so little conscious control over their minds and are just scratching the surface in self-understanding. That kind of skill needs to be developed a ton before it could be used to figure out how to intentionally do savant-type stuff."

What would be the issue requiring time here? I reckon it is the time to develop our understanding of the underlying processes and how to learn them, and not a hardware issue. Did I understand you correctly?]]>
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 09:45:19 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11690 http://curi.us/comments/show/11690
Bystander Rand on Nurture Tue, 22 Jan 2019 02:57:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11689 http://curi.us/comments/show/11689 Anonymous Rand on Nurture
How do they explain this when the human brain evolved tens of thousands of years before we invented stuff like maths and art. Those things happened within the last ten thousand years. Considering humanity and its ancestors spent much much longer making stone tools it would be more plausible to argue we have stone-tool modules. Some of us should have in-born talent for making stone tools. There should be stone-tool savants. But that's not a thing.]]>
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 02:37:26 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11688 http://curi.us/comments/show/11688
Anonymous Rand on Nurture Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:37:01 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11687 http://curi.us/comments/show/11687 curi Rand on Nurture
Yes.

> Also, what leads you to conclude that sexuality consists of ideas other than that it is hard to change. Also is there evidence it could be changed? I was under the impression there wasn't.

There is evidence but I think it's better to focus on concepts. Start with a model of the mind and then consider what sexuality could be other than an idea. Or if it is an idea, consider what could stop it from being changed, by what means. There are many things that make ideas harder to change, and often that difficulty is enough to prevent change, but making something actually impossible to change is a different matter.

The main rival view is to see the mind as a bunch of components with different functions – a sex part of the brain, a math part, a language part, an art part, kinda like that. Under this view, one can imagine that the math part of the brain allows full conscious control but the sex part is designed a different way. Without knowing exactly how any part is designed, that has some plausibility.

But DD and I have a different view, which is that there's just *one* intelligence program that does all the things (via the one method of evolutionary guesses and criticism), instead of intelligence being built out of a collection of modules for dealing with different topics. Under this view, if we can consciously control how we deal with hockey, then it should work for sex too. It'd take a special exception for it to be otherwise. There are reasons that special exceptions don't work well, which are similar to the reasons that it doesn't work to make a CPU with a special exception: like it's actually extraordinarily problematic to try to make a computer chip that mostly works normally but can't add 2+2.

It's really hard to have something that's really powerful, has tons of functionality, but then also add artificial limits on it. basically all that powerful functionality leads to workarounds to get around the limits. and if you make the limits so extensive that you stop workarounds, you end up having to disable a large amount of the functionality (e.g. turn off additional all together to prevent 2+2).

---

re savants: regardless of the conscious thoughts associated with it, the math or other things they do is generally trivial for a computer far inferior to a human brain.

> Could potentially "regular" people learn this with a better conceptual understanding and linking?

In theory, yes. That doesn't violate the laws of physics. But it's way, way too hard currently. Maybe in a thousand years when people are much wiser. Today, people have so little conscious control over their minds and are just scratching the surface in self-understanding. That kind of skill needs to be developed a ton before it could be used to figure out how to intentionally do savant-type stuff.]]>
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:31:59 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11686 http://curi.us/comments/show/11686
oh my god it's turpentine Rand on Nurture >quote
>quote This is a pretty radical view today. Wouldn't that make sexuality as a whole a product of ideas? And in that case also heterosexuality although it is the default (and a prerequisite to continuation of life)?

It's possible that heterosexuality is the factory setting for human beings. But sexuality is also heavily modified by culture. Lingerie and high heels didn't exist in our evolutionary history, but they play an important role in heterosexual behaviour for many people now.

Also, being able to create knowledge by conjecture and criticism can't be limited to just creating knowledge about non-sex stuff. Sex is tangled up with aesthetics, art and that stuff. Also knowledge of biology opens up opportunities to have sex without procreation, with less risk and so on and that can motivate biological research.

>quote Also, what leads you to conclude that sexuality consists of ideas other than that it is hard to change. Also is there evidence it could be changed? I was under the impression there wasn't.

There's a whole reddit thread full of people who claim their sexual preferences changed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bisexual/comments/528zm0/i_know_this_might_sound_crazy_but_i_feel_like_i/

Here's another reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bisexual/comments/8el3n8/i_became_bisexual/

More broadly being confused about your sexuality is a commonly reported thing. Also, sex between men who claim to be straight is a thing, see "Not Gay: Sex between Straight White Men" by Jane Ward.]]>
Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:31:23 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11685 http://curi.us/comments/show/11685
Bystander Rand on Nurture
Yes. Sexuality is a preference and preferences are ideas. How would it work if we couldn't change it? Our ability to create knowledge is universal. You can't have universality except in some area because knowledge has reach/generality. It's impossible to design your knowledge creation software so that new knowledge you create is guaranteed not to reach into the forbidden area. The growth of knowledge is unpredictable. To ensure it couldn't reach into the forbidden area would totally ruin the universality - you wouldn't be able to create knowledge at all.]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 23:56:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11684 http://curi.us/comments/show/11684
Anonymous Rand on Nurture
Interesting.
I was more referring to the computation method using shapes rather than arithmetic to deduce the answer (@ 1:40). But maybe you see that as the same on a deeper level? Could potentially "regular" people learn this with a better conceptual understanding and linking?

There is some interesting stuff that Arthur Benjamin demonstrates with "mathemagics".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baxOXLN23GI]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 23:25:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11683 http://curi.us/comments/show/11683
DeRoj Rand on Nurture
Genes don't just create a computer, they set it up with software, like the OS, so that it's useful.

...

These are design details which are compatible with the Objectivist view of human nature and capabilities, not with the "nature" side of the debate.!

Ok. This is a way I have not thought about ideas before - in a neural net conceptualization way (but much more complex). I am familiar with fundamental deep learning, enough to be able to make use the analogy at least. Interesting.

I think the "Objectivist logic" (heavy emphasis on concept integration) reminds of this as well. Being new to Objectivism I often find myself forgetting it if I do not introspect or rush. And I suck at introspecting.
Do you have any recommendation of how to approach introspection and develop the skills? A "where to start" so to speak.

>quote, Why do people think there are innate ideas? It's because they don't know how change the ideas they created in early childhood. But they believe that ideas are easy to change, so whenever something is hard to change they blame something else like genes or nature. That's super wrong. In many respects, culture is more powerful and harder to change than nature. Hence e.g. my view (and DD's) that homosexuality consists of ideas. It's an (early childhood) choice. It's very hard to change (though getting easier due to decades of cultural pressure, political activism, etc, to legitimize and encourage it. This has actually changed our culture some.)!

This is a pretty radical view today. Wouldn't that make sexuality as a whole a product of ideas? And in that case also heterosexuality although it is the default (and a prerequisite to continuation of life)?
Also, what leads you to conclude that sexuality consists of ideas other than that it is hard to change. Also is there evidence it could be changed? I was under the impression there wasn't.

>quote, There are lots more details. I want to be clear there's more to this knowledge, I haven't shared everything. Some of it is quite hard to talk about with people who don't have important background knowledge, especially being an expert on Critical Rationalism *and* an expert programmer (preferably familiar with lisp, "AI" algorithms, stuff like that). BTW, unfortunately, I think fewer than ten people have that background knowledge. Maybe just me, DD and Alan.!

Thank you. For sure even the current part is enough to keep me occupied, but feel free to expand more if you want. It might be very interesting to revisit this from time to time as I think more about these things (and hopefully other people do as well).]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 23:07:47 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11682 http://curi.us/comments/show/11682
curi Open Discussion Mon, 21 Jan 2019 22:07:31 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11681 http://curi.us/comments/show/11681 Anonymous Open Discussion
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=59701

> Ben Shapiro, Who Rushed to Share Condemnation Of Covington Students, Slams CNN For Doing The Same

He was also awful in the past:

http://curi.us/2126-open-discussion#c10395]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 21:58:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11680 http://curi.us/comments/show/11680
Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:00:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11679 http://curi.us/comments/show/11679 Anonymous Open Discussion Mon, 21 Jan 2019 17:51:34 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11678 http://curi.us/comments/show/11678 curi Rand on Nurture
Considering ~everyone is an inductivist, I already believe ~everyone is deeply confused about how they reason (they do evolutionary guesses and criticism, then think they did induction). An adult mind is *extraordinarily* complex, and what people are consciously aware of is much less than 1% of what's going on.

Savants are still interesting in some ways. But IMO not as interesting as most people think. Stuff like remembering thousands of digits of pi is *trivial* for a computer, and human brains are literally computers. In programming terms, savants are people who found the right high level API calls to, via hundreds of intermediate APIs, get some lower level control. I think the more interesting side of the coin is how much people fail at things that are trivial for an iPhone, like multiplication – it gives some indication that there are a *lot* of software layers in between the conscious mind and the computer.]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:26:29 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11677 http://curi.us/comments/show/11677
curi Rand on Nurture
Inborn ideas come from our genes. Genes govern the formation of our brain hardware and configure it in an initial state. That initial state is a little like a brand new computer which has an operating system (OS) installed, as well as some initial apps and data already loaded (examples of data: a sample video, help documents, some bookmarks in the default browser, and pictures that can be used as desktop backgrounds).

Genes don't just create a computer, they set it up with software, like the OS, so that it's useful.

An "idea" is, roughly, a thing in our mind that we can think about and can change. The human intelligence OS can at least mostly be thought about, understood, and changed, so it's mostly ideas. We self-upgrade our thinking/reasoning/learning methods instead of sticking with the ones provided by our genes. We use the initial versions to create better ideas to replace them with.

I also think our genes provide, in the initial hardware and software setup, the loose equivalent of some pre-loaded apps and data. These are also ideas. These are easy to change or ignore, they aren't any sort of threat to free will. There's nothing to stop genetic evolution from having done this, there are evolutionary advantages to it, and it doesn't contradict our experiences of what people are like (because it's compatible with free will, it doesn't control people, it has no real bearing on adult life, it's just a detail of how childhood works).

These are design details which are compatible with the Objectivist view of human nature and capabilities, not with the "nature" side of the debate.

The inborn ideas are not things any adult would recognize as being similar to any conscious idea they remember ever having. Adults consciously think in terms of high level ideas. The ideas we think about consciously are built on thousands(?) of layers – they're built up from simpler things. There is a ton going on beneath the surface. (That is also how people design software today, in many layers.)

We are capable of changing lower level stuff, but many adults are very bad at it. People suck at introspection, changing their habits, that kinda thing. And only a fraction of the higher layers are in English, and people are especially bad at understanding and changing the parts of their mind that aren't in English, like emotions (both the emotions themselves, and the mechanisms that create them, are ideas too).

Why do people think there are innate ideas? It's because they don't know how change the ideas they created in early childhood. But they believe that ideas are easy to change, so whenever something is hard to change they blame something else like genes or nature. That's super wrong. In many respects, culture is more powerful and harder to change than nature. Hence e.g. my view (and DD's) that homosexuality consists of ideas. It's an (early childhood) choice. It's very hard to change (though getting easier due to decades of cultural pressure, political activism, etc, to legitimize and encourage it. This has actually changed our culture some.)

You see the same thing with smoking and other "addictions". People find it hard to change, so they think the cause must be something other than ideas, cuz if it was ideas then they assume a bit of willpower would suffice to change it. They are dead wrong. As Rand, Mises, DD and all the good philosophers emphasized, ideas rule the world and are, in many respects, the most powerful thing in the universe.

There are lots more details. I want to be clear there's more to this knowledge, I haven't shared everything. Some of it is quite hard to talk about with people who don't have important background knowledge, especially being an expert on Critical Rationalism *and* an expert programmer (preferably familiar with lisp, "AI" algorithms, stuff like that). BTW, unfortunately, I think fewer than ten people have that background knowledge. Maybe just me, DD and [Alan](https://conjecturesandrefutations.com).]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 13:13:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11676 http://curi.us/comments/show/11676
Nicholas DeRoj Rand on Nurture
I am new to Objectivism but very intrigued of how much sense it has brought to me so far. I am still grasping the fundamentals though.

>quote, Speaking offhand without looking up exact sources: I think Rand's view is that men are born with the *structure* of their mind, but not its *content*. That is, you're born with the mechanism for thinking, but your thoughts themselves aren't predetermined.!

Yes, this is my understanding of it as well. That we are born with the mechanism for both thinking and emotions, but that they yet lack *content*.

>quote, The term "blank slate" is misleading since it doesn't specify *what* is blank and what isn't. Rand didn't think that *the entire mind* was a blank slate (which is the view criticized in DD's comment above). She rejected innate ideas, but not innate capacity for reasoning.!

Agreed. DD explains very well why that is in the comment above.

>quote, One issue is I think a lot of our inborn capacity for reasoning itself is software (ideas), not hardware, and is changeable.

I think it's harmless to have some inborn ideas, given the understanding that they can be changed. It's like if you open up new text editor and it has an example document preloaded. No big deal. Certainly doesn't affect what you end up writing. You can just delete the sample document or ignore it and make a different document. So I think technically we do have inborn ideas – though exactly how many and what they are isn't known – but this is not a big deal and doesn't mean we're stuck with them or that they influence us or whatever. Also the inborn ideas can't deal with the modern world cuz they evolved before the modern world existed.!

I'm not sure I follow here. I agree on the drifting car analogy, but how can we have inborn ideas (from birth) and where do they come from?

PS: This got me wondering on a side track subject: *savants*. Obviously they use reason to solve whatever problem, but they seem less aware of how they come to conclusions apart from there being shapes that they interpret (at least in this example). I'm not sure I have a question here but it is interesting. And it is a subject for another time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd1gywPOibg]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 12:24:48 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11675 http://curi.us/comments/show/11675
Nicholas DeRoj Karl Popper on Nature/Nurture Debate
It could very much be a misunderstanding of DD - at least now that I read what you write above.

I had to look it up and it's in the very beginning of BoI: page 5:
"We do not begin with the 'white paper' at birth, but with inborn expectations and intentions and an innate ability to improve upon them using thought and experience."

Maybe I took the "We do not begin with the 'white paper' at birth"-part too literally and was blinded by it in the second part of the sentence ...

Cf. Rand: "At birth, a child’s mind is tabula rasa ..."-part.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tabula_rasa.html]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 11:06:10 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11674 http://curi.us/comments/show/11674
Anonymous Open Discussion
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/sweden-half-of-women-in-early-20s-feel-unsafe-government-ramps-up-anti-hate-policing]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:44:20 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11673 http://curi.us/comments/show/11673
curi Rand on Nurture
I hadn't yet studied Objectivism enough in 2011. DD is a fan of Ayn Rand but still hasn't.

Speaking offhand without looking up exact sources: I think Rand's view is that men are born with the *structure* of their mind, but not its *content*. That is, you're born with the mechanism for thinking, but your thoughts themselves aren't predetermined.

The term "blank slate" is misleading since it doesn't specify *what* is blank and what isn't. Rand didn't think that *the entire mind* was a blank slate (which is the view criticized in DD's comment above). She rejected innate ideas, but not innate capacity for reasoning.

I think that's approximately right. But it's not exact.

One issue is I think a lot of our inborn capacity for reasoning itself is software (ideas), not hardware, and is changeable.

I think it's harmless to have some inborn ideas, given the understanding that they can be changed. It's like if you open up new text editor and it has an example document preloaded. No big deal. Certainly doesn't affect what you end up writing. You can just delete the sample document or ignore it and make a different document. So I think technically we do have inborn ideas – though exactly how many and what they are isn't known – but this is not a big deal and doesn't mean we're stuck with them or that they influence us or whatever. Also the inborn ideas can't deal with the modern world cuz they evolved before the modern world existed.

People are born with a starting point but starting somewhere doesn't control where you go, what you do next.

Even if you were born with a bias, and couldn't change it, it *still* wouldn't influence your future thinking in the way people on the other side of this debate believe. DD gave me an example long ago. Suppose your car drifts left a bit. The wheels are screwed up and you periodically have to turn right a bit to straighten out. Like a shopping cart. And suppose you can't get it fixed, you're just stuck with it. Will this affect what destinations you drive to? Will it influence you to go to Taco Bell instead of McDonalds because one is to the left? No, that's ridiculous. You still decide where to drive, you just have to do a little extra work to deal with the innate flaw in the car.]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 10:14:54 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11672 http://curi.us/comments/show/11672
Anonymous Karl Popper on Nature/Nurture Debate
> Reading @DavidDeutschOxf TBOI & see that DD & #Rand differ on 'tabula rasa'. My understanding of it comes frm @CharlesTew0 & I do not see it being refuted.
> Care to comment @curi42
> or @DavidDeutschOxf ?
>
> @ 1:21:40 https://youtu.be/t2MYk1RLnbY
> @ 34:50
> https://youtu.be/UNC5UQ6vT8Y
> @iamRucka

My preexisting view: Rand is great on this issue. DD and I (who have the same view on this) are able to be more precise and rigorous because we have knowledge, that Rand didn't, about evolution, evolutionary epistemology, universality and computer programming.

I agree with the first clip that innate ideas is a bad idea, and I agree with the second clip that evolutionary psychology is crap. Man is indeed a being of self-made soul.

So I don't know what disagreement you're concerned about. It may be a misunderstanding. I think you'll need to quote and comment on the BoI passages that you had a problem with.

I chose this blog topic to post under because Popper had similar views. He's on the "nurture" side of the debate. BTW, from memory, I think the point about snakes contradicts Jordan Peterson.

Another of my (and DD's) favorite thinkers, William Godwin, was also on the nurture side of the debate, in 1790. PJ 1.4: [The Characters Of Men Originate In Their External Circumstances](http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/godwin/pj1/pjch4.html). Godwin argues against innate ideas.]]>
Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:48:00 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11671 http://curi.us/comments/show/11671
Anonymous Open Discussion Sun, 20 Jan 2019 20:09:16 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11670 http://curi.us/comments/show/11670 Anonymous Fallible Ideas Philosophy Overview Videos + Comments Sun, 20 Jan 2019 19:12:13 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11669 http://curi.us/comments/show/11669 Anonymous Fallible Ideas Philosophy Overview Videos + Comments
What's he talking about? He used those terms in discussions on the TCS list before that. Like "Re: The Old Covenant" on DEC 21, 1996. He didn't just invent them on-the-fly.]]>
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 18:51:43 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11668 http://curi.us/comments/show/11668
curi Fallible Ideas Philosophy Overview Videos + Comments
> Let's call this lack: *irrationality*. E.g. it is irrational to use astrology, rather than engineering science, to judge the safety of tall buildings.

I think this is a bad example. When Americans today use astrology, there is "anti-rationality" involved!

Anyway DD also writes:

> I have made these definitions just for the purpose of this message

And then went on to write "irrational" many, many times instead of using the definitions. I'd advise using the phrase "lack of rationality" or similar, if you want to be understood that way.

A more interesting part of the post, IMO, is this:

> - Rationality, irrationality and anti-rationality are all *subject-specific*.

What!? No way! There are anti-rational memes with reach instead of being specific to one subject. Which is what I always understood DD to believe, too.]]>
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:55:56 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11667 http://curi.us/comments/show/11667
Anonymous Fallible Ideas Philosophy Overview Videos + Comments Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:24:33 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11666 http://curi.us/comments/show/11666 curi Fallible Ideas Philosophy Overview Videos + Comments Sun, 20 Jan 2019 17:13:02 +0000 http://curi.us/comments/show/11665 http://curi.us/comments/show/11665