= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nykos comments on Rationality Quotes May 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (696)
And yet he wants a pragmatically motivated society.
A man can dream can't he? Note he isn't advocating nonsense as an organizing tool, much of his wackier thought is precisely around trying to make an organizing tool work as good as nonsense does. Unfortunately I don't think he has succeed since in my opinion neocameralism is unlikely to be implemented and likely to blow up if someone did implement it.
Even though his prescription may be lacking (here is some criticism to neocameralism: http://unruled.blogspot.com/2008/06/about-fnargocracy.html ), his description and diagnosis of everything wrong with the world is largely correct. Any possble political solution must begin from Moldbug's diagnosis of all the bad things that come with having Universalism as the most dominant ideology/religion the world has ever experienced.
One example of a bad consequence of Universalism is the delay of the Singularity. If you, for example, want to find out why Jews are more intelligent on average than Blacks, the system will NOT support your work and will even ostracize you for being racist, even though that knowledge might one day prove invaluable to understanding intelligence and building an intelligent machine (and also helping the people who are less fortunate at the genetic lottery). The followers of a religion that holds the Equality of Man as primary tenet will be suppressing any scientific inquiry into what makes us different from one another. Universalism is the reason why common-sense proposals like those of Greg Cochran ( http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/get-smart/ ) will never be official policy. While we don't have the knowledge to create machines of higher intelligence than us, we do know how to create a smarter next generation of human beings. Scientific progress, economic growth and civilization in general are proportional to the number of intelligent people and inversely proportional to the number of not-so-smart people. We need more smart people (at least until we can build smarter machines), so that we all may benefit from the products of their minds.
That seems a little bit simplistic. How many problems have been caused by smart people attempting to implement plans which seem theoretically sound, but fail catastrophically in practice? The not-so-smart people are not inclined to come up with such plans in the first place. In my view, the people inclined to cause the greatest problems are the smart ones who are certain that they are right, particularly when they have the ability to convince other smart people that they are right, even when the empirical evidence does not seem to support their claims.
While people may not agree with me on this, I find the theory of "rational addiction" within contemporary economics to carry many of the hallmarks of this way of thinking. It is mathematically justified using impressively complex models and selective post-hoc definitions of terms and makes a number of empirically unfalsifiable claims. You would have to be fairly intelligent to be persuaded by the mathematical models in the first place, but that doesn't make it right.
basically, my point is: it is better to have to deal with not-so-smart irrational people than it is to deal with intelligent and persuasive people who are not very rational. The problems caused by the former are lesser in scale.
The theory of "rational addiction" seems like an example that for any (consistent) behavior you can find such utility function that this behavior maximizes it. But it does not mean that this is really a human utility function.
For an intelligent and persuasive person it may be a rational (as in: maximizing their utility, such as status or money) choice to produce fashionable nonsense.
True. I guess it's just that the consequences of such actions can often lead to a large amount of negative utility according to my own utility function, which I like to think of as more universalist than egoist. But people who are selfish, rational and intelligent can, of course, cause severe problems (according to the utility functions of others at least). This, I gather, is fairly well understood. That's probably why those characteristics describe the greater proportion of Hollywood villains.
Hollywood villains are gifted people who pathologically neglect their self-deception. With enough self-deception, everyone can be a hero of their own story. I would guess most authors of fashionable nonsense kind of believe what they say. This is why opposing them would be too complicated for a Hollywood script.
Yes! I'm glad that someone is with me on this.
From the Greg Cochran link:
It's worth pointing out that at least part of the opposition to government-run eugenics programs is rational distrust that the government will not corrupt the process. If a country started a program of tax breaks for high-IQ people having children, and perhaps higher taxes for low-IQ people having children, a corrupt government would twist its policies and official IQ-testing agency to actually reward, for example, reproduction among people who vote for [whatever the majority party currently is]. It's a similar rationale to the one against literacy tests for voting: sure, maybe illiterate people can't be informed voters, but trusting the government to decide who's too illiterate to vote leads to perverse incentives.
Absolutely. It would start with: "Everyone (accepted as an expert by our party) agrees that the classical IQ tests developed by psychometric methods are too simple and they don't cover the whole spectrum of human intelligence. Luckily, here is a new improved test developed by our best experts that includes the less mathematical aspects of intelligence, such as having a correct attitude towards insert political topic. Recognizing the superiority of this test to the classical tests already gives you five points!"
Also, governments are notoriously bad at making broad and costly social policies that will only give a return on investment "in a few centuries or less". We're not talking just beyond the next elections, the party, the politicians, even the whole state may not even exist by then.
Not proven. It seems to me that people wildly overdo even the prejudices they have evidence for, so we don't know how much is lost due to excessive prejudice compared to how much is lost due to insufficient prejudice.
I agree and have for some time, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Especially this is I think terribly important:
But currently there is nothing remotely approaching an actionable political plan, so I advocated doing what little good one can despite Cryptocalvinism's iron grasp on the minds of a large fraction of mankind. As Moldbug says Universalism has no consistent relation to reality. A truly horrifying description of reality if it is accurate, since existential risk reduction eventually will become entangled with some ideologically charged issue or taboo.
I wish I could be hopeful but my best estimate is that humanity is facing a no win scenario here.
Another thing I'd like to ask you! What are those bad things in your estimate? Or, rather, what areas are we talking about? Are you mainly concerned with censorship, academic dishonesty, bad prediction-making, other theory-related flaws? Or do you find some concrete policy really awful for those epistemic reasons, like state welfare programs, ideological pressure on illiberal regimes or immigration from poor countries? (I chose those examples because I'm in favor of all three, with caveats.)
I know you're against universal suffrage, but that's more or less meta-level; is there something you really loathe that directly concerns daily life, its quality, comfort and freedoms? Of course, I know about the policy preferences Mencius himself draws from his doctrine, but his beliefs are... idiosyncrasic: e.g. I don't think you'd agree with him that selling oneself and one's future children into slavery should be at all acceptable or tolerated.
That's more than I've managed to get from my reading of him. I get no picture from his writings about what he wants life to be like -- "daily life, its quality, comfort and freedoms " -- under his preferred regime, only about what he doesn't want life to be like under the current regimes.
True, it's in bits and pieces; but see e.g. the Patchwork series and try some other posts at random.
Basically, a good example of his preferences is the "total power, no influence or propaganda" model of Patchwork; in his own words, the Sovereign's government wouldn't censor dissenters because it has nothing to fear from them. Sure, I strongly doubt it would work that way, even with a perfectly rational sovereign (the blog post linked to above provides some decent criticism of that from an anarchist POV). But we nonetheless can conclude that MM would like a comfortable, rich society with liberal mores (although he does all the conservative elderly grumbling about the supposed irresponsibility and flighty behavior of Westerners today [1]) where he wouldn't ever have to worry about tribal power games or such - enforced with an iron fist, for selfish reasons of productivity and public image, and totally un-hypocritical about that.
He's okay with some redistribution of wealth (the sovereign giving money to private charities it finds worthy, which, being driven mainly by altruism, automatically care for everyone better than a disinterested bureaucracy - again, I'm a little skeptical).
Another thing he likes to say is that the capacity for violence within society should be supremely concentrated and overwhelming, and then the rational government supposedly wouldn't have to actually use it.
And then there are the totally contrarian things like his tolerance for indentured servitude on ideological grounds (look up his posts on "pronomianism"), which, along with his less disagreeable opinions, could well stem from his non-neurotypical (I take Konkvistador's word, and my impressions) wiring.
[1] When he repeats some trite age-old bullshit about "declining personal morality" - while cheering for no-holds-barred ruthless utilitarianism - that's when I tolerate him least.
And yet, it's the "Universalist" system that allows Jews to not get exterminated. I think the cognitive and epistemological flaws of "Universalism" kinda makes some people ignore the fact that it's the system that also allows the physical existence of heretics more than any other system in existence ever yet has.
Was (non-Universalist) Nazi Germany more open to accepting Jew-produced science than the "Universalist" West was? Or is the current non-Universalist Arab world more open to such? Were the previous feudal systems better at accepting atheists or Jewish people? Which non-universalist (and non-Jewish) system was actually better than "Universalism" at recognizing Jewish contributions or intelligence, that you would choose to criticize Universalism for being otherwise? Or better at not killing heretics?
Let's keep it simple -- which non-Universalist nation has ever been willing to allow as much relative influence to Jewish people as Universalist systems have?
As for Moldbug's diagnosis, I'm unimpressed with his predictive abilities: he predicted Syria would be safe from revolt, right, because it was cozying up to Iran rather than to America? He has an interesting model of the world but, much like Marxism, I'm not sure Moldbuggery has much predictive capacity.
I agree. In my mind this is its great redeeming feature and the main reason I think I still endorse universalism despite entertaining much of the criticism of it. At the end of the day I still want to live in a Western Social Democracy, just maybe one that has a libertarian (and I know this may sound odd coming from me) real multicultural bent with regards to some issues.
The same is true of the Roman and Byzantine empire. The Caliphate too. Also true of Communist regimes. Many absolute monarchies now that I think about it. Also I'm pretty sure the traditional Indian cast system could keep Jews safe as well.
If Amy Chua is right democracy (a holy word of universalism) may in the long run put market dominant minorities like the Jews more at risk than some alternatives. Introducing democracy and other universalist memes in the Middle East has likely doomed the Christian minorities there for example.
I'm not quite sure why particularly the Jewish people matter so very much to you in this example. I'm sure you aren't searching for the trivial answer (which would be "in any ancient and medieval Jewish state or nation").
If you are using Jews here as an emblem of invoking the horrors of Nazism, can't we at least throw a bone to Gypsy and Polish victims? And since we did that can we now judge Communism by the same standard? Moldbug would say that Communism is just a country getting sick with a particularly bad case of universalism.
The thing is Universalism as it exists now dosen't seem to be stable, the reason one sees all these clever (and I mean clever in the bad, overly complicating, overly contrarian sense of the word) arguing in the late 2000s against "universalism" online is because the comfortable heretic tolerating universalism of the second half of the 20th century seems to be slowly changing into something else. They have no where else to go but online. The economic benefits and comforts for most of its citizens are being dismantled, the space of acceptable opinion seems to be shrinking. As technology, that enables the surveillance of citizens and enforcement of social norms by peers, advances there dosen't seem to be any force really counteracting it. If you transgress, if you are a heretic in the 21st century, you will remain one for your entire life as your name is one google search away from your sin. As mobs organize via social media or apps become more and more a reality, a political reality, how long will such people remain physically safe? How do you explain to the people beating you that you recanted your heresy years ago? Recall how pogroms where usually the affair of angry low class peasants. You don't need the Stasi to eliminate people. The mob can work as well. You don't need a concentration camp when you have the machete. And while modern tech makes the state more powerful since surveillance is easier, it also makes the mob more powerful. Remaining under the, not just legal, but de facto, protection of the state becomes more and more vital. The room for dissent thus shrinks even if stated ideals and norms remain as they where before.
And I don't think they will remain such. While most people carrying universalist memes are wildly optimistic with "information wants to be free" liberty enhancing aspect of it, the fact remains that this new technology seems to have also massively increased the viability and reach of Anarcho-Tyranny.
The personal psychological costs of living up to universalist ideals and internalizing them seem to be rising as well. To illustrate what I mean by this, consider the practical sexual ethics of say Elizabethan England and Victorian England. On the surface and in their stated norms they don't differ much, yet the latter arguably uses up far more resources and a places a greater cognitive burden of socialization on its members to enforce them.
Now consider the various universalist standards of personal behaviour that are normative in 2012 and in 1972. They aren't that different in stated ideals, but the practical costs have arguably risen.
nykos' was the one who used the example of Jewish superior intelligence not getting acknowdged as such by Universalism. My point was that was there have been hardly any non-Universalist systems that could even tolerate Jewish equal participation, let alone acknowledged Ashkenazi superiority.
Thank you, I missed that context. Sorry.
I see no proof of that. What economic benefits and comforts? Sure, real wages in Western countries have stopped growing around the 1970s, but e.g. where welfare programs are being cut following the current crisis, it's certainly not the liberals but economically conservative governments championing the cuts.
I don't understand. Do you mean prestigious norms like "never avoid poor neighbourhoods for your personal safety, because it's supposedly un-egalitarian", or what? What other norms like that exist that are harmful in daily life?
What's happening is, to paraphrase Thacher, that governments are running out of other people's money. Yes, conservative parties are more willing to acknowledge this fact, but liberal parties don't have any viable alternatives and it was their economic policies that lead to this state of affairs.
Hmm? And in places where fiscally conservative parties were at the helm before the crisis? What about them?
The places that are being hardest hit have been ruled by left wing parties for most of the time since at least the 1970s. Also in these places the right wing parties aren't all that right wing.
Are the Scandinavian nations among the ones hit hardest? Or, say, Poland?
You've got to make it more general, that's where it gets interesting! Speaking frankly, from the selfish viewpoint of a typical Western person, the Universalist system has been better than any other system at everything for more than a century, especially at the quality and complexity of life for the average citizen. Of course, Moldbug's adherents would argue that there's no dependency between these two unique, never-before-seen facts of civilization - universalist ideology and an explosive growth in human development for the bottom 90% of society. They'd say that both are symptoms of more rapid and thoroughly supported technological progress than elsewhere.
Let's concede that (although there are reasons to challenge it - see e.g. Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, an early argument that religion morphing into a secular quasi-theocracy is what gave the West its edge). Okay, so if both things are the results of our civilization's unique historical path... then, from an utilitarian POV, the cost of universalism is still easily worth paying! We know of no society that advanced to an industrial and then post-industrial state without universailsm, so it would be in practice impossible to alter any feature of technical and social change to exclude the dominance of universalist ideology but keep the pace of "good" progress. Then, even assuming that universalist ideology is single-handedly responsible for the entirety of the 20th century's wars and mass murder (and other evils), it is still preferable to the accumulated daily misery of the traditional pre-industrial civilization - especially so for everyone who voted "Torture" on "Torture vs Specks"! (I didn't, but here I feel differently, because it's "Horrible torture and murder" vs "Lots and lots of average torture".)
Moldbug isn't arguing we should get rid of some technology and its comfort in order to also get rid of universalism and he certainly does recognize both as major aspects of modernity, no he is saying that precisely technological progress now enables us to get rid of the parasitic aspect of modernity "universalism". One can make a case that since it inflames some biases, it is slowing down technological progress and the benefits it brings. Peter Thiel is arguably concerned precisely by this influence when he talks of a technological slowdown. Universalism not only carries opportunity costs, it has historically often broken out in Luddite strains. Consider for example something like the FDA. Recall what criticism of that institution are often heard on LW, yet aren't these same criticism when consistently applied basically hostile to the Cathedral?
Whether MM is right or wrong what you present seems like a bit of a false dilemma. You certainly are right that we haven't seen societies that advance to a post-industrial or industrial state without at least some influence of universalism but it is hard to deny that we do observe varying degrees of such penetration. Moldbug's idea is that even if we can't use technology to get rid of the memeplex in question by social manoeuvring we can still perhaps find a better trade off by not taking "universalism" so seriously. The vast majority of people, the 90% you invoke, may be significantly better of with a world where every city is Singapore than a world where every city is London.
It is no mystery which of these two is more in line with universalist ideals.
And could you please name those ideals once again? Because it's very confusing.
In the case of Singapore vs. London (implicitly including the governing structure of Britain since London isn't a city state)? A few I can think of straight away:
Democratic decision making. Therapeutic rather than punitive law enforcement. Lenient punishment of crime. Absence of censorship.
Naturally all of these aren't fully realized in London either. Britian dosen't have real free speech, yet it has much more of it than Singapore. Britain has (in my opinion) silly and draconian anti-drug laws, but it dosen't execute people for smuggling drugs. London doesn't have corporal or capital punishment. The parties in Britain are mostly the same class of people, yet at least Cerberus (Lib/Lab/Con) has three heads, you get to vote the one that promises to gnaw at you the least, Singapore is democratic in form only, and it is a very transparent cover. Only one party has a chance of victory, and it has been that way and will remain that way for some time.
Yet despite all these infractions against stated Western ideals, life isn't measurably massively worse in Singapore than in London. And Singapore seems to work better as a multi-ethnic society than London. The world is globalizing, de facto multiculturalism is the destined future of every city from Vladivostok to Santiago so the Davos men tell us. No place like Norway or Japan in our future, but elections where we will see ethnic blocks and identity politics. I don't know about you but I prefer Lee Kuan Yew to that mess of tribal politics. Which city would deal better with a riot? Actually which city is more likely to have a riot? Recall what Lee said in his autobiography and interviews he learned from the 1960s riots. Did it work? It sure looks like it did. Also recall from what Singapore started, and where surrounding Malaysia from which it diverged is today. What is the better model to pull the global south out of poverty? What is the better model to have the worlds people live side by side? Which place will likely be safer, more liveable and more prosperous in 20 years time?
It seems in my eyes that Singapore is clearly winning in such a comparison. Yet clearly it does so precisely by ignoring several universalist ideals. Strangely they didn't seem to have needed to give up iPods and other marvels of modern technology to do it either.
Taboo "worse"!
If by life not being "worse" you mean the annual income or the quality of healthcare or the amount of street crime, maybe it's so. If one values e.g. being able to contribute to a news website without fear of fines or imprisonment (see e.g. Gibson's famous essay where he mentions that releasing information about Singapore's GDP could be punished with death), or not fearing for the life of a friend whom you smoke marijuana with, or being able to think that the government is at least a little bit afraid of you (this not necessarily being real, just a pleasant delusion to entertain, like so many others we can't live without)... in short, if one values the less concrete and material things that speak to our more complex instincts, it's not nearly so one-sided.
That's why I dislike utilitarianism; it says without qualification that a life always weighs the same, whatever psychological climate it is lived in (the differences are obvious as soon as you step off a plane, I think - see Gibson's essay again), and a death always weights the same, whether you're killed randomly by criminals (as in the West) or unjustly and with malice by the government (as in Singapore), et cetera, et cetera... It's, in the end, not very compatible with the things that liberals OR classical conservatives love and hate. Mere safety and prosperity are not the only things a society can strive for.
You seem to have an overly romantic view of criminals if you think they never kill with malice.
Heck when the government doesn't keep them in check criminal gangs operate like mini-governments that are much worse in terms of warm fuzzies then even Singapore.
Yes. But these are incredibly important things to hundreds of millions of people alive today drowning in violence, disease and famine. What do spoiled first world preferences count against such multitudes?
And you know what, I think 70% of people alive today in the West wouldn't in practice much miss a single thing you mention, though they might currently say or think they would.
Yes, and notice that unlike Mubarak and Gaddafi who both (at least partially) cozyed up to America, Assad is still in charge of Syria.
The prediction Moldbug made was "no civil war in Syria"; not that there would be a civil war but Assad would manage to endure it.
Indeed in the post I link to, Mencius Moldbug seemed to be predicting that Qaddafi would endure the civil war too; as Moldbug made said post at a point in time in which the war was turning to Qaddafi's favour, and Moldbug wrongly predicted that the West would not intervene to perform airstrikes.
So what exactly did he predict correctly?
Actually Modlbug's diagnosis does provide decent predictive power: In the West at least Whigh history shall continue. The left shall continue to win nearly all battles over what the stated values and norms of our society should be (at least outside the economic realm).
Naturally Whig history makes the same prediction of itself, but the model it uses to explain itself seems built more for a moral universe than the one we inhabit. Not only that I find the stated narrative of Whig history has some rather glaring flaws. MM's theories win in my mind simply because they seem a explanation of comparable or lower complexity in which I so far haven't found comparably problematic flaws.
After reading that sentence, I expected some rather radical eugenics advocacy. Then I followed that link and saw that all those suggestions (except maybe for cloning, but we can hardly know about that in advance) are really "nice" and inoffensive. Seriously, I think that if even I, who's pretty damn orthodox and brainwashed - a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, as it is - haven't felt a twinge - than you must be overestimating how superstitious and barbaric an educated Universalist is in regards to that problem.
My impression is that we aren't terribly good yet at understanding how traits which involve many genes play out, whether political correctness is involved or not.
That hasn't stopped us from doing incredible feats of artificial selection using phenotype alone. You can work faster and better the more you understand a system on the genetic level, but it's hardly necessary.
Very true. I think most HBD proponents are somewhat overconfident of their conclusions (though most of them seem more likely than not). But what I think he was getting at is that we would have great difficulty acknowledging if it was so and that any scientist that wanted to study this is in a very rough spot.
Unlike say promotion of the concept of human caused climate change which has the support of at least the educated classes, it may be impossible for our society to assimilate such information. It seems more likely that they would rather discredit genetics as a whole or perhaps psychometry or claim the scientists are faking this information because of nefarious motives. This suggest there exists a set of scientific knowledge that our society is unwilling or incapable of assimilating and using in a manner one would expect from a sane civilization.
We don't know what we don't know, we do know we simply refuse to know some things. How strong might our refusal be for some elements of the set? What if we end up killing our civilization because of such a failure? Or just waste lives?
I don't know if you could get away with studying the sort of thing you're describing if you framed it as "people who are good at IQ tests" or "people who have notable achievements", rather than aiming directly at ethnic/racial differences. After all, the genes and environment are expressed in individuals.
It's conceivable but unlikely that the human race is at risk because that one question isn't addressed.
I think I didn't do a good job of writing the previous post. I was trying to say that regardless what the truth is on that one question (and I am uncertain on it, more so than a few months ago), it demonstrates there are questions we as a society can't deal with.
I wasn't saying that not understanding the genetic basis of intelligence is a civilization killer (I didn't mention species extinction, though that is possible as well), which in itself is plausible if various people warning about dysgenics are correct, but that future such questions may be.
I argued that since reality is entangled and our ideology has no consistent relationship with reality we will keep hitting on more and more questions of this kind (ones that our society can't assimilate) and that knowing the answer to some such questions may turn out to be important for future survival.
A good hypothetical example is a very good theory on the sociology of groups or ethics that makes usable testable predictions, perhaps providing a new perspective on politics, religion and ideology or challenging our interpretation of history. It would be directly relevant to FAI yet it would make some predictions that people will refuse to believe because of tribal affiliation or because it is emotionally too straining.
I think this statement is too strong. Our ideology doesn't have a 100% consistent relationship with reality, true, but that's not the same as 0%.
What, sort of like Hari Seldon's psychohistory ? Regardless of whether our society can absorb it or not, is such a thing even possible ? It may well be that group behavior is ultimately so chaotic that predicting it with that level of fidelity will always be computationally prohibitive (unless someone builds an Oracle AI, that is). I'm not claiming that this is the case (since I'm not a sociologist), but I do think you're setting the bar rather high.
Sorry-- species extinction was my hallucination.
Dysgenics is an interesting question-- what do we need to be adapting to?
There's an important question here: WHY do you think people dislike that so much that they're willing to subvert entire fields of knowledge to censor those inquiries? Please ponder that carefully and answer without any mind-killed screeds, ok?
(I'm not accusing you in advance, it's just that I've read about enough such hostile denunciations from the "Internet right" who literally say that "Universalists/The Left/whoever" simply Hate Truth and like to screw with decent society. Oh, and the "Men's Rights" crowd often suggests that those who fear inequality like that just exhibit pathetic weak woman-like thinking that mirrors their despicable lack of masculinity in other areas. And Cthulhu help you if you are actually a woman who thinks like that! Damn, I can't stand those dickheads.)
Of course, I'd like others here to also provide their perspective on probable reasons for such behavior! Don't pull any punches; if it just overwhelmingly looks like people with my beliefs are underdeveloped mentally and somewhat insane, I'll swallow that - but avoid pettiness, please.