= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
seer comments on Towards a theory of nerds... who suffer. - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (115)
Entryism isn't new it's been around for at least a century (possibly longer):
Look at what entyism did to non-speculative fiction (or the visual arts) in the western world.
That's your problem right there. What do you mean by "bigot"? Do you even have a coherent definition for that word, since in practice it means whatever the SJW's say it does.
IMHO real bigotry is largely understood as trying to either increase one's status or feel better about one's status by undermining the status of others. A classic example is when people use excuses like "not enabling unhealthy habits" to be a huge prick to fat people online, largely to feel better about oneself comparatively. This is obviously a facade, "haha look at that hippo" is not really about worrying about the health of others but more like "I am better, I may be unemployed and single, but at least thinner". Sometimes it is about real status - using discrimination to undermine competition. I think it is not hard to understand.
For example, my non-bigotry about gays is plain simply not having the slightest interest in them their either way, not spending a second of my time on them. Let them marry a car for all I care or adopt an ox, it is no skin off my back. I am selfish enough to not be hateful - means, largely focusing on what I want, not really being much interested in loving or hating people who don't really have anything I want. And I don't need to crutch up my masculinity by calling some else a sissy. I am fairly certain in it anyway. With women, it is largely trying to evaluate coworkers etc. by their actual individual merits or faults. I don't need generalized heuristics. I don't to wonder about theories whether women in general make good leaders. I can just give a temporary leadership to every individual for two weeks and try them out. And in relationships I don't try some kind of exactly measured equality, I am not ideological, but I am simply trying to pay attention to the desires and views of my partner and not dismissing them thinking it is just woman-talk. That is all really, I consider it common sense, not ideology.
Non-speculative fiction: I am confused, isn't Ludlum, Clancy etc. actually kinda borderline conservative?
Visual arts: another name for bullshit, yeah, but I think they did not get ideologized, they got simply colonized by talentless self-congratulating snobbery of artists who could not draw a fruit bowl accurately.
This is a useless definition. Since status is more-or-less zero sum this means that anyone trying to increase his status is being a bigot. In practice of course, this definition is applied selectively, i.e., you're not a bigot if you're raising your status in an SJW-approved way or a member of an SJW-approved group.
For example, isn't the above sentence technically bigoted by your definition since you're raising your status by lowering the status of people who engage in "fat shaming"?
I meant high-brow fiction, e.g., Finnegan's Wake.
It was ideologically while the takeover was happening, i.e., in the first half of the 20th century. A lot of modern artists justified they're "art" by arguing how they were rebelling against bourgeoisie respectability.
I think the main issue is assuming that outside SJW groups nobody cares about things like bigotry, homophobia or sexism. I think they do - in obviously lower-profile, less incisive, less loud, unfortunately less noticable ways. But more functional and saner ways.
I agree that my definition of this later may not be very good, because ultimately it is not really an ideology outside that, just a sort of a common sense and common decency which is hard to nail down exactly.
One thing is certainly style and manners. I used the fat-shamer group as an example because the basic philosophy does not come accross as very wrong ("don't enable unhealthy habits by uncritically approving them") yet the style is both abrasive and puerile at the same time.
One weird thing I recently realized that 2-3 generations ago people may have had worse ethics, but better manners. For example a lot of people were racists but less obvious ways than today because they were still able to talk with POC in a polite way. They would not let their kids harass POC kids because in their mind being born so was something sort of a disability and a "well bred" kid would not harass e.g. people who were born blind either, right? At least not in 1950 or so.
So, weirdly enough, I think a large part of non-SJW non-bigotry is not even ethics but just resisting the poor manners of these times, just the common old-fashioned idea to not insult and offend people if you can avoid it. Terms like "tact" that somehow went out of fashion.
There is one other aspect I could identify. One, trying to treat people as individuals, not representatives of groups. In this sense, non-SJW non-bigotry is actually centrist, because both extremes seem to not do it, some folks dismiss the views of women in STEM, while SJWs dismiss the views of white straight men in politics. So this centrist attitude is simply giving everybody a chance or two to prove themselves as individuals. I would say, it is working from an experience of plenty - an attitude that things are not so hurried, time is not so expensive as to have to resort to prejudices, essentially heuristics, when individual "tests" can be used.
What do you mean by "just a sort of a common sense and common decency"? You yourself later admit that until extremely recently no one considered these ideas to be "common sense". What you are thinking of as "a common sense and common decency" is nothing more then SJW (and their predecessors') memes that you've acquired by osmosis.
What on earth are you talking about? You appear to have no idea either what the USA was like in the 1950's or what it's like now. The above statement has so little relation to reality I don't even know where to start. Really, you might want to look for sources of news about what's going on in other countries that don't have an absurd level of "left-wing/SJW" bias.
Except the groups people are members of is correlated with their properties as individuals. Thus, someone who treated people based on merit would still wind up treating members of different groups differently.
What evidence convinced you of this? That they oppose "women in STEM" initiatives? That they wind up hiring fewer women then men and when asked to justify this point out sex differences?
The former would seem to be the kind of opposition to "treating people as members of groups" that you seem to condone, the latter is a consequence of the kind hiring people based on merit you also claim to approve of. (Incidentally here is another case where it is useful to have true, as opposed to "non-sexist", beliefs in order to see what's going on.)
How are tests any less heuristics than what you dismiss as "prejudices"? For example, why aren't tests bigoted for treating people as members of the groups "passed" and "failed" rather than individuals?
But a large aspect of it is actually very old. Look at how a gentleman talks to a lady in any old movie. Politely etc. Or in novels from the 19th century. Monte-Cristo, whatever. Concepts like tact, polite and gentle behavior, and taking other people's feelings into account stems from much older times than SJW stuff. Imagine an old novel or movie hero like Monte-Crisot meeting a gay person. Likely he has a very, very negative opinion of it but he still does not go "lol look at the faggot, did you suck many dicks today lol" because that 4chan level behavior is not allowed to an old fashioned gentleman. Most likely he keeps a stiff upper lip, discusses the weather politely and does not say anything directly at all, although later on he may whisper in his friends eye "the Viscount is apparently practicing unspeakably unnatural vices".
I am still fairly "well bred", not on that 19th century level, but I was taught to be polite way before I ever heard about any other left wing or progressive idea than socialism. And I don't understand the confusion here. What are we even talking about? Isn't it obvious that for example Vox Day has the kinds of manners and style any people who were raised to be polite in a conservative family who never subscribed to progressive ideas still find repulsive? I am confused what is even the issue here.
The other way around. I am not from Internet Default Country (I actually hate the defaultism) and probably this is why we may have a misunderstanding of manners. Recently America got overally poor manners, e.g. calling places people eat burgers with their hands, not using utensils, still "restaurants". But I think this was not always so. William F. Buckley Jr. had acceptable gentleman manners to my standards, i.e. my parents could invite him over dinner and he would fit in. Would Buckley be anything but polite to minorities? Would he let his kids go all 4chan on POC kids? Contemplate this please.
That is theoretically acceptable - he is not treating groups a such at all, just individuals. In practice this is not an issue because there are early filter. If blue people have 30% lower IQ than green people, and to graduate from a university takes 110 and your job requirement is 110, every blue and green graduate has an equal chance at you: because of the university pre-filtering.
Excuse me? You have a team of 3 women 2 men. Instead of going "well women don't make good leaders" you can test every member as a temp leader for 2 weeks. How is that not better?
Now you got me thinking. I don't actually condone of the treating people as members of groups, I think if I was I would just join the SJWs :) Individuals it is. However, my biases of evaluating individuals are influenced by prejudice, and prejudice is one of the many things that affects the behavior of other individuals, like, internalizing it and so on. This simply means that you examine some individuals more carefully than others. Again I find it common sense and not ideology.
Our boxing trainer is a refugee from Kosovo, a hugely conservative society with zero SJW influence. Yet he does this instinctively, because it makes sense. Some big muscular 28 years old guy comes for the first training, T oozing out his ears, he quickly gets he is probably feels okay with all this and will not be very bad at it, so he does not need to invest much attention into him, just go through the routine training. Some meek and timid 14 years old girl comes for the first training, he invests a lot of attention, because he needs to figure out she is really clumsy or just needing encouraging, and similar things. She is in an environment that feels hostile for her due to gender roles and all that, she needs more investment to get up to speed. Does this feel like SJW ideology to you? To me it is such a common sense thing...
Those are two very different social registers. 4chan/8chan is the analogue of what people say in say a wild west saloon. (Keep in mind most westerns you saw cleaned up the language to be kid-friendly).
Outside of the chans there is very little overt "bigotry" in America. Heck careers have been ended because someone said something the could be interpreted as "racist/sexist/etc." if you squinted enough.
Except universities aren't actually doing this pre-filtering. Also, what if your job requires 120?
1) Would you mind actually answering my question.
2) Assuming you mean that trying people out for 2 weeks gives you more data then just the gender, I agree. Of course, it also takes 2 weeks per person and you might have problems under some of the less competent test-leaders, not to mention potential for drama.
In particular, he's using all the information available to him, including gender, in determining how to treat the person. This is what I'm advocating. Of course if he leads her to believe she'll ever be as strong as the typical man, that's borderline fraud and I wouldn't approve.
In another thread you mentioned that merely knowing how race and sex correlated with other important characteristics constituted being a bigot. Here you seem to be trying to back-paddle.
Since I am trying honestly, I probably did not understand your question fully. I suspect a methodology / epistemology issue here?
I am vary of statistical decision making when it comes to judging individuals. I would use them for judging things. For example many heuristics predict my marriage is not supposed to be working and yet it does. The reason is that we are not typical people. Atypical people cluster and this why groups of atypical people generate a statistics-distorting gravity field :) I think if I posted a job ad about a LISP programming job, that would such attract such atypical people that all statistics would be near useless. Now, posting a job ab about a bartender job, they would be way more useful. Let's just say I am not very interested in typical people and what they do. So if statistics works for evaluating them, great, but not interested.
Watching purplepilldebate.reddit.com gives me precisely this impression. The RP side is largely about "how to be attractive for statistically typical women" while the BP side is "we are atypical, stop generalizing over us".
That is obvoiously a good idea. However the point is, gender info is like 10-20% of the picture, and actually empirical individual features like being clumsy at the sandbag make up 80-90%. My point is simply suspending judgement until the most of the information available is individualized. "Prejudice" IMHO literally means "too fast judgement, not waiting for the individual data to roll in".
Taken literally the above sentence is anti-rational nonsense.
Great, another Special Snowflake(tm).
What do you mean by that. That it's impossible to do statistics on the people who show up for a job ad about LISP programing? Hint: "using statistics" =/= "assume everyone is average".
And yet the Red Pillers have more success then the Blue Pillers. Furthermore, people routinely overestimate their "specialness". Something like 75% of people believe themselves to be above average intelligence. What I suspect the Blue Pillers are really objecting to is that people are using the outside view on them.
That's what the word originally meant, but that's not how it's used today. Today "prejudice" is the proverbial reason what police arrest blacks at a higher rate then whites. The fact that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate then whites is considered one of those "statistical" things you aren't supposed to apply to people.
I think you are turning a bit hostile now and not being as constructive as before. Please try to do it again, you will rarely get with your kinds of views a debate partner who is disagreeing and yet non-dismissive, so I may be kinda useful for you.
Yes, there are "special snowflakes" and statistics about average people are poor predictors of them. In fact the very fact you are here at LW instead of upvoting pictures of cute cats on Reddit makes you a bit special, too.
Special snowflakery is an expected and rational outcome if we take the Maslow pyramid seriously (I not always, not sure if it is well evidenced, but it is so accepted that I will use it now) and see the last 50 or so years in rich countries as collectively moving up on it. A "collapse" could kick people down to the lowest level of it, but as of currently, more and more people travelled to the self-actualization peak (or esteem subpeak) and yes, it made them different.
So due to this societal pyramid-climbing, there are more atypical people now than a few decades before.
Interesting anecdotal evidence: I remember when everybody was a "rocker" or "raver" in Mitteleuropa. Now it seems people are into this band or that band, building up an individually customized musical taste, not joining one "army" or other.
Customized stats are perfectly right, if they are done at all - but that is my point. "Prejudice" is usually average stats, uncustomized.
I suspect people who spend too much time complaining on Reddit about women are probably not that successful: the succesful ones must be the "silent" ones who learn the methods but do not waste much time about this online bitterness-fest. In fact, besides the time wasted, I suspect bitterness alone must be a success-inhibitor. Specific example:I have the impression that while Vox Day's bio shows all the high-status checkmarks and he looks handsome, he is simply too bitter to be an efficient seducer. I don't think a startpoint of resentment can efficiently start something that is supposed to evolve into something like romantic love. Finally, I would say, success means getting what you want, and I think the BP side simply does not want loveless and trustless, selfish, transactional relationships at all. If my marriage was a bargain instead of a strong "alliance for life" for mutual help when one of us is down, I would rather be alone. In other words, I have zero interest in selfish women while RP is optimized precisely on them - in fact, they are even saying only selfish ones exist, but I think they mainly think so because they are selfish men and these two types tend to find each other.
Note: I mean selfish in the sense of "going for a narrow range of short-term visceral benefits", I don't mean in the sense of expecting any benefit at all, in that sense everybody is selfish: nobody starts a romantic relationship out of pure pity.
Unselfishness is understood as broad range of longer-term conscious benefits, something sort of a precommitment (called marriage vow actually) "I would not let you suffer in loneliness if you would ever become disabled, disfigured or whatever, and expect the same". At the end of the day, I mean by unselfishness the mutual acceptance of weakness, bad luck, faults and generally unsexy qualities, now or potentially in the future, and thus not expecting lust to be always generated and fulfilled. Selfishness, from this angle, seems a lot like overconfidence/hubris: I will always be perfectly desirable/lustable and I expect my partner to do the same.
I know this sounds like an unusual definition of these terms, but just look at e.g. how children are raised: when kids who share cookies are praised for being unselfish, they are effectively trained to value the broader, long-term, conscious benefit of approval and popularity over the short-term, narrow, visceral benefit of MOAR sugar high.
Absolutely agreed. But I don't think it is bad if you are sure you are atypical enough, the important part is "roughly similar previous cases". Roughly similar. As long as you have reasons to think the outside view is based on NOT roughly similar cases, you are good.
Epistemologically, similarity means similar causal factors. This is why all this evidence-based forecasting (this all came from Joel Spolsky) seems a bit bogus: if you know the important causal factors, you may as well quantify their effect directly, if you don't, you don't know if it is similar or not. Spolsky invented evidence-based forecasting of software project deadlines to be based on the mis-estimates of the same team of programmers working on similar problems. This is IMHO the major difference. It was never about the mis-estimates of other people. Who are the actual people in question totally matters.
To put it differently, evidence-based forecasting or the outside view works for you if you look at your past 10 relationships and see why they ended or what the issue was, but you cannot randomly choose 10 people and assume their lessons apply to you.
The outside view is especially nefarious in PPD because what I see is a bunch of selfish (as defined above) people insisting that a bunch of unselfish people are totally like them. This reminds of me of religious people insisting that atheism is only a different religion or racists insisting anti-racist means anti-white: the inability to understand that the other group is truly different: that is why they are different group.
In fact, originally one of the reason programming companies were so bad at forecasting (which created the demand for this) is that they used the outside view of "brick-laying", trying to forecast like a construction project after the blueprints are closed - with catastrophic results see The Mythical Man-Month.
Today = left-wing extremes I care little about and probably you should, too.
This is part of a very complicated set of issues. Note that although almost all drugs (with the notable exception of crack) are used more frequently by whites than blacks according to anonymous surveys. See for example data here. But blacks are more likely to be arrested for drug offenses than whites. The entire racial crime issue is really complicated. I recommend reading Yvain's piece on race and the judicial system. Any simple explanation of what is going on really doesn't easily meet all the facts.