That would be another example of things which some EAs do, but which don't yet seem to percolate through to the public-facing parts of the movement. For example, valuing other EAs due to flow-though contradicts Singer's view, as far as I understand him:

Effective altruists do not discount suffering because it occurs far away or in another country or afflicts people of a different race or religion. They agree that the suffering of animals counts too and generally agree that we should not give less consideration to suffering just because the victim is not a member of our species.

I do believe that my comment accurately characterizes the large EA organizations like GiveWell and philosophers like Peter Singer. I do realize that EAs are smart people, and many individual EAs have other beliefs and engage in all sorts of research. For example, some EA are concerned about nuclear war with Russia, and today I discovered the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute and the Global Priorities Project, which are outside of my critique. However, for now, Peter Singer, Give Well, Giving What We Can, and similar approaches are the most emblematic of EA, and it is towards this style of EA that my critique is directed, which I indicated in my previous comment when I said I was addressing "typical" or "median" EA. I believe it is fair to judge EA (as it currently exists) by these dominant approaches.

I disagree with you that I am stereotyping, but I think it's good for me to clarify the scope of my critique, so I am adding a note to my previous comment that links to this comment.

That 80,000 Hours post doesn't contradict my argument at all, and in fact reinforces it. My comment never argued that EAs believe that everyone earned to give, only that they are very confident about their moral claims about what people should do with their money. That post still shows that 80,000 Hours believes that at least 10% of people should earn to give, which is still an incredibly strong ethical claim.

A lot of the post seems to confuse complex strategic moves like GiveWell's move to start by focusing on life saved by proven interventions with the belief that life saved by proven interventions is the most important thing.

Obviously GiveWell cannot show that their interventions are the "most important thing." But GiveWell does claim that that its proven interventions are a sufficiently good thing to justify you spending money on them, and this is an immense moral claim. It's not like GiveWell is a purely informational website.

In the context of the larger EA movement, Peter Singer's philosophy and EA pledges argue with incredible confidence that people should be giving. EA is extremely evangelical, and Singer's philosophy is incredibly flawed and emotionally manipulative.

The problem is that none of the most common EA approaches have defeated the "null giving hypothesis" of spending your money on yourself, or saving it in an investment account and then giving the compounded amount to another cause in the future. If someone is already insisting on giving to charity, then GiveWell might redirect their money in a direction that is actually useful, but EA is also trying to get people involved who were not doing charity before, and its moral arguments and understanding of the world are just not strong enough to justify spending money on the most dominant charitable approaches.

"X is the most efficient birdfeeder on the market" is a different type of claim from "the best birdfeeder on the market is worth spending money on," or "feeding birds is a moral imperative," or "we should pledge to feed birds and evangelize other people to do so, too." My impression is that EAs are getting these kinds of claims mixed up.

EAs might believe that, but that would be an example of their lack of knowledge of humanity and adoption of simplistic progressivism. Human traits for either altruism or accomplishment are not distributed evenly: people vary in clannishness, charity, civic-mindness, corruption, and IQ. It is most likely that differences between people explains why some groups have trouble building functional institutions and meeting their own needs.

Whether basic needs are met doesn't explain why some groups within Europe are so different from each other. Southern Europe and parts of Eastern Europe have extremely low concentrations of charitable organizations. Also, good luck explaining the finding in the post I linked in my previous comment finding that vegetarianism in the US is correlated at 0.68 with English ancestry (but only weakly with European ancestry). Even different groups of white people are really, really different from each other, such as differences between Yankees and Southerners in the US, stemming from differences between settlers from different part of England.

Human groups evolved with geographical separation and selection pressures. For example, the clannishness source I linked show how tons of different outcomes are related to whether groups are inside or outside the Hajnal Line of inbreeding. Different rates of inbreeding will result in different strength of kin selection vs. reciprocal altruism. For example, here is the map of corruption with the Hajnal Line superimposed.

There is no good reason to believe that humans have equal potential for altruism and accomplishment, though there are benefits to signaling this belief.

I think your “mental muscle” analogy is interesting: you are suggesting that exercising mental grievance or ressentiment is unhealthy for relationships, and is part of why men red pill men have an “uphill battle.” You argue that love is incompatible with resentment. You also argue that certain terms “demonstrate” particular unhealthy and resentful mindsets, or lead to “objectification” which is tantamount to not viewing others as people.

I share your concern that some red pill men have toxic attitudes towards women which hamper their relationships. I disagree that language like “sexual access” is sufficient to demonstrate resentment of women, and I explained other reasoning behind that language in my previous comment where I discussed operational sex ratio, polygyny, and other impersonal forces.

My other argument is that views of relationships operate at different levels of explanation. There are least 3 levels: the macro level of society, the local level of your peers and dating pool, and the dyadic level of your interpersonal relationships. Why can’t someone believe that dating is a brutal, unfair, dog-eat-dog competition at the macro or local level, but once they succeed in getting into a relationship, they fall in love and belief in sacrifice, like you want? It’s also possible to have a grievance towards a group of people, like bankers, but still respect your personal banker as a human being.

A metaphor that is useful for understanding the mating market at the societal or local level can be emotionally toxic if you apply it at the dyadic level. If you believe that the current mating market results in some men lacking sexual access at the macro level, that’s a totally correct and neutral description of what happens under a skewed operational sex ratio and polygyny. If you tell your partner “honey, you’ve been denying me sexual access for the past week,” then you’re being an asshole.

In the past, men and women of the past held beliefs about gender roles and sex differences that would be considered scandalously sexist today. It seems implausible that our ancestors didn’t love each other. People are good at compartmentalizing and believing that their partner is special.

Your theory about concepts leading to resentment and resentment being a barrier to relationships could be true, but I think it’s much more likely that you have the causal relationship backwards: it’s mostly loneliness that causes resentment, not the other way around. For instance, in the case of a skewed operational sex ratio, some people are just going to end up single no matter how zen their attitudes are.

Even if there is a risk of alienation from understanding sex differences, and sexual economics, I still think it’s better to try to build an epistemically accurate view of relationships, and then later make peace with any resentment that is a by-product of this understanding.

It seems like the only alternative is to try to mentally avoid any economic, anthropological, or gender-political insight into dating that might cause you to feel resentment: blinkering your epistemic rationality for the instrumentally rational goal of harmonious relationships.

There’s also a genuinely open question of how big sex differences are: if sex differences are smaller than I think, then I’m probably harming my relationships by being too cynical, but if they are larger than I think, then I’m naive and risk finding out the hard way. I really doubt that relationships are the one place where Litany of Tarski doesn't apply.

It sounds like your current relationship attitudes are bringing you success in your relationship and that terms like “objectification” are more helpful to you than “sexual access.” That’s totally fine, but other people have different challenges and are coming from a different place, so I recommend suspending judgment about what concepts their mindsets entail and why they are single. If you believe that toxic attitudes towards women are correlated with their concepts, then that’s plausible, though it’s a different argument.

To go a bit more meta, I would argue that a lot of the resistance towards men developing inconvenient conclusions about sex ratio, polygyny, sex differences, etc… is not because these ideas are necessarily harmful to male-female relationships, but because they are harmful to feminist narratives about male privilege. It is morally reprehensible how feminists use their own grievance-based concepts of “objectification” to reject any macro-level analysis of male-female dynamics that might be unflattering towards women. It’s just far too convenient how sociological, economic, and anthropological arguments that would be acceptable in any other circumstance are dismissed as denying women’s humanity or personhood. I think you should be just as skeptical towards feminist grievance concepts as you are towards red pill grievance concepts.

I liked your description of certain unconventional schools of thought as "tough-minded" and "creative." Tough-minded, creative thought processes will often involve concepts and metaphors that make people uncomfortable, including the people who think them up.

Sometimes, understanding the behavior of large groups of people involves concepts or metaphors that would be unhealthy to apply at the individual level. For instance, you can learn a lot about human behavior by thinking about game theory and the Prisoner's Dilemma. This does not mean that you need to think about other people as "prisoners," or think about your interactions with them as a "game" or as a "dilemma."

I think you probably do have a lot of differences in values from people who are “red-pillers, manosphericals, conservatives, reactionaries, libertarians,” but I think this case is really just about inferential distance on the object-level. Although “sexual access” has potential problematic connotations, it actually accurately describes situations where some people’s dating challenges are so great that they are effectively excluded. I apologize for the length this post will be, but I want to drop down to the object-level for a while to give you sufficient evidence to chew on:

• Demographics: sex ratio and operational sex ratio have a gigantic influence on society. Exhibit A: China has a surplus of men. Exhibit B: The shortage of black men due to imprisonment turns dating upside-down in the black community and causes black women to compete fiercely for black men. Exhibit C: In virtually all US cities (not just the West Coast), there are more single men than women below age 35 (scroll down for the age breakdown or use the sliders). Young men face a level of competition than young women do not.

• If something like 120 men are competing for 100 women, in the system if monogamous, then 20 of those men are going to be excluded from marriage. Yes, in some sense, all 120 have an "opportunity," but we know that under monogamy, 20 of them will be left out in the cold. And under a poly system, the results will be even worse, because humans are more polygynous than polyandrous. When low-status men are guaranteed to lose out in dating and marriage due to an unfavorable sex ratio, then that starts looking like a lack of "access."

• Let's talk about polygyny a bit more. A recent article defended gay marriage from the charge of opening up the door to polygamy:

Here's the problem with it: when a high-status man takes two wives (and one man taking many wives, or polygyny, is almost invariably the real-world pattern), a lower-status man gets no wife. If the high-status man takes three wives, two lower-status men get no wives. And so on.

This competitive, zero-sum dynamic sets off a competition among high-status men to hoard marriage opportunities, which leaves lower-status men out in the cold. Those men, denied access to life's most stabilizing and civilizing institution, are unfairly disadvantaged and often turn to behaviors like crime and violence. The situation is not good for women, either, because it places them in competition with other wives and can reduce them all to satellites of the man.

I'm not just making this up. There's an extensive literature on polygamy.

And there's that word again: "access." The notion of men being shut out of dating under polygyny mating appears in an entirely mainstream and liberal source. There are also concepts like “high-status” and “low-status” males, which feminists would often object to in other contexts.

• Cultural forces: the quality of information about dating for introverted men is so poor that it is actively damaging and has the effect of excluding them from dating. There is also a decline in socialization and institutions around dating. For evidence, it is sufficient to look at the existence of the PUA community. Look at hookup culture on college campuses. In a healthy society, with healthy socialization and a monogamous mating system, we wouldn't even be having this conversation because many of the same men in the manosphere or PUA community would be too busy hanging out with their girlfriends or wives to be complaining on the internet.

• Legal and economic forces: In some Asian countries, women’s minimum expectations for husbands involves buying a house with multiple bedrooms, and only some men can economically afford that; the rest lack access to marriage because they lack the economic prerequisites. In many Western countries, if men get divorced, they can face such punishing child support and alimony burden that they must move to a small apartment (or even end up in debtor’s prison if they can’t pay). These men face steep challenges in attracting future girlfriends and wives due to their economic dispossession.

As I’ve shown at the object level, there are large cultural, demographic, economic, and legal forces that influence how challenging dating is and how people behave. These problems are much larger than asshole men blaming women for not putting out. Lack of “sexual access” is an entirely reasonable way to describe what happens to men under a skewed operational sex ratio or polygyny, though I would be totally fine to try other terms instead. I realize the term isn’t perfect, and that some people who use it might have objectionable beliefs, but if we give into crimestop and guilt-by-association, then we would know a lot less about the world.

On one side, I see people who are high-status, intellectual, and look really nice and empathic and compassionate. Of course my instincts like that. On the other side, I see people who look brave, tough, critical-minded and creative, plus they seem to be far more historically literate, so basically NRx and libertarians and similar folks give me that kind of "inventor" vibe, which incidentally is also something my instincts like.

So, basically, there are two groups of people with grievances. The ingroup is very good at impression management and public relations. The outgroup is bad at impression management, but your gut is telling you that they might be on to something. Yet you are suspicious of some of the outgroup’s arguments, because the ingroup says that the outgroup is just a bunch of “smart assholes,” and because the outgroup’s claims have problematic connotations in the outgroup’s moral framework.

I don’t think your reaction is unreasonable given your vantage point and level of inferential distance from the outgroup. But note that there is a strong incentive for the ingroup to set an incredibly high bar for the moral acceptability of the outgroup’s grievances, so it’s necessary to apply a healthy degree of skepticism to the ingroup’s moral arguments unless you have confirmed them independently.

In some cases, we will have to go to the object-level to discover which group is the “smart assholes” who are confabulating. Of course both groups will try to tar the others’ motives and reputations, but the seeming victor of that conflict will be the group with the best public relations skills, not necessarily the group with the more accurate views.

If your gut is telling you that there is potential truth in the outgroup’s arguments, then don’t let the ingroup’s moral framework shut down your investigation, especially when that investigation has implications for whether the ingroup’s moral framework is any good in the first place. Otherwise, you risk getting stuck in an closed loop of belief. I think the same argument applies to one’s own moral framework, also.

That's Foucault's theory, but Rictor Norton's book I linked to convincingly debunks Foucault as ideological and ahistorical. Quoting an excerpt, here are historical cases of unmarried men going for each other instead of marriage and children:

In between these two extremes of lust and idealism we find a sense of identity based upon ordinary and unremarkable same-sex love. The records of the Inquisition in Spain, Portugal and Brazil; the police archives of early eighteenth-century Paris; the records of the Officers of the Night of sixteenth-century Venice – all clearly document a preponderance of men who were bachelors and who preferred their own sex. Statistical analysis of the particularly full and detailed Florentine records ‘of the marital status of the men incriminated for sodomy from 1478 to 1483 reveals that fully three-fourths of all such men aged nineteen to seventy were unmarried.

These guys sound like they are exclusive, obligate homosexuals.

As for identity, just because the historical labels for queer people were negative, it does not mean that those terms were just externally-imposed slurs, and that homosexual identities did not exist:

In Foucault’s famous statement: ‘Homosexuality appeared as one of the forms of sexuality when it was transposed from the practice of sodomy onto a kind of superior androgyny, a hermaphroditism of the soul. The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species.’ He ludicrously dates this shift to 1870. But the men discussed in the preceding paragraph had a sense of themselves that transcended both ‘the practice of sodomy’ and ‘temporary aberration’. In fact Dutch sodomites in 1734 were described by contemporaries as ‘hermaphrodites in their minds’ (Boon 1989) – an exact match for Foucault’s ‘hermaphroditism of the soul’. The concepts of masculine homosexual women and effeminate homosexual men dominated the premodern world. The homosexual was considered an androgynous species in Aristophanes, in Juvenal, in all the ancient literature about the transgendered priests of Cybele in the ancient and classical world. It was not a modern construct.

The truth is that a homosexual category existed many centuries prior to the nineteenth century. There are literally scores of fifteenth-century Italian authors who portray homosexual characters rather than homosexual incidents (G. Dall’Orto, ‘Italian Renaissance’, EH), and it is a nonsense to label such sodomites ‘temporary aberrations’ rather than members of a species. In real life there is the famous example of self-labelling, the painter Antonio Bazzi (1477–1549) who was proud of his nickname ‘Il Sodoma’. According to his contemporary Vasari ‘he did not take [it] with annoyance or disdain, but rather gloried in it, making jingles and verses on the subject, which he pleasantly sang to the accompaniment of the lute’.

Rictor Norton is a widely published queer historian, his research goes back centuries, and seems very solid. I think we should go with his account and toss Foucault's social constructionism.

Gay historian Rictor Norton vehemently disagrees with the notion that gay identities are recent. Here is his basic position:

• Gay identities have existing for a long time, not just recognition of gay behaviors
• Recent conceptions of homosexuality are politicized, but this does not mean that concepts of homosexuality are new
• The politicization of modern gay politics, combined with poor record-keeping and past suppression, erases the history of gay identities and cultures.

He takes a position against social constructionism:

It is very easy for historians to establish that most of the sexual categories which are supposed to have arisen under modern capitalism in fact existed much earlier. ...

One of the reasons why many contemporary lesbian and gay theorists fail to appreciate that homosexuals existed before 1869 is the politically correct view that terms such as ‘queer’ and ‘faggot’ and ‘queen’ are not nice, and especially since the late 1960s people have endeavoured to use the phrase ‘gay and lesbian’ wherever possible. There are some men who lived before 1869 whom I would feel uneasy at calling ‘gay’ or ‘homophile’, but I would not hesitate to call them queer or even silly old queens. Many of the mollies of the early eighteenth century were undoubtedly queens, whose interests and behaviour are virtually indistinguishable from queens I have known in the early 1960s (and later). ...

‘Queer’ was the word of preference for homosexuals as well as homophobes for the first half of the twentieth century, and of course is being reclaimed today in defiant rather than defensive postures. In English during the eighteenth and most of the nineteenth century the words of preference were ‘molly’ and ‘sapphist’, for which good modern equivalents are ‘queer’ and ‘dyke’. During the seventeenth century and earlier the commonest terms were ‘Sodomite’ and ‘tribade’, for which, again, good modern equivalents are ‘queer’ and ‘dyke’. In ancient and indigenous and premodern cultures there were many terms for which good modern equivalents are ‘queer’ and ‘tomboy’. And the nearest modern equivalent for the nineteenth-century term ‘homosexual’ is: queer. ...

I add my voice to the widespread dissatisfaction with social constructionist thought, that seems to have been based on nothing and to have lead nowhere in the past twenty years. Its initial premises have been constantly reinforced by restatement and incestuous quotation amongst constructionist colleagues rather than supported by scholarly research.

To see more, check out these excerpts from The Myth of the Modern Homosexual.

I think many people would have loved to see a response by Moldbug, and found his response disappointing. My guess is that Moldbug felt that his writings already answered a lot of Scott's objections, or that Scott's approach wasn't fair. And Moldbug isn't the same thing as neoreaction; there were other responses by neoreactionaries to Scott's FAQ.

The FAQ nails neoreaction on a lot of object-related issues, and it has some good philosophical objections. But it doesn't do a good job of showing the object-related issues that neoreaction got right, and it doesn't quite do justice to some ideas, like The Cathedral and demotism. And the North Korea stuff has really easy to anticipate objections from neoreactionaries (like the fact that it was lead by communists).

The FAQ answers the question "what are a bunch of objections to neoreaction?", but it doesn't answer the question "how good a philosophy is neoreaction?" because it only makes a small dent. If you consider the FAQ in conjunction with Neoreactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-sized Nutshell, then you would get a better sense of the big picture of neoreaction, but he doesn't really integrate his arguments across the two essays, which causes an unfortunately misleading impression.

The FAQ put me off getting into neoreaction for a while, but when I did, I was much more impressed than I expected. The only way to get a good sense of what it actually is would be spending a lot of time with it.