Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: jenlog 26 November 2014 03:52:37AM *  3 points [-]

Today I read a post by Bryan Caplan aimed toward effective altruists:

Question: How hard would it be to set up a cost-effective charity to help sponsor the global poor for immigration to Argentina? Responses from GiveWell, the broader Effective Altruism community, and Argentina experts are especially welcome.

For context, Argentina essentially allows immigration by anybody who can get an employer to sponsor them.

Comment author: bramflakes 26 November 2014 01:29:33PM 5 points [-]

what could a faltering, medium-trust country like argentina need more than millions of poor, low-trust immigrants

Comment author: someonewrongonthenet 21 November 2014 07:48:51AM *  4 points [-]

1) People who think a lot and generally care about logical consistency, trending towards high IQ

2) who also have sufficiently understanding of parsimony that God, etc, is just totally out of the question

3) and who generally adapt well to technological advance, often being the people whose intellects are drive it forward

4) who don't base moral judgements off of strong emotional response to things that are "weird", like odd sexualities or profanity, or "threatening", like enemy combatants or opposing ideologies.

5) who have a degree of detachment from their particular situations, and wouldn't vastly put the importance of themselves, their family, or their nation above others. It's okay if they do so in small ways in personal life, but they should be cognizant of the whole universal brotherhood of mankind thing and generally see morality and kindness as something that should be applied to people relatively equally.

So a NRx-Lefty of this tribe believes these things, but also thinks an authoritarian, heirarchical society is the best way to achieve these values. So, people who fall into the tribe and are members of the cognitive elite will sort of rule over everyone else, using military force and propaganda and all that other stuff to achieve these values. They still care about outsiders, but they care in a very paternalistic sense and won't hesitate to override people's stated preferences in favor of what the NRx-Lefty extrapolates their preferences to actually be, since savages don't really know what they want or understand anything.

The bulk of the actual NRx movement would be considered enemies, savages, or subversives within this empire, because they tend to fail steps 4 and 5. Within the empire, it's "okay" to be a human-biodiversity-advocate in the same sense that it's okay to think that people with myopia are smarter and consider that a largely irrelevant fact because we have actual IQ tests that we can use to separate people with with much greater accuracy, but it's not okay in a moral sense to be a particularist who thinks your race should be defended. (Ideological particularism, is, of course, encouraged if it's generally in the Cathedral's favor.)

(Once again, describing, not condoning, an idea.)

Comment author: bramflakes 23 November 2014 08:32:01PM 0 points [-]

Sounds like the mid-late stage British Empire to me.

Comment author: ChristianKl 20 November 2014 06:50:37PM 3 points [-]

History teacher once claimed that war was nonexistent in pre-agriculture societies due to it being economically unsustainable

That depends a bit on how you define war. Simply ambushing the neighboring tribe and killing all males isn't war in the traditional sense. It doesn't drag on.

Comment author: bramflakes 20 November 2014 07:32:03PM 6 points [-]

Well there are lots of longrunning feuds and conflicts in hunter gatherer societies, where both tribes are about evenly matched for each other.

Comment author: nydwracu 20 November 2014 04:29:27AM 9 points [-]

I think I could call myself a neoreactionary if the meta-principles were applied without the object-level principles.

The meta-principles apply to the object-level principles, but I don't think it's possible to figure that out from Moldbug alone. I'll try to provide the details if anyone wants them, but the general idea is that your tribe's values have been shaped by institutional constraints -- your predecessors had the goal of capturing power and the spoils thereof, and made whatever arguments were useful toward that goal, and now you actually believe all of those things.

I don't think this is a complete picture. I haven't had the time to investigate this as much as I would like, but I suspect that there's also some ideological inheritance from the self-justifications of the later stages of the British Empire. (Macaulay. Idea of Progress.) It's possible to come up with an explanation of your tribe's imperialistic tendencies without drawing on this, but I doubt that omission can be genealogically justified.

our homogenized monoculture

...and yes, your tribe does have imperialistic tendencies. What homogenized monoculture? There are many reasons I don't and can't call myself a neoreactionary, but I completely agree with them here: your people should not live under the same government as mine. You have never had a homogenized monoculture, and you never will until New England is no longer part of the United States.

I keep encountering mindsets like this among your tribe: my people don't exist as long as you don't have to remember us, and when you do, we're aberrations who need to be wiped from the face of the earth. (I have in fact heard Yankees advocate the genocide of my people. Yes, I do mean genocide. In the most literal possible sense.)

I also agree with neoreactionaries about Woodrow Wilson and FDR -- if German hadn't been wiped out in this country, we'd be behind a language barrier from you. (For certain values of 'we' that include me and exclude most of 'us' -- there's not that much kraut blood in the South. But my grandmother spoke it fluently, and I think natively, and the other side of my family is from what used to be a German-speaking area. Oh well.)

Comment author: bramflakes 20 November 2014 02:15:52PM 2 points [-]

Wait, what is your tribe?

Comment author: bramflakes 19 November 2014 11:44:02PM 17 points [-]

I read about HBD first and then NRx second. I couldn't have a sensible conversation about it with anybody I knew due to the prevailing progressive memeplex - for example, my History teacher once claimed that war was nonexistent in pre-agriculture societies due to it being economically unsustainable (I just about managed to avoid giving myself a concussion from slamming my head on the table). I knew cracks were appearing in the Narrative after I read the Blank Slate, and I knew I had to jettison it entirely once I finished The Bell Curve.

But what to replace it with? Mainstream conservatism was as clueless as progressivism, and while individual libertarians might have had the right mindset to discuss the issue if you framed it the right way, their answers were unsatisfying. Then one day, someone on LW linked to Moldbug - and here suddenly was a whole other narrative that made a lot more sense. It wasn't about HBD as such, but an account of the Progressive idea machine that explained why it was so taboo. I toyed with some of the weirder aspects for a while (Patchwork and Corporate Governance) but eventually gave them up for similar reasons to libertarianism (in a word: too spergy).

I wouldn't call myself a Neoreactionary. My beliefs are somewhere in between paleocon and the Traditionalist branch of NRx. In an entirely separate part of my brain there's also an active transhumanist who is annoyed that this contrarian upstart is getting all the cognitive attention, and Annisimov's early post about transhumanist/NRx synthesis hasn't properly bridged the gap. I don't know what I'll believe in a year or two.

Comment author: advancedatheist 18 November 2014 04:35:46AM *  -3 points [-]

I keep wondering when the cryonics community will attract the attention of female social justice warriors (SJW's) because of the perception that wealthy white guys dominate cryonics, even though plenty of middle class men have signed up for cryopreservation as well by using life insurance as the funding mechanism. The stereotype should push the SJW's buttons about inequality, patriarchy and the lack of diversity.

Instead these sorts of women have ignored cryonics so far instead of trying to meddle with it to transform it according to their standards of "social justice." If anything, cryonics acts like "female Kryptonite."

I've also noticed the absence of another sort of women, namely adventuresses. If people believe that lonely white guys with money sign up for cryonics, you would expect to see more young, reasonably attractive women showing up at public gatherings of cryonicists to try to find men they can exploit for a share of the wealth.

So what kind of tipping point in the public's view of cryonics would have to happen to make SJW's and adventuresses notice cryonics as a field for social activism or financial exploitation?

Comment author: bramflakes 18 November 2014 12:49:27PM *  11 points [-]

I think you'd get replies if you didn't pepper it so much with needless political tribal signaling. We get it; you read Steve Sailer.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 06 November 2014 11:37:25PM 1 point [-]

The human ability to adapt to changing circumstances is high. And especially the ancestral environment allowed little to do about such things. Clearly exhibiting such 'failures' (and calling for help constitutes this) probably reduced your reproductive fitness (I can't give references for this but I vaguely remember that birds show outward signs of illness only prior to it being deadly).

Comment author: bramflakes 07 November 2014 01:54:15PM *  2 points [-]

This hypothesis makes some interesting predictions, such as being more willing to display failures to close family than to extended family - if the problem is due to an infectious disease then alerting your close relatives will increase your inclusive fitness more because they can shield themselves from you, while the benefits to displaying it to extended family will be less likely to outweigh the downside of shunning.

Comment author: Tyrrell_McAllister 01 November 2014 05:48:48PM *  1 point [-]

Why bring time into this?

I'm not sure that I understand the question. The post started out being about time. Time wasn't "brought into it".

Intuitions 1 and 2 collide in the same way regardless of whether the two mind-states are causally connected. [...] How does B-theory solve this problem?

I think you're right that the intuitions collide regardless. In my experience, B-theorists reject Intuition 1. B-theorists incline to say that you are a temporally extended object, and that your present awareness is just one time-slice of this 4D object. That is, they allow that you contain, within your 4D extension, several self-aware parts that are not aware of one another. Two such self-aware parts are you-today and you-tomorrow.

(Here, I'm using "aware" to refer to the kind of immediate awareness that you have of your current experiences. Normally, even the most vivid memories lack this sense of immediateness and so are easily distinguished from present experience.)

Comment author: bramflakes 01 November 2014 09:07:37PM 1 point [-]

B-theorists incline to say that you are a temporally extended object, and that your present awareness is just one time-slice of this 4D object. That is, they allow that you contain, within your 4D extension, several self-aware parts that are not aware of one another. Two such self-aware parts are you-today and you-tomorrow.

I'm an A-ist and that's what I think. I don't see how it's incompatible with A-ism.

Comment author: bramflakes 01 November 2014 01:25:12AM *  3 points [-]

I had to re-read this several times before I understood the point of what you were saying. It has a lot of important things missing, in particular:

Why bring time into this? Intuitions 1 and 2 collide in the same way regardless of whether the two mind-states are causally connected (e.g. I'd still feel that a sufficiently-similar-to-me simulation in some place outside my light cone is still me, somehow, even though I don't have any of his qualia).

How does B-theory solve this problem?

Comment author: Thomas 27 October 2014 09:59:57AM 4 points [-]

Where are you right, while most others are wrong? Including people on LW!

Comment author: bramflakes 27 October 2014 07:53:59PM 14 points [-]

My thoughts on the following are rather disorganized and I've been meaning to collate them into a post for quite some time but here goes:

Discussions of morality and ethics in the LW-sphere overwhelmingly tend to short-circuit to naive harm-based consequentialist morality. When pressed I think most will state a far-mode meta-ethical version that acknowledges other facets of human morality (disgust, purity, fairness etc) that would get wrapped up into a standardized utilon currency (I believe CEV is meant to do this?) but when it comes to actual policy (EA) there is too much focus on optimizing what we can measure (lives saved in africa) instead of what would actually satisfy people. The drunken moral philosopher looking under the lamppost for his keys because that's where the light is. I also think there's a more-or-less unstated assumption that considerations other than Harm are low-status.

View more: Next