Applications for the next round of High Impact Professional's Impact Accelerator Program (IAP) are open.
The IAP is a free, cause area agnostic, 6-week program designed to equip experienced (mid-career/senior) impact-focused professionals not currently working at a high-impact organization with the knowledge and tools necessary to make a meaningful impact and empower them to start taking actionable steps right away.
✅ The IAP is set up to help participants:
- identify paths to impact,
- take concrete, impactful actions, and
- join a network of like-minded, experienced, and supportive impact-focused professionals.
- Program duration: 6 weeks (week of February 10, 2025 – week of March 17, 2025)
If you have questions about the IAP or just want to know more about the program, please check the following resources:
(1) 👉 Attend one of our informational webinars featuring an introduction to the IAP and a Q&A session – we’ll have 2 webinar sessions to accommodate as many time zones as we can, so please join the one that suits your schedule best
❓ We aim to address as many questions as possible in the webinar sessions – Please send us your questions about the IAP via this form: https://bit.ly/3Zjv1nB
(2) See the IAP page for general information and the FAQ section on that page for answers to common questions: https://bit.ly/498iBkm
What's the best steelman for still broadly supporting the Left when you know about IQ research?
I feel like the Left's blank slatism (and Inquisition-like enforcement of it) undermines so many of its positions and basically makes everything they try to argue for insane. But I also think it's possible that I'm exaggerating how much this is actually a problem, especially relative to the other side's issues, just because it leaves a bitter taste emotionally in my mouth and feels more intellectually "treacherous" coming from the seemingly more intellectual half of the spectrum.
I haven't ever identified as a conservative but I want to see if someone has a good reason to why I'm exaggerating how much this actually matters (that isn't just denying IQ research, because like, I know a ton about it, and I don't think the denials are going to work haha)
Particularly in countries like ours with a two-party system, you're stuck deciding whether basket A or basket B is worse. Believing Basket B is worse doesn't mean you support everything in basket A.
Say you believe that mean IQ differs across human populations for reasons that are at least partially genetic. You can still believe that, to take some popular left-leaning causes:
-Inequality between groups or individuals (or both!) is excessive, and redistribution is necessary. In fact, if there's a genetic component, it lessens the moral culpability of the poor for their state.
-People should be able to form unions, both idealistically as a matter of human autonomy and pragmatically as a method of lessening the power gap between the working and capitalist classes.
-The government should support childcare to allow women (or whichever parent takes care of the kids) to participate fully in the workforce.
-Abortion rights are an important aspect of self-determination and should be supported.
-Humans have a right to free movement and borders should not be closed.
-Humans have a right to self-determination that includes gender identity and the government should respect that.
-Global climate change is a danger to humanity and needs aggressive action, even at the cost of limiting economic freedom or decreasing GDP.
-Even if human groups differ by mean intelligence, that doesn't necessarily mean they differ in human rights, so things like racism are still a concern.
Any of these might make you side with a leftist or liberal party.
Let's say we find out that certain ethnic groups have lower or higher average intelligence from genetic circumstances. How should this change policy? My opinion is _not at all_, since everything should still be based on the _individual_.
Well, the catch is most humans are tribal, and if one race would be disproportionately taking the welfare it'll eat away at support for it. (How much this had to do with the history of the American South in our particular case I don't know.) I think this is part of what was motivating the left at least in the 60s-90s, though they now seem to treat the underlying equality as an article of faith.
Ask a leftist. My theory of mind isn't quite that good. My impression is social/cultural can be changed so supports their program, genetic can't so can't be true, but while I live among them I'm not really one and avoid discussing this stuff for obvious reasons.
> In fact, if there's a genetic component, it lessens the moral culpability of the poor for their state.
This seems key to the point you're making. In fact I'm confident that there was a Scottpost about this, but I cannot seem to find it. If anyone can link it, I appreciate.
For starters, notice that some problems introduced to debate by taking IQ seriously would already exist even in a world *without* IQ differences. Because people also differ in character traits, preferences, hobbies, specific skills, etc.
Essentially, the problem is that we have a (Left-coded) value of "equality", but it is very difficult to define what exactly that means in the world where people are different.
Leftists are familiar with the quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." But the same principle applies to many things other than wealth. The law, it its majestic equality, makes both extraverted and introverted children socialize at schools. But the extraverts love it, and the introverts hate it and sometimes get bullied. And the law, it its majestic equality, makes both the average and the gifted children learn according to the same curriculum. (Along with children with various learning dysfunctions, yay inclusion!) But the gifted children are bored in the classes, and they are denied the opportunity to learn according to *their* abilities.
The Left often uses the heuristic of "equality of outcome" to evaluate whether a situation seems fair to them. But again, this completely fails in a world where people are different (and not only by IQ). If one person prefers vanilla ice cream, and another person prefers chocolate ice cream, and you allow both of them to take as much as they want from any ice cream they want... well, that won't look well for you, if someone decides to measure the "disparate impact" on the consumption of chocolate ice cream, and accuses you of being anti- whatever trait the first person has.
...so, to salvage something from the traditional Left program, you need to take a step back and think about what were you trying to achieve in the first place, before you lost sight of the original goal and substituted it by "equality" which you later substituted by "sameness".
To me it seems that the general idea is something like "people should not suffer needlessly", and its positive version "people should flourish", as much as possible given the limited resources; plus the intuition that, as a first approximation, human happiness is proportional to the *logarithm* of wealth, therefore redistribution can increase total happiness.
This needs to be balanced by the need to keep the economy running, because if the economy collapses, it will be pretty bad for everyone. The economy depends on cooperation of millions of people, so you better not take away their incentives (e.g. by excessive taxation or regulation), because then the people may give up on doing the useful things. Or you will have to point guns at them to keep them working, which also dramatically reduces human happiness.
So we could e.g. have... let's call it Enlightenment-coded educational system, where each child is given optimal education, whether coming from a rich or poor family, etc. And this education could be entirely paid by taxes, at least the elementary and grammar schools. But it could also recognize that different children advance at different speed, or have different specific talents, and could allow different children to take different classes, based on their abilities alone.
We might even taboo the word IQ (and perhaps we should, to make people calm down), as long as we accept that (a) in each specific subject, some kids are faster and some kids are slower, and both options should be made available for everyone; and (b) each child is allowed to choose faster classes in as many subject as they can handle, as opposed to having some kind of artificial limit such as only being allowed to choose one specialization and take faster classes only in that.
(The IQ hypothesis is basically that some kids will always have to choose the slower classes, and some kids will be able to choose all the faster classes, and that you can quite reliably recognize this already at the age of six, and it doesn't change significantly during the lifetime.)
I think it might be better to ask "what's the best steelman for /not/ supporting the left when you know about IQ research?"
All success is due to either 1) effort or 2) luck. This is absolutely not to say that intelligence and skills don't matter - they matter immensely. Rather, it's to say that being intelligent and having skills is, tautologically, due to either effort (working hard to learn something that doesn't come naturally) or luck (good genes or good educational opportunities), just like all other contributing factors.
If you believe that success is mostly due to effort, that might lead you towards the right-wing position that progressive taxation and a social safety net are bad, because the rich have earned their money by working for it.
But if you believe that luck (of which good genes are a part) is an important factor, and that lots of people stay poor despite working super hard, then that's a strong argument for redistribution to help the needy.
This, incidentally, is why despite strongly supporting the thing referred to as "meritocracy", I dislike the word - rewarding doing things well is super important, because otherwise your society won't thrive, but it should be called "abilitocracy" - in my book a stupid person who works hard all their life is more meritorious than someone lucky enough to be born with good genes and good educational opportunities, and who is hence far more able, but who doesn't work as hard - I'd still rather the latter got the job, but I don't want to rub salt in the wound by pretending that they're more deserving.
The right wing argument is not about relative effect of effort vs nested luck, it's about that the skilled might work less or move to another country if taxed highly.
To an individual their own genes are luck, but history doesn't start at their conception and a child can only get genes from ones their parents have and it's deterministic. With prenatal screening (for embryo abnormalities and PGS) there is less luck.
Imagine two women, one conceived a baby from career criminal, smoked during pregnancy and bought premium wine. The other conceived from good guy, didn't smoke and bought books. This is non-random, especially smoking.
>n my book a stupid person who works hard all their life is more meritorious than someone lucky
which is because they maxxed dice roll for "conscientiuosness" and someone instilled work ethic in them? It's luck all the way down. (Also people can have bad health conditions preventing hard work for days even if they concentrate for a few hours)
> The right wing argument is not about relative effect of effort vs nested luck, it's about that the skilled might work less or move to another country if taxed highly.
This is steel-manning. There absolutely are right-wingers who advance that argument, and I think it deserves to be taken seriously, but there are also a lot of right-wingers who regularly argue that taxing the rich is inherently wrong because they've earned their money and deserve to keep it, without reference to the economic impact, and it's that argument that I am trying to dismantle.
Yes, there certainly right-wingers who advance past that, but most of them aren't against taxes, just about the amount of it. How does luck (a lot of which is not really luck) justify non-flat taxing?
Yes, obviously it's all genes and therefore luck, but why should that matter? If we proved that the universe is entirely deterministic and therefore free will doesn't exist, would you be against any distribution of resources that wasn't equal? Of course not, ultimately we all agree that some people are more valuable than others. The reason for this being the case is irrelevant. We have a social hierarchy because that it is ultimately more efficient than the alternatives; we've tried pure democracy and communism, and they simply do not work well enough.
Like I said, I'm /not/ against unequal distribution of resources; I'm not even against distribution of resources in ways other than fairly rewarding the effort people make.
What I /am/ against is claiming that distribution that distribution of resources that doesn't reward effort is fair or just, rather than being an unfairness that is sadly necessary because, as you say, the alternative doesn't work well - the injury is justifiable, but the insult is not.
Also, I think "some people are more valuable than others" is ambiguous enough to be neither true nor false, and is the kind of deeply unpleasant statement that shouldn't be made unless it's both true and necessary. Some of the things it gestures at are unquestionably true - some people's labour has much greater financial value than others; some people would be missed much more than others if they were hit by a bus - but if you're trying to use "I am stating harsh truths" as a justification for saying something then I think it behoves you to get in as much truth and as little harshness as possible, and "some people are more valuable than others" doesn't do that.
...Our obsession with justice is exactly what got us into this mess. Of course, if the populace can be convinced that inequality is just, that's killing two birds with one stone. And the next administration is set to do exactly that.
Why pretend that your idea of justice is objectively true? Justice, just like morality, is completely subjective. The people have made their choice on what justice looks like, and you have no standing to object to that. The poor, the weak, and the unwanted will face judgement. Your appeal to morality will accomplish nothing.
"IQ differences exist" does not imply "and therefore, I should support the guy who rants about immigrants poisoning the blood of our country." Trump is not raising some sort of sober point about dysgenics or immigrant birth rates, he's just being a fascist.
The blank-slatists, while inaccurate, are much closer to what I would consider "american values" than anything out of the Right in recent years.
Does "still broadly supporting the Left" not include "voting Democrat"?
Also, I don't understand what you mean by your second sentence. Trump did talk about immigrants having bad genes, and he did get called a fascist for it, so what's the hypothetical here?
I don't think that last part is true. You just need to base decisions on the individual rather than what groups he or she belongs to, and that's good practice *anyway*.
Yeah, but blank slatism seems to be a gateway drug to:
1. attributing differences in outcomes between individuals to some sort of systemic bias that needs to be corrected
2. overlooking observable consequences to group-policies related to immigration, etc because the arguments needed to articulate why these consequences might happen would touch on extremely offensive claims (even if ideally you could just have a direct measurement for traits without group policies, even trying to argue for direct measurements gets attacked because of disparate impacts on groups)
I think recognizing IQ differences and how important they are in life outcomes makes a case for a lot of traditional left-wing policies. To the extent your wealth and my poverty comes down to you working harder or making better choices, it's pretty easy to justify the difference in our wealth; to the extent if comes down to you being born smarter because your grandparents were smarter + the genetic and developmental dice rolls came out in your favor, it's a lot harder to justify on moral grounds. (You might still justify it pragmatically, but not morally.)
The Bell Curve was mostly about how IQ differences affected life outcomes. It would be shocking if IQ score didn't predict success in school, since that's what it IQ scores were designed to do. But it's surprising and unsettling that IQ score predicts (correlates with) stuff like life expectancy, disability claims, probability of bad life outcomes like spending time in prison, being divorced, or having kids out of wedlock. As best anyone can tell, IQ is mainly determined by genes, developmental noise, and early childhood environment--none of these are things you can control.
The more your life trajectory is determined by random crap outside your control, the stronger the moral argument for safety net programs. A model of the world that has a big chunk of life success be driven by IQ is one in which those programs are easier to argue for.
Notably, Paige Harden is an IQ researcher who advocates for mostly left/progressive politics, and Freddie DeBoer wrote a book largely about differences in intellectual ability between people, and is also a dedicated socialist who supports a lot of old left stuff.
Race/IQ correlations are the other place where you might think IQ research undermines left-wing ideas, but mainly that undermines a fairly small part of those ideas--affirmative action, disparate impact, etc. You can have the worldview of Steve Sailer wrt race and IQ and still support a minimum wage, extensive regulation of the economy, a carbon emission tax, etc.
Yeah I think that's a good steelman, and thanks for the sources. I guess the main "blind spots" that have to be watched out for are:
1. Edge case mass migration scenarios (like what the European migrant criss from a decade ago could've become)
2. Effects on birth rate trends (which would be devastating but maybe we aren't going to be baseline biological humans for long enough anyway)
3. Just generally being at the mercy to the fact that if you pretend this variable doesn't exist and are zealous about certain things, you will inevitably come to strange conclusions and nobody is allowed to cleanly say why you're wrong, so you have to just sort of hope that society just moderates that by using other variables to triangulate or something
Yeah, I think not knowing or not being able to talk about important bits of reality like IQ research is in general bad--it leads to bad policies. And there are definitely places where this shows up in the US--basically all public discourse on education in the US is infected with a rather aggressive ignorance of basic facts wrt IQ, which is why you get stuff like NCLB and the idea that by raising standards for teachers you can basically make every student college material, as well as idiocy like wanting to eliminate advanced math classes to reduce inequality, and the assumption that when a magnet program is 45/45/10 Asian, white, and black, this is evidence of racism.
Yeah, I'm semi-excited about Trump's cabinet. I would like to hope he could turn the other cheek. But I'd bet he's going to want to lawfare someone on the other side. which sucks, but I'm not going to hold it against him.
Sarah Isgur on The Dispatch/Advisory Opinions gave reasons for supporting MG as AG. I would summarize her arguments, but I found them so unconvincing that I doubt I can represent them fairly. You're invited to form your own opinion here:
1. The teenager up in BC who has been hospitalized with HPAI, and who is in critical condition is infected with a strain of A(H5) found in wild birds (clade 2.3.4.4b, genotype D1.1)—this is not the strain that is circulating in cattle in the US.
2. An excellent article in Science discussing what sort of mutations would be required to trigger a pandemic in humans. It runs down some of the genetic changes that could make A(H5) more transmissible and immune evasive in humans.
The A(H5) clades that infect birds use feces-contaminated water as a vector for transmission, and those strains infect the birds' guts. These strains are not adapted to infecting lung tissue. So, that's why it's difficult for humans to catch it from birds. But not discussed in the article is that the strains that are capable of inter-mammal transmission can spread via respiratory transmission or fomites.
My favorite quote is from one of the scientists who performed that GoF experiment in ferrets to make A(H5) more transmissible.
"That feat prompted restrictions on such 'gain of function' experiments, which has hampered research, says Mathilde Richard, a virologist at Erasmus Medical Center, where some of that work was done. 'I do think that this has really, really slowed down our knowledge.'" I think this is a good example of scientific hubris. Although I'm certain that SARS-CoV-2 is not an escape from a lab GoF experiment, other pathogens have escaped from BSL-3 facilities.
3. And Adam Kucharski delves into the ins-and-outs of how we'd estimate the overall fatality rate (IFR) of A(H5) avian strains in humans.
Due to high interest and a desire for deeper exploration, we are revisiting our previous topics for this week's meetup. Join us as we delve further into the intricate dynamics of political power and strategic decision-making.
Conversation Starter 1
Topic: "Rules for Rulers" by CGP Grey
Videos:
Rules for Rulers
How to Rig an Election
Transcripts: Reformatted Transcripts
Enhanced Summary:
Foundations of Political Power: The videos are based on "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. They dissect the mechanics of how rulers—whether dictators or democratically elected leaders—acquire, maintain, and lose power.
Three Fundamental Rules:
Secure the Support of Key Individuals: Rulers must identify and win over those who control essential resources, institutions, or influence.
Control the Nation's Wealth: By managing the treasury, rulers can reward key supporters and ensure their loyalty.
Minimize the Number of Essential Supporters: Fewer key supporters mean fewer people to satisfy, simplifying the maintenance of power.
Application Across Governance Systems: While the rules are universal, their application varies between dictatorships and democracies. In dictatorships, power is concentrated, leading to potential abuses and neglect of the populace. In democracies, the need to satisfy a larger base can lead to policies that improve citizens' lives but may also result in systemic inefficiencies or corruption.
Dynastic Power and Succession: The sequel video explores why rulers often place family members in positions of power. This practice can provide continuity and stability but also poses risks of nepotism and potential internal betrayal.
Manipulation of Systems: The content examines how rulers may exploit legal systems, elections, and public policies to entrench their power, often at the expense of democratic principles and societal welfare.
Improved Discussion Questions:
a) Universal Dynamics of Power: How do the three rules for rulers help explain historical and contemporary political events across different countries? Can you identify real-world examples where these rules are evident?
b) Moral Implications of Power Strategies: Is it possible for leaders to follow these rules without compromising ethical standards? How can societies encourage leaders to prioritize the common good while recognizing the realities of political power?
c) The Role of Institutions: How do strong institutions and checks and balances mitigate the negative effects of these power dynamics? What mechanisms can be implemented to prevent the abuse of power by those in leadership positions?
d) Family Influence and Political Stability: In what ways does involving family in governance strengthen or weaken a political system? Are there alternatives to dynastic succession that can provide the same level of stability?
Conversation Starter 2
Topic: "Game Theory of Michigan Muslims" by Scott Alexander
Text: Game Theory of Michigan Muslims
Enhanced Summary:
Strategic Voting as Political Leverage: The article discusses a group of Michigan Muslims contemplating voting for a candidate whose policies oppose their interests to signal their dissatisfaction with their traditional party's stance on critical issues, specifically regarding foreign policy in the Middle East.
Applying Game Theory to Politics: By using the Ultimatum Game as an analogy, the article examines the strategic considerations behind voting decisions. In the Ultimatum Game, one player proposes a division of resources, and the other can accept or reject it. The analogy highlights the tension between immediate self-interest and long-term strategic positioning.
Decision Theories Explored:
Causal Decision Theory (CDT): Suggests that actions should be based solely on their immediate consequences.
Logical Decision Theory (LDT): Proposes that agents should consider the logical implications of their actions, including how they influence others' expectations and future behaviors.
Potential Consequences of Strategic Defection: The article explores whether voting against one's immediate interests can effectively pressure a political party to change its policies or if it risks marginalizing the group further.
Coalition Dynamics and Loyalty: The piece delves into how political parties balance the needs of various constituencies and what happens when a group attempts to leverage its support in ways that may undermine coalition unity.
Improved Discussion Questions:
a) Effectiveness of Strategic Defection: Can minority groups effectively influence major political parties by threatening to withdraw their support? What historical examples support or refute this strategy?
b) Game Theory Limitations in Real Politics: How well does the Ultimatum Game capture the complexities of electoral politics and voter behavior? What factors in real-world politics complicate this analogy?
c) Ethics and Long-Term Consequences: Is it ethically defensible for a group to vote for a candidate whose policies may harm them or others to achieve a strategic objective? What are the potential long-term impacts on democratic processes and trust in political systems?
d) Alternatives to Voting Defection: What other methods can minority groups employ to make their voices heard and influence policy without resorting to voting against their interests?
Walk & Talk: After the discussion, we will take our usual hour-long walk. Nearby options for takeout include Gelson's and Pavilions, located in the 92660 zip code area.
Share a Surprise: Bring something to share that unexpectedly changed your perspective on life or the universe.
Future Direction Ideas: As always, feel free to contribute ideas for future meetings, topics, and activities.
Tumblr poll "Which of my recent single use verification codes is the most fuckable?" is a poll between 10 different (ostensibly randomly generated) 6-digit numbers. It has 50% of answers (n>100,000) on agreed on one option. I don't know if whatever kind of kiki-bouba number feeling going on here can be decomposed, but I'm amused.
I've tried to figure out what happened in Amsterdam. Here is my approximation. I'm curious about more details and more accuracy if anyone has them.
Maccabi Tel Aviv, an Israeli football (soccer) team and their fans behaved like assholes in Amsterdam. They seem to have interrupted a minute of silence for Valencia. The only explanation I've seen is from Al Jazeera which says that Spain has recognized Palestine.
They (I'm assuming fans rather than team members) took down a Palestinian flag hanging from someone's window. I've heard about multiple flags being taken down and damage to houses, but I don't think that was verified.
They were also doing anti-Palestinian chants.
Eventually a mob formed and physically attacked fans. 10 were injured, and 5 of them were hospitalized, but were not severely injured. One person was claiming he wasn't Jewish, but he was attacked anyway. 2 people disappeared, possibly just out of contact because their cell phones were taken. I *think* they showed up, but I'm not sure.
The Israeli government considered sending military planes to evacuate people, but settled for sending two El Al planes.
I've heard that the attack on the fans was organized in advance by Arab taxi drivers, so I'm not sure whether the fans behaving better in Amsterdam would have made that much difference.
Terms like pogrom and Kristallnacht were used. They strike me as excessive, but I don't know what appropriate language would be.
One report about a “Jew hunt” isn’t much proof. There are considerable Jewish communities in Amsterdam. Why then did the locals have to wait for a group of football hooligans to engage in “pogroms”.
Clearly the instigators were, by most accounts, the Israeli fans. I strongly suggest not attacking people in another country, chasing locals down the road, seizing flags and booing a minutes silence for drowned Europeans, when in civilised Europe.
And if Israeli soccer teams fear anti semitism in European competitions then there’s a solution - Israel is not it Europe and it doesn’t have to be in European competitions. Admittedly the football mobs of Israel might fare worse as they bring their hooliganism to whatever Middle Eastern city they should be playing in but that seems the optimal solution to the problem.
How, then, would you distinguish it from a hate crime?
A pogrom 1) is going to be aimed at Jewish people in general, esp local Jewish people and institutions; 2) is going have local government support or acquiescense in some way. https://encyclopedia.yivo.org/article/260
The link you provided doesn't match what you said. Here's the exact wording:
> In general usage, a pogrom is an outbreak of mass violence directed against a minority religious, ethnic, or social group; it usually implies central instigation and control, or at minimum the passivity of local authorities
That clearly says that government support is not a requirement since its only "usually" part of a pogrom. So in answer to your question all pogrom's are hate crimes, but not all hate crimes are an "outbreak of mass violence directed against a minority religious, ethnic, or social group"
Edit: I believe you are misconstruing the link. It says govt SUPPORT is "usual" but that govt PASSIVITY is present at a minimum. Which is what I said: "local government support or acquiescense in some way."
>So in answer to your question all pogrom's are hate crimes, but not all hate crimes are an "outbreak of mass violence directed against a minority religious, ethnic, or social group"
The issue is not whether pogroms are hate crimes or whether hate crimes are pogroms. It is whether thus particular incident is better described as a hate crime or a pogrom.
If it is a anti-Jewish pogrom, it is the first in history in which synagogue were not targeted, homes and businesses of Jewish residents were not targeted, etc. I would also not that it does not seem to qualify as "mass" violence.
The main point is that referring to it as a logrom is a pure appeal to emotion.
A pogrom is a mob event, possibly planned, possibly spontaneous. A hate crime can kill a lot of people (Tree of Life, for instance, and the anti-immigrant shooter in Texas in 2019), but those single-shooter incidents weren't reasonably called pogroms.
But many, if not most, hate crimes are group events. Also possibly planned and possibly spontaneous. The point is that the mere fact that someone described it as a "Jew hunt" does not make it a pogrom. A lot more is needed.
A "hunt" is, in common English usage at least, a group event and usually planned. "Hunting" (verb) can be used to describe a solitary and spontaneous activity, like going out into the woods alone with a bow and arrow and the intention of shooting dinner, but the resulting activity is rarely described as a "hunt" (noun). Think classic English fox hunt, or African safari, for typical uses.
Of course, there could be translation errors involved here; that sort of nuance may not cross the language barrier.
This is weird. I got email notifications for three replies (one of them pointing out that I'd said hockey team, I've corrected my comment). It seems strange that all three of them have disappeared.
Oops that was probably me and my two edits (to add links). I'm seeing the reply up, though, weird! Maybe try a different browser or device if it's still not showing?
Not an expert, but some clarifications per my understanding:
* football/soccer, not hockey. Football hooliganism is a perenial cultural feature, annoyance, sign of moral decay, or pipeline to right wing radicalism, depending on who you ask.
* Day before the match, some Maccabi fans took a Palestinian flag off a building, burned it, chanted "fuck you Palestine," and vandalized a taxi. A taxi driver was assaulted, but the details are unconfirmed. There's a video of some Maccabi fans setting off flares and chanting "Ole, ole, let the IDF win, and fuck the Arabs" to a football tune.
* A group of taxi drivers gathered to confront a large gathering of Maccabi fans, and police dispersed them and escorted the fans away.
* A pro-Palestine protest (Amsterdam has a lot of these) planned for during the match was officially canceled, but people showed up anyway.
* After the match, there was a lot of yelling and fighting in the streets. Some people went looking for fights. Maccabi fans grabbed a bunch of pipes and planks from a construction site and went around chanting. People on scooters went around attacking people in Maccabi colors. Not narratively linear cause-and-effect, but decentralized hooliganism.
* The Dutch right wing is blaming the Amsterdam Moroccan community.
* 5 people hospitalized, 20-30 injured, 62 arrested, 4 Dutch nationals still in custody.
* Everybody is accounted for, and investigation is ongoing.
This just sounds like a fairly normal occurrence in any football game where there is existing enmity between the teams supporters. Any time English fans travel to European games there is almost always violence. This is one of the key reasons many of the 'fans' travel in the first place - they just love a good fight.
The fact that it was Israeli fans is really of no great consequence in the larger setting of football violence.
It's not standard football violence, since Ajax fans were pretty much uninvolved, but yeah. The general hooliganism and fight-picking associated with football ultras is imo important context, both for why/how the fans were behaving, and for why the locals got fed up with it, but this wasn't just ultras going at each other.
Sorry if I'm late to this, but... I think I found the most fucked up use of AI so far. Not fucked up in an ethical way (though uh, it doesn't seem like they got Microsoft's permission to do this), but just... everything else.
It's called Oasis, and it's a video generation AI that streams a fully playable instance of Minecraft without using any of its code. And amazingly, it actually kinda works. The buttons mostly do what you expect them to do, you can explore and mine and even open your inventory and craft. ...But the emphasis is on "kinda". If you've played any Minecraft at all, you'll find it is an absolute nightmare to play in the most literal sense.
The most obvious problem is the complete lack of object permanence; looking away from anything for even a moment will cause it to morph into something different. The worst part is that if you look down, it tries to predict the surrounding environment from the blocks that are visible, creating landscapes that should simply not exist. And problems only start there; sinking into the ground without warning as the world melts under you, sudden walls of tall grass that obscure everything, cursed amalgamations of creatures that morph in and out of existence... I've never done psychedelics before, but I'm assuming this is what a bad trip feels like.
But what fills me with dread isn't the fact that it's broken, it's the fact that it works at all. How the hell is it doing this? How is it keeping track of these 3d spaces relatively consistently as long as I keep looking at it? How does it know that certain tools mine certain blocks faster? I think I know the answer, but... *sigh* I don't know what to feel about this.
Anyways, if you want to feel a wave of existential dread, here's the link to the demo. It's free! (But you can only play it on Chrome.) https://oasis.decart.ai/starting-point And if you can't use the site for whatever reason, here's the technical report. https://oasis-model.github.io/
"The most obvious problem is the complete lack of object permanence; looking away from anything for even a moment will cause it to morph into something different"
That seems remarkably dreamlike, but dreams are arguably an association system which is just somewhat more sophisticated than AI.
Here's a different theory of why things morph in dreams. You know how when you wake up and try to remember a dream, it's hard? You have trouble being clear about settings, what the point of this or that event was, what that one character looked like? I think that *while you're dreaming* you are similarly impaired regarding the dream events you are experiencing: You quickly lose track of what you were doing a little earlier in the dream and why, of what the setting was like, of how you got to be in a different setting, of who the guy was you were talking to. And yet the expectation that things will stay what they are is still there, and the expectation that they will make sense, so the dreaming mind can't just shrug and say, "oh well, I can't remember what it looked last time I looked out the window and it doesn't matter if none of this fits together." So it puts up a made-up scene for the next look out the window, and sort of defines it as the scene that's been there all along, and declares it to be a meaningful development from what was happening before. . In other words, the dreaming mind confabulates, like people with a memory disorder. All this is consistent with other evidence that the dreaming mind is sort of dumb and confused. Most people find they can't really read anything in their dreams. In my dreams I try, but it's hard to see -- or I can't find the spot where I was reading before -- or what I read makes no sense. You can't do real math or real reasoning in a dream. You can't remember real events from your waking life.
> I think that *while you're dreaming* you are similarly impaired regarding the dream events you are experiencing
Can confirm. Today I had a dream where something happened, and when I tried to explain it to other people in the dream, I just couldn't remember the important events, the same way I can't remember them after I wake up.
The setting was of a time loop, something like Groundhog Day, where I tried to escape from... some kind of magic school, I guess... and got killed at various points, and then restarted and tried a different thing. At some point I got allies, and I was like: "okay, now I need to tell them about the time loop, and explain what happened in the previous runs, and then we will plan something smart together", only to realize that I actually don't remember the previous runs and can't even make a coherent story out of something that happened like 5 subjective minutes ago. That was extremely frustrating, and then I woke up.
> Most people find they can't really read anything in their dreams.
A repeating thing in my dreams is that I write down someone's phone number on a paper, but then the digits start changing in front of my eyes as I try to read them, in a way similar to how LLMs try to recreate texts.
Haha yeah, that’s the stuff of dreams. One of the most obvious way we’re impaired is that we don’t realize while we’re dreaming that what’s going on keeps mutating and we can’t even remember the recent dream events. We’re engaged, we take it seriously. Sometimes when my alarm
goes off I think, “but I can’t stop what I’m
doing now ! I have to mix all the popcorn into the house paint (or whatever)!”
Human brain is obviously more sophisticated, sure, but these AIs are working with way more hardware and data than we are. I sure as hell can't visualize Minecraft in my head that accurately, and I played a ton of it back in the day.
It's like if you put fusion-powered engine on a wooden wagon; sure, that'll obviously crash and burn, but what happens when you eventually learn how to build a proper rocket? It wouldn't necessarily be a FOOM scenario... but humanity still isn't going to deal with it well.
One would hope not, but one would also think he wouldn't be dumb enough to run a gambling site on US soil.
So secondary impression is, the FBI had to wait until the market closed and money actually changed hands, the same way they do with prostitution or murder-for-hire, and it only looks political because it can't not look political.
But yeah, wouldn't surprise me if Trump bailed them out because they said nice things about him.
Does it even matter? What the current administration does now is completely irrelevant, considering they're going to be replaced in a few months anyways. I don't see how it could be political retribution though, since it's not like Polymarket directly contributed to Trump's win... and even if it was retribution, it would still be completely pointless because of the aforementioned regime change. They probably are genuinely trying to convict him for intentionally circumventing US gambling regulations. ...Though, I don't know why they're even bothering at this point.
Theoretical question: What is the opposite of effective altruism? What would be the word for wanting to decrease the human utility function as much as possible? Effective misanthropy? Effective maltruism?
True, but I think 'futile altruism' is a nice word for EA to use if they need an attack word for some reason. I mean, what's the alternative? Going on vibes?
Whatever it is, it's perhaps poorly defined because the big barriers to causing mass harm are legal rather than financial, so instead of asking "What's the most harm I can do with X amount of money" you're stuck asking "What's the most harm I can do with X amount of money and Y amount of tolerance for being caught and punished?"
(I came up with some examples for various values of X and Y but the tiny possibility of giving some weirdo an idea isn't worth it.)
I was actually trying to remember which of the various Communist splinter groups was the extremely anti-semitic one, but kind of lost heart in finding out. (See also, Hannah Arendt's The Origin of Totalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism), and The Horseshoe Theory of Politics)
Anyone know why The Horseshoe Theory of Politics is so heavily criticized in the wiki-sphere? The article and its associated Talk page are remarkably heavy-handed, much more so than my experience talking to people who study political science.
Because the only people who are really motivated to write about the subject are the far left, who are offended by the comparison with the far right. (The far right are in theory offended too but they have less cultural power and different battles to fight.)
It's easy to see why the extremes look similar to the people in the middle, but far apart to the people on the extremes; it's just that different people care about different things. If you're counting legs then snakes and spiders are very different, but if you're deciding whether you're happy to share a sleeping bag with them then they seem much more similar.
I think the concept has at least _some_ explanative power, but its typical use in the popular discourse is sloppy and of negative value. I'd speculate the Wiki pushback/emphasis on limited academic support is for this or similar reasons.
Basically, the horseshoe theory looks at all of politics from the standpoint of basic liberalism - democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all that - and notices that both communism and fascism have it in common that they do indeed lack that basic liberalism, and there is a certain sort of an "anti-liberal" personality that can easily flitter from one non-liberal ideology to another or construct boutique ideologies sharing features from both a la Dugin's thought.
However, this still very much obscures that these are completely different ideologies, built on different bases and with different worldviews, and the absence of a certain, admittedly otherwise omnipresent (in the West) ideological feature - the basic liberalism that a normal Western person takes for granted, the water we swim in - does not yet mean we can ignore this difference to the least.
Both Nazis and Communists living under those forms of government had similar observations to make about the similarities between liberalism and communism, and liberalism and fascism, respectively (although they used terms like “bourgeois”, “capitalist,” “Jewish financiers”, etc). Maybe the dominant mode always sees a horseshoe stretching out to either side…
From my perspective, Occam's razor suggests that we should go with Circle Theory of Politics instead. There is no reason to believe that the two ends of the horseshoe are not connected.
But I guess the masters of the wiki would hate this theory even more.
I used to love Manifold, but the recent push to constantly ask me to redeem sweepstakes, get sweepstakes, changing the market category to sweepstakes-only in search daily, etc. has been VERY annoying as a European who can't even participate in it.
Even if I was American and could, I'd probably be annoyed by all the pushing, but if they don't even allow me to use it what's the point of constantly hindering my experience by doing so?
I can understand the frustration. Manifold, as a product experience, is a strange mix of professional and amateur. Part of the problem is the constraint of not having a clear revenue and profit model. My interpretation of the sweepstake mis-steps is in that context.
Overall, though, I'm hoping they can settle into a sustainable path and we, users, can focus on the markets and forecasting.
A Pew survey last month found that 72% of registered voters believed Kamala Harris would accept a Trump victory, while only 24% believed Trump would do the same if he lost.
What are the chances the next Republican presidential candidate who loses will unambiguously concede and agree to a peaceful transfer of power? And do most Republicans still expect Democrats to do this as Harris just did?
It could strengthen the country (and grow Republican Party voter rolls and favorability) if Republicans simply reaffirmed support for the practice now and re-established it with their next presidential loss.
If you disagree, and think both sides should just abandon the practice and deny election losses going forward, could you explain why?
I don't think any of those efforts have been successful (definitely not in terms of changing election results). Trump's election denial was "successful" only in the sense he was able to get sizable popular opinion on board with his claims. But thats the issue for any candidate going forward: Trump is uniquely able to create devotion among a sizable portion of the public. I doubt any candidate in the near future from either party will be as skilled in that department as Trump.
There are and have been other politicians that have had that same persuasive skills as trump but mostly in lower level roles like city council or sheriff etc. Former DC mayor Marion Berry was one. He went to jail for drug and prostitution charges while Mayor but was able to be reelected as mayor after his release from prison and served as a city councilor after losing the mayorship. He had devoted followers among the cities black population which served as his base and largely view his arrest as racial/political persecution. But his persuasive abilities wouldn't have scaled to higher office as they relied on characteristics unique to DC. Thats likely true of any other politicians that could try the trump tactic. They just wont have a universal devotion needed to make the election denial stick.
I think it depends a lot on what you consider to be "accept[ing] a...victory." Many people say that Hillary Clinton accepted Trump's victory in 2016, but she and/or people around her did a lot of things to actively work against Trump and his administration, including pushing the entirely made up Steele Dossier into the DOJ and media in order to start a three year investigation. Did she "accept" his win? If so, then the chances of either side accepting the other's win is really really high. We just set the bar super low.
Definitionally, we can say that Trump accepted Biden's win as well, because he didn't take up arms or some other obvious refusal. Saying the words "Biden didn't really win" may or may not mean he didn't accept it in practice. Hillary had a formal concession speech and from there on repeatedly said that Trump wasn't a legitimate president. What does that mean in terms of "accepting" an election?
I’m talking about the tradition of a formal concession speech shortly after the election (unless the margin of victory is razor-thin and the result isn’t clear like 2000 when concession didn’t take place till December). We can put aside agreeing to a peaceful transfer of power prior to the result.
If you didn’t need to be forcibly removed from the White House but didn’t publicly concede, that doesn’t count as concession here.
Under these circumstances, and in line with general consensus, Hilary’s concession speech counted as conceding. Harris’s did, too. Trump didn’t make one.
Given this definition, do you think the next Republican presidential candidate who loses will concede? Do you think candidates should, or do you think both sides should abandon the practice?
That feels like an intentionally contrived definition. If Trump doesn't give a concession speech but doesn't do anything to hurt his successor, that's worse to you than someone who gives a concession speech but then spends years trying to tear down their opponent? By this I mean using institutional power, not just saying negative things about them.
That doesn't seem like a useful definition. Or putting tradition over substance.
I'll answer your question - I do think that a non-Trump Republican will most likely concede formally if they lose a future presidential election. Kari Lake doesn't come off well, and ultimately Trump didn't either, by continuing to deny it. If, beyond all sanity, someone like Donald Trump Jr. is the nominee, then I don't have much hope he would concede, but I also don't think he has a chance at being nominated. DeSantis, Vance, or the other real potentials I think would all formally concede.
I define concession in American presidential politics as making a concession speech because I feel it’s the most common definition and publicly conceding helps maintain civic order and preserve peace through a significant transition that goes on for months.
I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Doolittle here; a concession speech is basically arbitrary. I see your point that it maintains civic order and peace, but I think you need to inspect why it does that, and in so doing, you'll discover that it will fail in exactly the cases we're seeing today.
To lay it out: a concession speech serves as a signal that a candidate will no longer question the election results, vacate the office if incumbent, and will bear the same relation to the winner that any citizen (even one with major political influence) has borne toward any winner from an opposition party in past instances where the nation returned to stability. In other words, it's a statement of commitment to the aforesaid set of behaviors. That means that if that candidate does *not* commit to those behaviors, it wasn't really a concession. And it'd be foolish to insist that the speech overrode the failed commitment on definitional terms. See what I'm saying?
Part of actually conceding, then, means a candidate doesn't then grouse about how the winner didn't truly win on the merits, but rather because of fraud, collusion with a foreign power, and so on. I read Doolittle's contention above as Clinton having given a speech, but then failing to commit to the implications of such a speech. That just invalidates the speech.
Somewhat random related note: saw noted on Twitter that the last Democrat to give a concession speech *on Election night* was Dukakis. Thought that was mildly interesting.
I get your point, but I’m talking about concession speeches because the speech is a neat unit that can be more objectively measured and agreed upon than a subjective, varying criteria for what constitutes the essence of presidential concession. The speech is an imperfect measure, but it’s broadly understood and the failure of a candidate to make such a simple yet beneficial gesture is concerning to many voters.
...Why would it be in the interests GOP to start supporting democracy at this point? Right now, they have a pretty clear path to monopolizing power without even starting a civil war. As you said, only 24% believed Trump would concede the election, and he won easily anyways. They have zero incentive to make any concessions.
Is it your earnest and genuine opinion that the GOP are in the process of removing democracy from the American system and that this was the last election citizens will ever vote in? Is that your real position?
Yes. Vance runs in 2028 as the Republican nominee on a Vance/Trump ticket or with President Trump's full endorsement. It's been 3.5 years since Trump instituted his Schedule F Executive Order that allows him to fire nonpartisan federal bureaucrats that stood in his way in 2020. Trump starts beating his drum about election fraud again and directs his loyalist DoJ to send out a letter to swing states https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/read-the-never-issued-trump-order-that-would-have-seized-voting-machines-527572 that confiscates the "fraudulent" votes that would tip the election. Vance wins because of this.
Or, Trump appoints more fraudulent electors like he did in 2020. Since Vance will be Vice President and reside over the certification of electoral votes, and because he's already said he would certify Trump's fraudulent slates of electors in 2020, he will certify Trump's fraudulent electoral votes that are all for Vance over the Democrat nominee in 2028. And if you say that the Electoral Count Act was amended to clarify that the VP only has a procedural role - we can't even get Republicans to agree with Democrats that taking FEMA won't result in their homes getting repossessed by the federal government, that Haitians aren't eating cats and dogs in Ohio, that Trump should be prosecuted for his initial attempt in trying to break the ECA and have his VP decertify legitimate electoral votes, that Trump should be prosecuted for showing off classified documents at his private estate and directing people to obstruct the investigation by hiding the documents - Republicans definitely will not side with Democrats on their interpretation of procedural rules with the result of an election at stake (especially because most Republican voters https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html are so stupid they still think the 2020 election was stolen).
There is no incentive for Republicans to continue playing by democratic rules, because Trump will pardon every Republican involved in the plot to overturn the 2020 election, because Republicans in general won't hold Trump accountable for anything he does, and they are so delusional they think Democrats are the ones actually trying to steal elections.
Obviously they shouldn't get rid of the vote! You still have to keep up appearances. But right now the GOP is in a really good position to ensure that they maintain power for the foreseeable future, and they would be stupid not to at least try. After all, what's even the point of a democracy if the wrong people keep getting elected and ruin everything? Not taking action would practically be immoral!
There are five main power centres in the US: Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Washington DC, and the news media (which doesn't have a convenient geographical synecdoche, sad!)
Washington DC is the only one that the Democrats don't permanently control at this point. And you're worried about the Republicans?
I understand your point, and it was (seemingly) very true not that long ago. But at this point...
Silicon Valley has arguably never been more empowered in Washington than it is now. And it's a Republican President doing it. Sure, your average coder in Silicon Valley is probably still very left-leaning, but what matters most is what the billionaires/owners think and do. I could imagine the actual power players of Silicon Valley gradually shifting to the Republican party, with Musk/Thiel/Bezos leading the way (don't forget that Bezos refused to let the Washington Post endorse Harris).
Hollywood and the mainstream news media are in decline. Your average zoomer male likely cares way more about anime/manga than they do Hollywood these days, seriously. And if celebrity endorsements were truly powerful, we'd have President-Elect Harris now. Harris had plenty of big names endorsing her and joining her for rallies. As for the mainstream news media, Joe Rogan and similar independent podcasters are more important than they are now. And this isn't even a right vs. left thing, it's a generational thing. Look at the demographic breakdowns for ratings for the alphabet networks. Younger generations are barely watching, it's basically only boomers that watch in great numbers.
Whether what I wrote is good or bad will depend on each person's perspective. But It all seems true to me, anyway.
...Worried? Do I sound like I'm worried? I'm cheering you guys on! It's every man's right to fight and kill for what they believe. I'm just here to enjoy the show, that's all.
Given that 28% of those polled thought even Harris wouldn’t accept a Trump victory, and Trump’s claim of winning 2020 hasn’t been refuted by the Republican leaders likeliest to run in 2028, I must admit I’m surprised someone would be 99% certain the next Republican to lose would readily concede.
They haven't refuted it because Trump is still the head of the party, but he's gone in 2028. Even if they wanted to, none of them have the charisma to pull that shit off on their own.
What do you think about my letter to Francis Fukuyama in response to his letter to Elon Musk. Do my suggestions sound good to you? Here’s an excerpt.
Dear Mr. Fukuyma,
The next time you write a letter to Elon, could you please mention the Constitution? It would be great if more people read it, and ever better if more people understood it, especially the Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27.
For starters, how about suggesting that Elon post one amendment per day on X?
Next, how about suggesting that Elon create a game that tests X users’ understanding of the Constitution. Top performers might receive a CyberTruck in the color of their choice. Or even better yet, recognition, prestige and gratification of doing well on a comprehensive examination of the Constitution.
Applications for the next round of High Impact Professional's Impact Accelerator Program (IAP) are open.
The IAP is a free, cause area agnostic, 6-week program designed to equip experienced (mid-career/senior) impact-focused professionals not currently working at a high-impact organization with the knowledge and tools necessary to make a meaningful impact and empower them to start taking actionable steps right away.
✅ The IAP is set up to help participants:
- identify paths to impact,
- take concrete, impactful actions, and
- join a network of like-minded, experienced, and supportive impact-focused professionals.
🗓️ Important Dates
- Deadline to apply: Sunday, December 15 → Apply here: https://bit.ly/48PKVcf
- Program duration: 6 weeks (week of February 10, 2025 – week of March 17, 2025)
If you have questions about the IAP or just want to know more about the program, please check the following resources:
(1) 👉 Attend one of our informational webinars featuring an introduction to the IAP and a Q&A session – we’ll have 2 webinar sessions to accommodate as many time zones as we can, so please join the one that suits your schedule best
- Mon., 9 Dec., 5-6pm UTC → Register here: https://bit.ly/4g0QI10
- Tue., 10 Dec., 9-10am UTC → Register here: https://bit.ly/4g1Akh4
❓ We aim to address as many questions as possible in the webinar sessions – Please send us your questions about the IAP via this form: https://bit.ly/3Zjv1nB
(2) See the IAP page for general information and the FAQ section on that page for answers to common questions: https://bit.ly/498iBkm
What's the best steelman for still broadly supporting the Left when you know about IQ research?
I feel like the Left's blank slatism (and Inquisition-like enforcement of it) undermines so many of its positions and basically makes everything they try to argue for insane. But I also think it's possible that I'm exaggerating how much this is actually a problem, especially relative to the other side's issues, just because it leaves a bitter taste emotionally in my mouth and feels more intellectually "treacherous" coming from the seemingly more intellectual half of the spectrum.
I haven't ever identified as a conservative but I want to see if someone has a good reason to why I'm exaggerating how much this actually matters (that isn't just denying IQ research, because like, I know a ton about it, and I don't think the denials are going to work haha)
Particularly in countries like ours with a two-party system, you're stuck deciding whether basket A or basket B is worse. Believing Basket B is worse doesn't mean you support everything in basket A.
Say you believe that mean IQ differs across human populations for reasons that are at least partially genetic. You can still believe that, to take some popular left-leaning causes:
-Inequality between groups or individuals (or both!) is excessive, and redistribution is necessary. In fact, if there's a genetic component, it lessens the moral culpability of the poor for their state.
-People should be able to form unions, both idealistically as a matter of human autonomy and pragmatically as a method of lessening the power gap between the working and capitalist classes.
-The government should support childcare to allow women (or whichever parent takes care of the kids) to participate fully in the workforce.
-Abortion rights are an important aspect of self-determination and should be supported.
-Humans have a right to free movement and borders should not be closed.
-Humans have a right to self-determination that includes gender identity and the government should respect that.
-Global climate change is a danger to humanity and needs aggressive action, even at the cost of limiting economic freedom or decreasing GDP.
-Even if human groups differ by mean intelligence, that doesn't necessarily mean they differ in human rights, so things like racism are still a concern.
Any of these might make you side with a leftist or liberal party.
Let's say we find out that certain ethnic groups have lower or higher average intelligence from genetic circumstances. How should this change policy? My opinion is _not at all_, since everything should still be based on the _individual_.
Well, the catch is most humans are tribal, and if one race would be disproportionately taking the welfare it'll eat away at support for it. (How much this had to do with the history of the American South in our particular case I don't know.) I think this is part of what was motivating the left at least in the 60s-90s, though they now seem to treat the underlying equality as an article of faith.
Not sure that it matters whether the *reason* for this overrepresentation is genetic, social, cultural, or something else?
Ask a leftist. My theory of mind isn't quite that good. My impression is social/cultural can be changed so supports their program, genetic can't so can't be true, but while I live among them I'm not really one and avoid discussing this stuff for obvious reasons.
> In fact, if there's a genetic component, it lessens the moral culpability of the poor for their state.
This seems key to the point you're making. In fact I'm confident that there was a Scottpost about this, but I cannot seem to find it. If anyone can link it, I appreciate.
Before we go down this path, I'd love to hear what misconceptions you have about IQ.
For starters, notice that some problems introduced to debate by taking IQ seriously would already exist even in a world *without* IQ differences. Because people also differ in character traits, preferences, hobbies, specific skills, etc.
Essentially, the problem is that we have a (Left-coded) value of "equality", but it is very difficult to define what exactly that means in the world where people are different.
Leftists are familiar with the quote: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." But the same principle applies to many things other than wealth. The law, it its majestic equality, makes both extraverted and introverted children socialize at schools. But the extraverts love it, and the introverts hate it and sometimes get bullied. And the law, it its majestic equality, makes both the average and the gifted children learn according to the same curriculum. (Along with children with various learning dysfunctions, yay inclusion!) But the gifted children are bored in the classes, and they are denied the opportunity to learn according to *their* abilities.
The Left often uses the heuristic of "equality of outcome" to evaluate whether a situation seems fair to them. But again, this completely fails in a world where people are different (and not only by IQ). If one person prefers vanilla ice cream, and another person prefers chocolate ice cream, and you allow both of them to take as much as they want from any ice cream they want... well, that won't look well for you, if someone decides to measure the "disparate impact" on the consumption of chocolate ice cream, and accuses you of being anti- whatever trait the first person has.
...so, to salvage something from the traditional Left program, you need to take a step back and think about what were you trying to achieve in the first place, before you lost sight of the original goal and substituted it by "equality" which you later substituted by "sameness".
To me it seems that the general idea is something like "people should not suffer needlessly", and its positive version "people should flourish", as much as possible given the limited resources; plus the intuition that, as a first approximation, human happiness is proportional to the *logarithm* of wealth, therefore redistribution can increase total happiness.
This needs to be balanced by the need to keep the economy running, because if the economy collapses, it will be pretty bad for everyone. The economy depends on cooperation of millions of people, so you better not take away their incentives (e.g. by excessive taxation or regulation), because then the people may give up on doing the useful things. Or you will have to point guns at them to keep them working, which also dramatically reduces human happiness.
So we could e.g. have... let's call it Enlightenment-coded educational system, where each child is given optimal education, whether coming from a rich or poor family, etc. And this education could be entirely paid by taxes, at least the elementary and grammar schools. But it could also recognize that different children advance at different speed, or have different specific talents, and could allow different children to take different classes, based on their abilities alone.
We might even taboo the word IQ (and perhaps we should, to make people calm down), as long as we accept that (a) in each specific subject, some kids are faster and some kids are slower, and both options should be made available for everyone; and (b) each child is allowed to choose faster classes in as many subject as they can handle, as opposed to having some kind of artificial limit such as only being allowed to choose one specialization and take faster classes only in that.
(The IQ hypothesis is basically that some kids will always have to choose the slower classes, and some kids will be able to choose all the faster classes, and that you can quite reliably recognize this already at the age of six, and it doesn't change significantly during the lifetime.)
You might want to read/ask JayMan or Razib Khan who are left-wing and accept IQ inequality.
Average left accepts that even if IQ is real, effect of genes on IQ is small and IQ determined culturally, evolution takes millions of years.
And it doesn't matter because AGI is cooming soon (okay, this is not about what average leftist thinks).
I think it might be better to ask "what's the best steelman for /not/ supporting the left when you know about IQ research?"
All success is due to either 1) effort or 2) luck. This is absolutely not to say that intelligence and skills don't matter - they matter immensely. Rather, it's to say that being intelligent and having skills is, tautologically, due to either effort (working hard to learn something that doesn't come naturally) or luck (good genes or good educational opportunities), just like all other contributing factors.
If you believe that success is mostly due to effort, that might lead you towards the right-wing position that progressive taxation and a social safety net are bad, because the rich have earned their money by working for it.
But if you believe that luck (of which good genes are a part) is an important factor, and that lots of people stay poor despite working super hard, then that's a strong argument for redistribution to help the needy.
This, incidentally, is why despite strongly supporting the thing referred to as "meritocracy", I dislike the word - rewarding doing things well is super important, because otherwise your society won't thrive, but it should be called "abilitocracy" - in my book a stupid person who works hard all their life is more meritorious than someone lucky enough to be born with good genes and good educational opportunities, and who is hence far more able, but who doesn't work as hard - I'd still rather the latter got the job, but I don't want to rub salt in the wound by pretending that they're more deserving.
The right wing argument is not about relative effect of effort vs nested luck, it's about that the skilled might work less or move to another country if taxed highly.
To an individual their own genes are luck, but history doesn't start at their conception and a child can only get genes from ones their parents have and it's deterministic. With prenatal screening (for embryo abnormalities and PGS) there is less luck.
Imagine two women, one conceived a baby from career criminal, smoked during pregnancy and bought premium wine. The other conceived from good guy, didn't smoke and bought books. This is non-random, especially smoking.
>n my book a stupid person who works hard all their life is more meritorious than someone lucky
which is because they maxxed dice roll for "conscientiuosness" and someone instilled work ethic in them? It's luck all the way down. (Also people can have bad health conditions preventing hard work for days even if they concentrate for a few hours)
> The right wing argument is not about relative effect of effort vs nested luck, it's about that the skilled might work less or move to another country if taxed highly.
This is steel-manning. There absolutely are right-wingers who advance that argument, and I think it deserves to be taken seriously, but there are also a lot of right-wingers who regularly argue that taxing the rich is inherently wrong because they've earned their money and deserve to keep it, without reference to the economic impact, and it's that argument that I am trying to dismantle.
Yes, there certainly right-wingers who advance past that, but most of them aren't against taxes, just about the amount of it. How does luck (a lot of which is not really luck) justify non-flat taxing?
Did you skip other parts of my comment?
Yes, obviously it's all genes and therefore luck, but why should that matter? If we proved that the universe is entirely deterministic and therefore free will doesn't exist, would you be against any distribution of resources that wasn't equal? Of course not, ultimately we all agree that some people are more valuable than others. The reason for this being the case is irrelevant. We have a social hierarchy because that it is ultimately more efficient than the alternatives; we've tried pure democracy and communism, and they simply do not work well enough.
Like I said, I'm /not/ against unequal distribution of resources; I'm not even against distribution of resources in ways other than fairly rewarding the effort people make.
What I /am/ against is claiming that distribution that distribution of resources that doesn't reward effort is fair or just, rather than being an unfairness that is sadly necessary because, as you say, the alternative doesn't work well - the injury is justifiable, but the insult is not.
Also, I think "some people are more valuable than others" is ambiguous enough to be neither true nor false, and is the kind of deeply unpleasant statement that shouldn't be made unless it's both true and necessary. Some of the things it gestures at are unquestionably true - some people's labour has much greater financial value than others; some people would be missed much more than others if they were hit by a bus - but if you're trying to use "I am stating harsh truths" as a justification for saying something then I think it behoves you to get in as much truth and as little harshness as possible, and "some people are more valuable than others" doesn't do that.
...Our obsession with justice is exactly what got us into this mess. Of course, if the populace can be convinced that inequality is just, that's killing two birds with one stone. And the next administration is set to do exactly that.
Why pretend that your idea of justice is objectively true? Justice, just like morality, is completely subjective. The people have made their choice on what justice looks like, and you have no standing to object to that. The poor, the weak, and the unwanted will face judgement. Your appeal to morality will accomplish nothing.
"IQ differences exist" does not imply "and therefore, I should support the guy who rants about immigrants poisoning the blood of our country." Trump is not raising some sort of sober point about dysgenics or immigrant birth rates, he's just being a fascist.
The blank-slatists, while inaccurate, are much closer to what I would consider "american values" than anything out of the Right in recent years.
The OP isnt talking about Trump. And if Trump talked about dysgenics rather than immigration, he'd would get called fascist a lot more
Does "still broadly supporting the Left" not include "voting Democrat"?
Also, I don't understand what you mean by your second sentence. Trump did talk about immigrants having bad genes, and he did get called a fascist for it, so what's the hypothetical here?
I asked OP what he meant and he didn’t respond, so it’s anyone’s guess.
What does this question have with the thread? It's not about USA and not about Trump.
The hypothetical is yours "Trump is not raising some sort of sober point about dysgenics or immigrant birth rates"
Dysgenics is not about immigrants but about fertility patterns
A lot of posters here are in the USA.
If IQ differences were the reason for all inequality this still wouldn’t be a reason to oppose lessoning inequality.
Helping people unto itself would still be good
Analyzing questions like hiring, immigration, birth rates, etc would have to change
I don't think that last part is true. You just need to base decisions on the individual rather than what groups he or she belongs to, and that's good practice *anyway*.
Yeah, but blank slatism seems to be a gateway drug to:
1. attributing differences in outcomes between individuals to some sort of systemic bias that needs to be corrected
2. overlooking observable consequences to group-policies related to immigration, etc because the arguments needed to articulate why these consequences might happen would touch on extremely offensive claims (even if ideally you could just have a direct measurement for traits without group policies, even trying to argue for direct measurements gets attacked because of disparate impacts on groups)
I think recognizing IQ differences and how important they are in life outcomes makes a case for a lot of traditional left-wing policies. To the extent your wealth and my poverty comes down to you working harder or making better choices, it's pretty easy to justify the difference in our wealth; to the extent if comes down to you being born smarter because your grandparents were smarter + the genetic and developmental dice rolls came out in your favor, it's a lot harder to justify on moral grounds. (You might still justify it pragmatically, but not morally.)
The Bell Curve was mostly about how IQ differences affected life outcomes. It would be shocking if IQ score didn't predict success in school, since that's what it IQ scores were designed to do. But it's surprising and unsettling that IQ score predicts (correlates with) stuff like life expectancy, disability claims, probability of bad life outcomes like spending time in prison, being divorced, or having kids out of wedlock. As best anyone can tell, IQ is mainly determined by genes, developmental noise, and early childhood environment--none of these are things you can control.
The more your life trajectory is determined by random crap outside your control, the stronger the moral argument for safety net programs. A model of the world that has a big chunk of life success be driven by IQ is one in which those programs are easier to argue for.
Notably, Paige Harden is an IQ researcher who advocates for mostly left/progressive politics, and Freddie DeBoer wrote a book largely about differences in intellectual ability between people, and is also a dedicated socialist who supports a lot of old left stuff.
Race/IQ correlations are the other place where you might think IQ research undermines left-wing ideas, but mainly that undermines a fairly small part of those ideas--affirmative action, disparate impact, etc. You can have the worldview of Steve Sailer wrt race and IQ and still support a minimum wage, extensive regulation of the economy, a carbon emission tax, etc.
Yeah I think that's a good steelman, and thanks for the sources. I guess the main "blind spots" that have to be watched out for are:
1. Edge case mass migration scenarios (like what the European migrant criss from a decade ago could've become)
2. Effects on birth rate trends (which would be devastating but maybe we aren't going to be baseline biological humans for long enough anyway)
3. Just generally being at the mercy to the fact that if you pretend this variable doesn't exist and are zealous about certain things, you will inevitably come to strange conclusions and nobody is allowed to cleanly say why you're wrong, so you have to just sort of hope that society just moderates that by using other variables to triangulate or something
Yeah, I think not knowing or not being able to talk about important bits of reality like IQ research is in general bad--it leads to bad policies. And there are definitely places where this shows up in the US--basically all public discourse on education in the US is infected with a rather aggressive ignorance of basic facts wrt IQ, which is why you get stuff like NCLB and the idea that by raising standards for teachers you can basically make every student college material, as well as idiocy like wanting to eliminate advanced math classes to reduce inequality, and the assumption that when a magnet program is 45/45/10 Asian, white, and black, this is evidence of racism.
I think you’ll have to unpack this a little bit more: it’s not clear how you think IQ research discredits the Left, so it’s hard to respond.
Trump has named three of his own personal defense attorneys to top management posts in the Justice Department.
Well, points for clarity I guess.
Yeah, I'm semi-excited about Trump's cabinet. I would like to hope he could turn the other cheek. But I'd bet he's going to want to lawfare someone on the other side. which sucks, but I'm not going to hold it against him.
Do you have any other reasons to find Matt Gaetz et al exciting, aside from "they'll attack Trump's enemies"?
Sarah Isgur on The Dispatch/Advisory Opinions gave reasons for supporting MG as AG. I would summarize her arguments, but I found them so unconvincing that I doubt I can represent them fairly. You're invited to form your own opinion here:
https://thedispatch.com/podcast/advisoryopinions/the-trump-picks-so-far/
We live in interesting times.
I'm hoping it's a trick and now that Matt Gaetz has resigned from his old position they'll pull the rug out from under him.
A few more links on Avian flu.
1. The teenager up in BC who has been hospitalized with HPAI, and who is in critical condition is infected with a strain of A(H5) found in wild birds (clade 2.3.4.4b, genotype D1.1)—this is not the strain that is circulating in cattle in the US.
https://www.statnews.com/2024/11/13/bird-flu-canada-teenager-infected-different-strain-than-dairy-cattle/
I don't think they've published the full sequence, though. Statement from the Public Health Agency of Canada
https://t.co/ebQedla6qc
2. An excellent article in Science discussing what sort of mutations would be required to trigger a pandemic in humans. It runs down some of the genetic changes that could make A(H5) more transmissible and immune evasive in humans.
https://www.science.org/content/article/bad-worse-avian-flu-must-change-trigger-human-pandemic
The A(H5) clades that infect birds use feces-contaminated water as a vector for transmission, and those strains infect the birds' guts. These strains are not adapted to infecting lung tissue. So, that's why it's difficult for humans to catch it from birds. But not discussed in the article is that the strains that are capable of inter-mammal transmission can spread via respiratory transmission or fomites.
My favorite quote is from one of the scientists who performed that GoF experiment in ferrets to make A(H5) more transmissible.
"That feat prompted restrictions on such 'gain of function' experiments, which has hampered research, says Mathilde Richard, a virologist at Erasmus Medical Center, where some of that work was done. 'I do think that this has really, really slowed down our knowledge.'" I think this is a good example of scientific hubris. Although I'm certain that SARS-CoV-2 is not an escape from a lab GoF experiment, other pathogens have escaped from BSL-3 facilities.
3. And Adam Kucharski delves into the ins-and-outs of how we'd estimate the overall fatality rate (IFR) of A(H5) avian strains in humans.
https://kucharski.substack.com/p/how-fatal-is-h5n1-influenza
ACXLW Meetup 79: Revisiting "Rules for Rulers" by CGP Grey and "Game Theory of Michigan Muslims" by Scott Alexander
Date: Saturday, November 16, 2024
Time: 2:00 PM
Location: 1970 Port Laurent Place, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Host: Michael Michalchik
Contact: michaelmichalchik@gmail.com | (949) 375-2045
Due to high interest and a desire for deeper exploration, we are revisiting our previous topics for this week's meetup. Join us as we delve further into the intricate dynamics of political power and strategic decision-making.
Conversation Starter 1
Topic: "Rules for Rulers" by CGP Grey
Videos:
Rules for Rulers
How to Rig an Election
Transcripts: Reformatted Transcripts
Enhanced Summary:
Foundations of Political Power: The videos are based on "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith. They dissect the mechanics of how rulers—whether dictators or democratically elected leaders—acquire, maintain, and lose power.
Three Fundamental Rules:
Secure the Support of Key Individuals: Rulers must identify and win over those who control essential resources, institutions, or influence.
Control the Nation's Wealth: By managing the treasury, rulers can reward key supporters and ensure their loyalty.
Minimize the Number of Essential Supporters: Fewer key supporters mean fewer people to satisfy, simplifying the maintenance of power.
Application Across Governance Systems: While the rules are universal, their application varies between dictatorships and democracies. In dictatorships, power is concentrated, leading to potential abuses and neglect of the populace. In democracies, the need to satisfy a larger base can lead to policies that improve citizens' lives but may also result in systemic inefficiencies or corruption.
Dynastic Power and Succession: The sequel video explores why rulers often place family members in positions of power. This practice can provide continuity and stability but also poses risks of nepotism and potential internal betrayal.
Manipulation of Systems: The content examines how rulers may exploit legal systems, elections, and public policies to entrench their power, often at the expense of democratic principles and societal welfare.
Improved Discussion Questions:
a) Universal Dynamics of Power: How do the three rules for rulers help explain historical and contemporary political events across different countries? Can you identify real-world examples where these rules are evident?
b) Moral Implications of Power Strategies: Is it possible for leaders to follow these rules without compromising ethical standards? How can societies encourage leaders to prioritize the common good while recognizing the realities of political power?
c) The Role of Institutions: How do strong institutions and checks and balances mitigate the negative effects of these power dynamics? What mechanisms can be implemented to prevent the abuse of power by those in leadership positions?
d) Family Influence and Political Stability: In what ways does involving family in governance strengthen or weaken a political system? Are there alternatives to dynastic succession that can provide the same level of stability?
Conversation Starter 2
Topic: "Game Theory of Michigan Muslims" by Scott Alexander
Text: Game Theory of Michigan Muslims
Enhanced Summary:
Strategic Voting as Political Leverage: The article discusses a group of Michigan Muslims contemplating voting for a candidate whose policies oppose their interests to signal their dissatisfaction with their traditional party's stance on critical issues, specifically regarding foreign policy in the Middle East.
Applying Game Theory to Politics: By using the Ultimatum Game as an analogy, the article examines the strategic considerations behind voting decisions. In the Ultimatum Game, one player proposes a division of resources, and the other can accept or reject it. The analogy highlights the tension between immediate self-interest and long-term strategic positioning.
Decision Theories Explored:
Causal Decision Theory (CDT): Suggests that actions should be based solely on their immediate consequences.
Logical Decision Theory (LDT): Proposes that agents should consider the logical implications of their actions, including how they influence others' expectations and future behaviors.
Potential Consequences of Strategic Defection: The article explores whether voting against one's immediate interests can effectively pressure a political party to change its policies or if it risks marginalizing the group further.
Coalition Dynamics and Loyalty: The piece delves into how political parties balance the needs of various constituencies and what happens when a group attempts to leverage its support in ways that may undermine coalition unity.
Improved Discussion Questions:
a) Effectiveness of Strategic Defection: Can minority groups effectively influence major political parties by threatening to withdraw their support? What historical examples support or refute this strategy?
b) Game Theory Limitations in Real Politics: How well does the Ultimatum Game capture the complexities of electoral politics and voter behavior? What factors in real-world politics complicate this analogy?
c) Ethics and Long-Term Consequences: Is it ethically defensible for a group to vote for a candidate whose policies may harm them or others to achieve a strategic objective? What are the potential long-term impacts on democratic processes and trust in political systems?
d) Alternatives to Voting Defection: What other methods can minority groups employ to make their voices heard and influence policy without resorting to voting against their interests?
Walk & Talk: After the discussion, we will take our usual hour-long walk. Nearby options for takeout include Gelson's and Pavilions, located in the 92660 zip code area.
Share a Surprise: Bring something to share that unexpectedly changed your perspective on life or the universe.
Future Direction Ideas: As always, feel free to contribute ideas for future meetings, topics, and activities.
Looking forward to seeing everyone there!
Tumblr poll "Which of my recent single use verification codes is the most fuckable?" is a poll between 10 different (ostensibly randomly generated) 6-digit numbers. It has 50% of answers (n>100,000) on agreed on one option. I don't know if whatever kind of kiki-bouba number feeling going on here can be decomposed, but I'm amused.
https://www.tumblr.com/kawaiite-mage/767046387305185280/which-of-my-recent-single-use-verification-codes?
(screenshot: https://ibb.co/ZJ4t0Xd )
May non-Tumblr-users have a screenshot?
mea culpa
https://ibb.co/ZJ4t0Xd
It starts with "007" and thus is associated with James Bond.
I've tried to figure out what happened in Amsterdam. Here is my approximation. I'm curious about more details and more accuracy if anyone has them.
Maccabi Tel Aviv, an Israeli football (soccer) team and their fans behaved like assholes in Amsterdam. They seem to have interrupted a minute of silence for Valencia. The only explanation I've seen is from Al Jazeera which says that Spain has recognized Palestine.
They (I'm assuming fans rather than team members) took down a Palestinian flag hanging from someone's window. I've heard about multiple flags being taken down and damage to houses, but I don't think that was verified.
They were also doing anti-Palestinian chants.
Eventually a mob formed and physically attacked fans. 10 were injured, and 5 of them were hospitalized, but were not severely injured. One person was claiming he wasn't Jewish, but he was attacked anyway. 2 people disappeared, possibly just out of contact because their cell phones were taken. I *think* they showed up, but I'm not sure.
The Israeli government considered sending military planes to evacuate people, but settled for sending two El Al planes.
I've heard that the attack on the fans was organized in advance by Arab taxi drivers, so I'm not sure whether the fans behaving better in Amsterdam would have made that much difference.
Terms like pogrom and Kristallnacht were used. They strike me as excessive, but I don't know what appropriate language would be.
> Terms like pogrom and Kristallnacht were used. They strike me as excessive, but I don't know what appropriate language would be.
Pogrom seems like a reasonable language for anything that self-describes itself as a "jew hunt", source for that: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/calls-for-jew-hunt-preceded-attacks-in-amsterdam-e3311e21
One report about a “Jew hunt” isn’t much proof. There are considerable Jewish communities in Amsterdam. Why then did the locals have to wait for a group of football hooligans to engage in “pogroms”.
Clearly the instigators were, by most accounts, the Israeli fans. I strongly suggest not attacking people in another country, chasing locals down the road, seizing flags and booing a minutes silence for drowned Europeans, when in civilised Europe.
And if Israeli soccer teams fear anti semitism in European competitions then there’s a solution - Israel is not it Europe and it doesn’t have to be in European competitions. Admittedly the football mobs of Israel might fare worse as they bring their hooliganism to whatever Middle Eastern city they should be playing in but that seems the optimal solution to the problem.
How, then, would you distinguish it from a hate crime?
A pogrom 1) is going to be aimed at Jewish people in general, esp local Jewish people and institutions; 2) is going have local government support or acquiescense in some way. https://encyclopedia.yivo.org/article/260
The link you provided doesn't match what you said. Here's the exact wording:
> In general usage, a pogrom is an outbreak of mass violence directed against a minority religious, ethnic, or social group; it usually implies central instigation and control, or at minimum the passivity of local authorities
That clearly says that government support is not a requirement since its only "usually" part of a pogrom. So in answer to your question all pogrom's are hate crimes, but not all hate crimes are an "outbreak of mass violence directed against a minority religious, ethnic, or social group"
Edit: I believe you are misconstruing the link. It says govt SUPPORT is "usual" but that govt PASSIVITY is present at a minimum. Which is what I said: "local government support or acquiescense in some way."
>So in answer to your question all pogrom's are hate crimes, but not all hate crimes are an "outbreak of mass violence directed against a minority religious, ethnic, or social group"
The issue is not whether pogroms are hate crimes or whether hate crimes are pogroms. It is whether thus particular incident is better described as a hate crime or a pogrom.
If it is a anti-Jewish pogrom, it is the first in history in which synagogue were not targeted, homes and businesses of Jewish residents were not targeted, etc. I would also not that it does not seem to qualify as "mass" violence.
The main point is that referring to it as a logrom is a pure appeal to emotion.
A pogrom is a mob event, possibly planned, possibly spontaneous. A hate crime can kill a lot of people (Tree of Life, for instance, and the anti-immigrant shooter in Texas in 2019), but those single-shooter incidents weren't reasonably called pogroms.
But many, if not most, hate crimes are group events. Also possibly planned and possibly spontaneous. The point is that the mere fact that someone described it as a "Jew hunt" does not make it a pogrom. A lot more is needed.
A "hunt" is, in common English usage at least, a group event and usually planned. "Hunting" (verb) can be used to describe a solitary and spontaneous activity, like going out into the woods alone with a bow and arrow and the intention of shooting dinner, but the resulting activity is rarely described as a "hunt" (noun). Think classic English fox hunt, or African safari, for typical uses.
Of course, there could be translation errors involved here; that sort of nuance may not cross the language barrier.
This is weird. I got email notifications for three replies (one of them pointing out that I'd said hockey team, I've corrected my comment). It seems strange that all three of them have disappeared.
I DMd you. Perhaps the notifications were from that.
Oops that was probably me and my two edits (to add links). I'm seeing the reply up, though, weird! Maybe try a different browser or device if it's still not showing?
Not an expert, but some clarifications per my understanding:
* football/soccer, not hockey. Football hooliganism is a perenial cultural feature, annoyance, sign of moral decay, or pipeline to right wing radicalism, depending on who you ask.
* Day before the match, some Maccabi fans took a Palestinian flag off a building, burned it, chanted "fuck you Palestine," and vandalized a taxi. A taxi driver was assaulted, but the details are unconfirmed. There's a video of some Maccabi fans setting off flares and chanting "Ole, ole, let the IDF win, and fuck the Arabs" to a football tune.
* A group of taxi drivers gathered to confront a large gathering of Maccabi fans, and police dispersed them and escorted the fans away.
* A pro-Palestine protest (Amsterdam has a lot of these) planned for during the match was officially canceled, but people showed up anyway.
* After the match, there was a lot of yelling and fighting in the streets. Some people went looking for fights. Maccabi fans grabbed a bunch of pipes and planks from a construction site and went around chanting. People on scooters went around attacking people in Maccabi colors. Not narratively linear cause-and-effect, but decentralized hooliganism.
* The Dutch right wing is blaming the Amsterdam Moroccan community.
* 5 people hospitalized, 20-30 injured, 62 arrested, 4 Dutch nationals still in custody.
* Everybody is accounted for, and investigation is ongoing.
EDIT 1: some sources
Local news before: https://www.rtl.nl/nieuws/binnenland/artikel/5479291/hooligans-van-maccabi-tel-aviv-amsterdam-slaags-met
Al Jazeera explainer: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/11/10/israeli-football-fans-pro-palestinians-attacked-in-amsterdam-what-we-know
Guardian explainer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/11/what-happened-amsterdam-israeli-football-fans
EDIT 2: actually the current Wikipedia write up is very detailed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=November_2024_Amsterdam_attacks&oldid=1257380676
Thanks. It still doesn't explain the other two comments.
This just sounds like a fairly normal occurrence in any football game where there is existing enmity between the teams supporters. Any time English fans travel to European games there is almost always violence. This is one of the key reasons many of the 'fans' travel in the first place - they just love a good fight.
The fact that it was Israeli fans is really of no great consequence in the larger setting of football violence.
It's not standard football violence, since Ajax fans were pretty much uninvolved, but yeah. The general hooliganism and fight-picking associated with football ultras is imo important context, both for why/how the fans were behaving, and for why the locals got fed up with it, but this wasn't just ultras going at each other.
Sorry if I'm late to this, but... I think I found the most fucked up use of AI so far. Not fucked up in an ethical way (though uh, it doesn't seem like they got Microsoft's permission to do this), but just... everything else.
It's called Oasis, and it's a video generation AI that streams a fully playable instance of Minecraft without using any of its code. And amazingly, it actually kinda works. The buttons mostly do what you expect them to do, you can explore and mine and even open your inventory and craft. ...But the emphasis is on "kinda". If you've played any Minecraft at all, you'll find it is an absolute nightmare to play in the most literal sense.
The most obvious problem is the complete lack of object permanence; looking away from anything for even a moment will cause it to morph into something different. The worst part is that if you look down, it tries to predict the surrounding environment from the blocks that are visible, creating landscapes that should simply not exist. And problems only start there; sinking into the ground without warning as the world melts under you, sudden walls of tall grass that obscure everything, cursed amalgamations of creatures that morph in and out of existence... I've never done psychedelics before, but I'm assuming this is what a bad trip feels like.
But what fills me with dread isn't the fact that it's broken, it's the fact that it works at all. How the hell is it doing this? How is it keeping track of these 3d spaces relatively consistently as long as I keep looking at it? How does it know that certain tools mine certain blocks faster? I think I know the answer, but... *sigh* I don't know what to feel about this.
Anyways, if you want to feel a wave of existential dread, here's the link to the demo. It's free! (But you can only play it on Chrome.) https://oasis.decart.ai/starting-point And if you can't use the site for whatever reason, here's the technical report. https://oasis-model.github.io/
LSD: Dream Emulator 2 is gonna be absolutely lit
By next year it should have developed enough to have a special Ayahuasca mode to one-shot your consciousness
"The most obvious problem is the complete lack of object permanence; looking away from anything for even a moment will cause it to morph into something different"
That seems remarkably dreamlike, but dreams are arguably an association system which is just somewhat more sophisticated than AI.
Here's a different theory of why things morph in dreams. You know how when you wake up and try to remember a dream, it's hard? You have trouble being clear about settings, what the point of this or that event was, what that one character looked like? I think that *while you're dreaming* you are similarly impaired regarding the dream events you are experiencing: You quickly lose track of what you were doing a little earlier in the dream and why, of what the setting was like, of how you got to be in a different setting, of who the guy was you were talking to. And yet the expectation that things will stay what they are is still there, and the expectation that they will make sense, so the dreaming mind can't just shrug and say, "oh well, I can't remember what it looked last time I looked out the window and it doesn't matter if none of this fits together." So it puts up a made-up scene for the next look out the window, and sort of defines it as the scene that's been there all along, and declares it to be a meaningful development from what was happening before. . In other words, the dreaming mind confabulates, like people with a memory disorder. All this is consistent with other evidence that the dreaming mind is sort of dumb and confused. Most people find they can't really read anything in their dreams. In my dreams I try, but it's hard to see -- or I can't find the spot where I was reading before -- or what I read makes no sense. You can't do real math or real reasoning in a dream. You can't remember real events from your waking life.
> I think that *while you're dreaming* you are similarly impaired regarding the dream events you are experiencing
Can confirm. Today I had a dream where something happened, and when I tried to explain it to other people in the dream, I just couldn't remember the important events, the same way I can't remember them after I wake up.
The setting was of a time loop, something like Groundhog Day, where I tried to escape from... some kind of magic school, I guess... and got killed at various points, and then restarted and tried a different thing. At some point I got allies, and I was like: "okay, now I need to tell them about the time loop, and explain what happened in the previous runs, and then we will plan something smart together", only to realize that I actually don't remember the previous runs and can't even make a coherent story out of something that happened like 5 subjective minutes ago. That was extremely frustrating, and then I woke up.
> Most people find they can't really read anything in their dreams.
A repeating thing in my dreams is that I write down someone's phone number on a paper, but then the digits start changing in front of my eyes as I try to read them, in a way similar to how LLMs try to recreate texts.
Haha yeah, that’s the stuff of dreams. One of the most obvious way we’re impaired is that we don’t realize while we’re dreaming that what’s going on keeps mutating and we can’t even remember the recent dream events. We’re engaged, we take it seriously. Sometimes when my alarm
goes off I think, “but I can’t stop what I’m
doing now ! I have to mix all the popcorn into the house paint (or whatever)!”
I have remembered real events from my waking life in a dream. I have also remembered a previous dream in a subsequent dream. Dreaming is weird.
Human brain is obviously more sophisticated, sure, but these AIs are working with way more hardware and data than we are. I sure as hell can't visualize Minecraft in my head that accurately, and I played a ton of it back in the day.
It's like if you put fusion-powered engine on a wooden wagon; sure, that'll obviously crash and burn, but what happens when you eventually learn how to build a proper rocket? It wouldn't necessarily be a FOOM scenario... but humanity still isn't going to deal with it well.
I am not sure but I think this model uses less compute for inference than human brain;
As for cannot vuisualize; do you have aphantasia?
Came here looking for commentary on FBI raiding the home of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan. Initial thoughts?
Initial thought; wait, he lives in the United States, how the hell did he get away with betting on the election?
...Well, apparently he didn't.
Jokes aside, I'm sure the FBI's looking for dirt on Polymarket, not Coplan himself. Surely he wasn't stupid enough to bet on the election... right?
> I'm sure the FBI's looking for dirt on Polymarket
They're investigating money laundering.
One would hope not, but one would also think he wouldn't be dumb enough to run a gambling site on US soil.
So secondary impression is, the FBI had to wait until the market closed and money actually changed hands, the same way they do with prostitution or murder-for-hire, and it only looks political because it can't not look political.
But yeah, wouldn't surprise me if Trump bailed them out because they said nice things about him.
But polymarket has settled non-election bets before. Maybe they just wanted to wait for after the election to avoid the appearance of interference
Does it even matter? What the current administration does now is completely irrelevant, considering they're going to be replaced in a few months anyways. I don't see how it could be political retribution though, since it's not like Polymarket directly contributed to Trump's win... and even if it was retribution, it would still be completely pointless because of the aforementioned regime change. They probably are genuinely trying to convict him for intentionally circumventing US gambling regulations. ...Though, I don't know why they're even bothering at this point.
Is Substack cutting off replies, I see a lot of unfinished comments.
Go to your browser settings and clear the cache. Never had to do that on any other website, this place is a fucking mess.
For me, the problem generally goes away when I reload the page.
Theoretical question: What is the opposite of effective altruism? What would be the word for wanting to decrease the human utility function as much as possible? Effective misanthropy? Effective maltruism?
Effective Malevolence
Management Training...!
Effective malice?
Solipsism.
A different opposite would be "futile altruism".
He was asking for an opposite, not an alternative name.
True, but I think 'futile altruism' is a nice word for EA to use if they need an attack word for some reason. I mean, what's the alternative? Going on vibes?
Whatever it is, it's perhaps poorly defined because the big barriers to causing mass harm are legal rather than financial, so instead of asking "What's the most harm I can do with X amount of money" you're stuck asking "What's the most harm I can do with X amount of money and Y amount of tolerance for being caught and punished?"
(I came up with some examples for various values of X and Y but the tiny possibility of giving some weirdo an idea isn't worth it.)
Fuck 'em Syndrome
Ineffective egotism.
I have just noticed that the wikipedia entry for Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1944)
starts off with how it is not to be confused with Revolutionary Communist Party (UK, 1978).
Well, yes, of course. Completely different, wouldnt want to get them mixed up.
This is like the bit in Monty Python's Life of Brian with The Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea, isn't it...
[Yes, I aatually do some of the context and how they're different. Still, People's Front of Judea].
I mean, that's the entire point of the joke in 'Life of Brian'. It specifically jokes about splintered communist parties and their mutual hostility.
I was actually trying to remember which of the various Communist splinter groups was the extremely anti-semitic one, but kind of lost heart in finding out. (See also, Hannah Arendt's The Origin of Totalitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism), and The Horseshoe Theory of Politics)
Anyone know why The Horseshoe Theory of Politics is so heavily criticized in the wiki-sphere? The article and its associated Talk page are remarkably heavy-handed, much more so than my experience talking to people who study political science.
Because the only people who are really motivated to write about the subject are the far left, who are offended by the comparison with the far right. (The far right are in theory offended too but they have less cultural power and different battles to fight.)
It's easy to see why the extremes look similar to the people in the middle, but far apart to the people on the extremes; it's just that different people care about different things. If you're counting legs then snakes and spiders are very different, but if you're deciding whether you're happy to share a sleeping bag with them then they seem much more similar.
I think the concept has at least _some_ explanative power, but its typical use in the popular discourse is sloppy and of negative value. I'd speculate the Wiki pushback/emphasis on limited academic support is for this or similar reasons.
Basically, the horseshoe theory looks at all of politics from the standpoint of basic liberalism - democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, all that - and notices that both communism and fascism have it in common that they do indeed lack that basic liberalism, and there is a certain sort of an "anti-liberal" personality that can easily flitter from one non-liberal ideology to another or construct boutique ideologies sharing features from both a la Dugin's thought.
However, this still very much obscures that these are completely different ideologies, built on different bases and with different worldviews, and the absence of a certain, admittedly otherwise omnipresent (in the West) ideological feature - the basic liberalism that a normal Western person takes for granted, the water we swim in - does not yet mean we can ignore this difference to the least.
Both Nazis and Communists living under those forms of government had similar observations to make about the similarities between liberalism and communism, and liberalism and fascism, respectively (although they used terms like “bourgeois”, “capitalist,” “Jewish financiers”, etc). Maybe the dominant mode always sees a horseshoe stretching out to either side…
Does it happen often? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Mahler is a prominent example.
There were a number of cases in the original fascist/Nazi-era. See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Doriot. Or, hell, Mussolini.
From my perspective, Occam's razor suggests that we should go with Circle Theory of Politics instead. There is no reason to believe that the two ends of the horseshoe are not connected.
But I guess the masters of the wiki would hate this theory even more.
I used to love Manifold, but the recent push to constantly ask me to redeem sweepstakes, get sweepstakes, changing the market category to sweepstakes-only in search daily, etc. has been VERY annoying as a European who can't even participate in it.
Even if I was American and could, I'd probably be annoyed by all the pushing, but if they don't even allow me to use it what's the point of constantly hindering my experience by doing so?
I can understand the frustration. Manifold, as a product experience, is a strange mix of professional and amateur. Part of the problem is the constraint of not having a clear revenue and profit model. My interpretation of the sweepstake mis-steps is in that context.
Overall, though, I'm hoping they can settle into a sustainable path and we, users, can focus on the markets and forecasting.
A Pew survey last month found that 72% of registered voters believed Kamala Harris would accept a Trump victory, while only 24% believed Trump would do the same if he lost.
What are the chances the next Republican presidential candidate who loses will unambiguously concede and agree to a peaceful transfer of power? And do most Republicans still expect Democrats to do this as Harris just did?
It could strengthen the country (and grow Republican Party voter rolls and favorability) if Republicans simply reaffirmed support for the practice now and re-established it with their next presidential loss.
If you disagree, and think both sides should just abandon the practice and deny election losses going forward, could you explain why?
There's been a number of Republican candidates that have disputed the results for non-presidential elections. The highest profile one I can think of is Kari Lake's 2022 loss in the election for Arizona Governor which she was still disputing as of last week: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/arizona-court-of-appeals-rejects-kari-lakes-2022-election-contest-again/
I don't think any of those efforts have been successful (definitely not in terms of changing election results). Trump's election denial was "successful" only in the sense he was able to get sizable popular opinion on board with his claims. But thats the issue for any candidate going forward: Trump is uniquely able to create devotion among a sizable portion of the public. I doubt any candidate in the near future from either party will be as skilled in that department as Trump.
There are and have been other politicians that have had that same persuasive skills as trump but mostly in lower level roles like city council or sheriff etc. Former DC mayor Marion Berry was one. He went to jail for drug and prostitution charges while Mayor but was able to be reelected as mayor after his release from prison and served as a city councilor after losing the mayorship. He had devoted followers among the cities black population which served as his base and largely view his arrest as racial/political persecution. But his persuasive abilities wouldn't have scaled to higher office as they relied on characteristics unique to DC. Thats likely true of any other politicians that could try the trump tactic. They just wont have a universal devotion needed to make the election denial stick.
Manifold market on this question: https://manifold.markets/JRR/if-the-republican-candidate-loses-t
Is there a market for the Democrat as well?
I think it depends a lot on what you consider to be "accept[ing] a...victory." Many people say that Hillary Clinton accepted Trump's victory in 2016, but she and/or people around her did a lot of things to actively work against Trump and his administration, including pushing the entirely made up Steele Dossier into the DOJ and media in order to start a three year investigation. Did she "accept" his win? If so, then the chances of either side accepting the other's win is really really high. We just set the bar super low.
Definitionally, we can say that Trump accepted Biden's win as well, because he didn't take up arms or some other obvious refusal. Saying the words "Biden didn't really win" may or may not mean he didn't accept it in practice. Hillary had a formal concession speech and from there on repeatedly said that Trump wasn't a legitimate president. What does that mean in terms of "accepting" an election?
I’m talking about the tradition of a formal concession speech shortly after the election (unless the margin of victory is razor-thin and the result isn’t clear like 2000 when concession didn’t take place till December). We can put aside agreeing to a peaceful transfer of power prior to the result.
If you didn’t need to be forcibly removed from the White House but didn’t publicly concede, that doesn’t count as concession here.
Under these circumstances, and in line with general consensus, Hilary’s concession speech counted as conceding. Harris’s did, too. Trump didn’t make one.
Given this definition, do you think the next Republican presidential candidate who loses will concede? Do you think candidates should, or do you think both sides should abandon the practice?
That feels like an intentionally contrived definition. If Trump doesn't give a concession speech but doesn't do anything to hurt his successor, that's worse to you than someone who gives a concession speech but then spends years trying to tear down their opponent? By this I mean using institutional power, not just saying negative things about them.
That doesn't seem like a useful definition. Or putting tradition over substance.
I'll answer your question - I do think that a non-Trump Republican will most likely concede formally if they lose a future presidential election. Kari Lake doesn't come off well, and ultimately Trump didn't either, by continuing to deny it. If, beyond all sanity, someone like Donald Trump Jr. is the nominee, then I don't have much hope he would concede, but I also don't think he has a chance at being nominated. DeSantis, Vance, or the other real potentials I think would all formally concede.
Why would Vance conceed when he was chosen as VP because he says he would refuse to certify an election where Trump loses?
Genuine thanks for your answer.
I define concession in American presidential politics as making a concession speech because I feel it’s the most common definition and publicly conceding helps maintain civic order and preserve peace through a significant transition that goes on for months.
I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Doolittle here; a concession speech is basically arbitrary. I see your point that it maintains civic order and peace, but I think you need to inspect why it does that, and in so doing, you'll discover that it will fail in exactly the cases we're seeing today.
To lay it out: a concession speech serves as a signal that a candidate will no longer question the election results, vacate the office if incumbent, and will bear the same relation to the winner that any citizen (even one with major political influence) has borne toward any winner from an opposition party in past instances where the nation returned to stability. In other words, it's a statement of commitment to the aforesaid set of behaviors. That means that if that candidate does *not* commit to those behaviors, it wasn't really a concession. And it'd be foolish to insist that the speech overrode the failed commitment on definitional terms. See what I'm saying?
Part of actually conceding, then, means a candidate doesn't then grouse about how the winner didn't truly win on the merits, but rather because of fraud, collusion with a foreign power, and so on. I read Doolittle's contention above as Clinton having given a speech, but then failing to commit to the implications of such a speech. That just invalidates the speech.
Somewhat random related note: saw noted on Twitter that the last Democrat to give a concession speech *on Election night* was Dukakis. Thought that was mildly interesting.
I get your point, but I’m talking about concession speeches because the speech is a neat unit that can be more objectively measured and agreed upon than a subjective, varying criteria for what constitutes the essence of presidential concession. The speech is an imperfect measure, but it’s broadly understood and the failure of a candidate to make such a simple yet beneficial gesture is concerning to many voters.
...Why would it be in the interests GOP to start supporting democracy at this point? Right now, they have a pretty clear path to monopolizing power without even starting a civil war. As you said, only 24% believed Trump would concede the election, and he won easily anyways. They have zero incentive to make any concessions.
Is it your earnest and genuine opinion that the GOP are in the process of removing democracy from the American system and that this was the last election citizens will ever vote in? Is that your real position?
Yes. Vance runs in 2028 as the Republican nominee on a Vance/Trump ticket or with President Trump's full endorsement. It's been 3.5 years since Trump instituted his Schedule F Executive Order that allows him to fire nonpartisan federal bureaucrats that stood in his way in 2020. Trump starts beating his drum about election fraud again and directs his loyalist DoJ to send out a letter to swing states https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/21/read-the-never-issued-trump-order-that-would-have-seized-voting-machines-527572 that confiscates the "fraudulent" votes that would tip the election. Vance wins because of this.
Or, Trump appoints more fraudulent electors like he did in 2020. Since Vance will be Vice President and reside over the certification of electoral votes, and because he's already said he would certify Trump's fraudulent slates of electors in 2020, he will certify Trump's fraudulent electoral votes that are all for Vance over the Democrat nominee in 2028. And if you say that the Electoral Count Act was amended to clarify that the VP only has a procedural role - we can't even get Republicans to agree with Democrats that taking FEMA won't result in their homes getting repossessed by the federal government, that Haitians aren't eating cats and dogs in Ohio, that Trump should be prosecuted for his initial attempt in trying to break the ECA and have his VP decertify legitimate electoral votes, that Trump should be prosecuted for showing off classified documents at his private estate and directing people to obstruct the investigation by hiding the documents - Republicans definitely will not side with Democrats on their interpretation of procedural rules with the result of an election at stake (especially because most Republican voters https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html are so stupid they still think the 2020 election was stolen).
There is no incentive for Republicans to continue playing by democratic rules, because Trump will pardon every Republican involved in the plot to overturn the 2020 election, because Republicans in general won't hold Trump accountable for anything he does, and they are so delusional they think Democrats are the ones actually trying to steal elections.
Obviously they shouldn't get rid of the vote! You still have to keep up appearances. But right now the GOP is in a really good position to ensure that they maintain power for the foreseeable future, and they would be stupid not to at least try. After all, what's even the point of a democracy if the wrong people keep getting elected and ruin everything? Not taking action would practically be immoral!
There are five main power centres in the US: Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Washington DC, and the news media (which doesn't have a convenient geographical synecdoche, sad!)
Washington DC is the only one that the Democrats don't permanently control at this point. And you're worried about the Republicans?
Wall street is a lot less democrat controlled than you think. E.g. Ken Griffin is the biggest single republican donor.
I understand your point, and it was (seemingly) very true not that long ago. But at this point...
Silicon Valley has arguably never been more empowered in Washington than it is now. And it's a Republican President doing it. Sure, your average coder in Silicon Valley is probably still very left-leaning, but what matters most is what the billionaires/owners think and do. I could imagine the actual power players of Silicon Valley gradually shifting to the Republican party, with Musk/Thiel/Bezos leading the way (don't forget that Bezos refused to let the Washington Post endorse Harris).
Hollywood and the mainstream news media are in decline. Your average zoomer male likely cares way more about anime/manga than they do Hollywood these days, seriously. And if celebrity endorsements were truly powerful, we'd have President-Elect Harris now. Harris had plenty of big names endorsing her and joining her for rallies. As for the mainstream news media, Joe Rogan and similar independent podcasters are more important than they are now. And this isn't even a right vs. left thing, it's a generational thing. Look at the demographic breakdowns for ratings for the alphabet networks. Younger generations are barely watching, it's basically only boomers that watch in great numbers.
Whether what I wrote is good or bad will depend on each person's perspective. But It all seems true to me, anyway.
...Worried? Do I sound like I'm worried? I'm cheering you guys on! It's every man's right to fight and kill for what they believe. I'm just here to enjoy the show, that's all.
I completely think that's exclusively a Trump thing and will stop once he's gone. So the chance of the next non-Trump candidate conceding gets 99%.
Given that 28% of those polled thought even Harris wouldn’t accept a Trump victory, and Trump’s claim of winning 2020 hasn’t been refuted by the Republican leaders likeliest to run in 2028, I must admit I’m surprised someone would be 99% certain the next Republican to lose would readily concede.
They haven't refuted it because Trump is still the head of the party, but he's gone in 2028. Even if they wanted to, none of them have the charisma to pull that shit off on their own.
What do you think about my letter to Francis Fukuyama in response to his letter to Elon Musk. Do my suggestions sound good to you? Here’s an excerpt.
Dear Mr. Fukuyma,
The next time you write a letter to Elon, could you please mention the Constitution? It would be great if more people read it, and ever better if more people understood it, especially the Bill of Rights and Amendments 11-27.
For starters, how about suggesting that Elon post one amendment per day on X?
Next, how about suggesting that Elon create a game that tests X users’ understanding of the Constitution. Top performers might receive a CyberTruck in the color of their choice. Or even better yet, recognition, prestige and gratification of doing well on a comprehensive examination of the Constitution.
https://scottgibb.substack.com/p/a-letter-to-francis-fukuyama
Apologies for not understanding the context, but why don't you write those suggestions to Musk directly?
What would you suggest as the best way to communicate these ideas to him?
He replies to people on X all the time.