Source: Twitter X

  • TELEGRAM, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THE PROBLEM OF ‘UNSERIOUS POPLE’ DRIVING AWAY SERIOU

    TELEGRAM, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THE PROBLEM OF ‘UNSERIOUS POPLE’ DRIVING AWAY SERIOUS PEOPLE
    –“You need to do something about the NLI Telegram channel. That place was taken by people with no interest in the institute, and they’re preventing more serious individuals from engaging with NLI”– @TheoAdoreDore

    Hmmm… I’m aware of this problem. “Our” thoughts are that it is better to isolate that class of people on Telegram, and focus “Our” attention on Twitter, where “that kind of behavior” from “that class of people” is suppressed, and the platform tends to eliminate them. In addition, Martin can and does ‘handle’ those people.

    Personally, I can’t tolerate the Telegram group behavior and I try to ‘correct’ people or start blocking them rather quickly. But Martin objects saying something along the lines that it takes time to educate ‘that class of people’ and it must be done in their own frame, and it’s better to move those people a little than have them continually influenced by others and not move them at all (at least not move them helpfully).

    I did host my own Telegram channels but I found it just attracted more of “that class of people” and drove out those people I want to reach.

    I had the same problem on Gab. “that class of people” ruined all discourse.

    And it’s as bad or worse on Reddit.

    I had a pretty good reputation on Quora, with thousands of views every month, but Quora started suppressing anything on sex, class, group, civilization and race differences, which affected my reach there as well.

    Facebook banned our whole organization after an organized raid by the “nazi” sympathizers of all people. And the ADL didn’t help either.

    Here on Twitter, where the algorithm seeks to produce networks people with common interests and associations and LIMIT them to those networks, just responding to “that class of people” limits my reach.

    If I could compose and post here on Twitter and auto-post the full (long) post to Telegram then maybe that might be worth it. But it would mean I would have to aggressively police the Telegram feed.

    And you see, that’s the issue. My job isn’t social media. It’s to use social media to compose and test ideas to both improve my ability to argue and convey those ideas. And to ‘feed’ those ideas into the conservative discourse so that they gradually dissipate through it, and achieve our objectives indirectly. And in the off chance we find someone capable of joining the team, we do (note that it very very rarely happens). And most of those we’ve tried to add have failed rather quickly.

    I started using social media because it was essentially a free and voluntary research tool for obtaining demonstrated behavior instead of reported behavior that is all but meaningless if it can be influenced at all by virtue or moral signals.

    And, with social media, it was the first time it was possible to do research at scale on the linguistic expression of demonstrated intuition instinct and learned bias and preference. I have stopped running ‘king of the hill games’ for research – simply because I don’t need to. The work is done. And at a level of granularity that hasn’t been done in cognitive science, psychology and sociology.

    Now what I work on is largely reducing all that knowledge to a systematic form and then attempting to communicate the knowledge that exists in the sciences into that form, and then into narrative explanations that can relate that form to ordinary human experience so that it’s something a college level person of adequate ability can learn by reading.

    So, the better question is why I don’t delete my work from all of social media, and instead, write papers and articles like most intellectuals do. It’s not as if I can’t. But it does take much more time per idea, and instead of efficiency running tests on social media so that I can increase the quality of the book (that’s finally getting there), papers and articles would take time away from that goal: the science, logic, and constitution of Natural Law.

    Make sense? Feedback appreciated if you have more. 🙂

    – Hugs

    Reply addressees: @TheoAdoreDore @romanyam


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-20 15:57:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792585362713296896

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792544615423267119

  • Channel? Do you mean Telegram?

    Channel? Do you mean Telegram?


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-20 04:38:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792414631291760716

    Reply addressees: @TheoAdoreDore @romanyam

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792392048516993179

  • So far, like taking tests in grade school, all of them (I subscribe to most) are

    So far, like taking tests in grade school, all of them (I subscribe to most) are only capable of answering what is known. Even if I engineer a sequence of prompts to try to attempt to ideate, it’s as dumb as a rock at such inferences.

    Why? AI Hallucination is equal to human ideation. It’s the human capacity for recursion, and often a great deal of it in massive parallel until we find some very subtle relation worthy of ‘testing’ by acting. Getting AI’s to perform this feat is possible, it’s just … well, computationally even more expensive.

    Reply addressees: @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 23:07:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792331385685839872

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792186894513574169

  • I”ll use whatever people understand. Mostly I use “X-twitter.”

    I”ll use whatever people understand. Mostly I use “X-twitter.”


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 23:01:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792329650976477489

    Reply addressees: @elonmuskADO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791944534194016736

  • @Plinz, I’d like a little more clarity since I assume you mean by ‘sound’ a ‘for

    @Plinz,

    I’d like a little more clarity since I assume you mean by ‘sound’ a ‘formal’ or ‘constructable’ explanation of ‘the physical, neurological, and associative construction of representation?

    So Why Did It Take So Long?
    Early 20th Century: Gestalt Psychology – how complex representations are produced in the mind.
    1950s-1960s: Early cognitive models and generative grammar. (Age of the cognitive revolution)
    1970s-1980s: Connectionism, formal semantics, and cognitive linguistics. (Distributed representation)
    1990s-2000s: Embodied cognition, neuroimaging, corpus linguistics, and distributional semantics.
    Recent Years: Computational models, deep learning, and cross-disciplinary research integrating multidimensional data analysis.

    And;
    1. Neurologically we do know.
    2. The emergence of LLM’s have popularized what we have known.
    3. Depending upon your meaning, yes, until Turing we didn’t have the theory we have now. (Because Babbage failed to produce a theory, costing us a century, and the divergence of mathematic, logic, philosophy, and physics that ensued).
    4. And linguistics has, at least since Chomsky adapted Turing for grammar, but in particular at least the past three decades, known (and I employed seventy something library science people for years working on it);
    5. Philosophers have discussed ‘what’s it like to think like a bat’, meaning embodiment, scale, and time differences.
    6. Artists, whether visual, poetic, or musical, or literary have known and made use of it, despite not grasping its constitution.
    7. Mythology and theology certainly have understood.
    And while the ancients thought in atoms (objects) and did grasp that ‘there can’t be nothing because we can’t observe anything without something to compare it to’, so it’s just “persistent relations in time, all the way down”.

    It Took A Profound Reversal in Our Thought
    And we thought, until at least Popper, but it’s certainly still the main framework of human thought, that justification produced non-falsehood, when conversely, the universe consists of persistent relations, and all logic is falsificationary, and even with a full knowledge of all first principles in the universe, given limits on computational and mathematical reducibility cannot cover the scope of operational possibility, rendering prediction of possibilities limited to some general regularly of the emergence of new patterns.

    So there is a pattern in the history of human cognition that like the arc from embodiment through to the operational logic of first principles that evolves from human object, space, background place and location use in wayfinding, and the parsimony of memory needed to remember routes, as well as the parsimony of language necessary to explain both routes and their increasingly abstract applications of wayfinding to all manner of thoughts … that the brain is working in the opposite direction from distributed information, eliminating all information that does not consist of relations, and then combining those relations into perceptions we can then use to wayfind.

    So it’s natural that given all of our introspectively possible cognition would result from such objects and justifications that we would fail to observe the unintrospectable construction of those things from nothing but relations in time between vibrations of neurons.

    Cheers.
    CD

    Reply addressees: @Plinz


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 22:44:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792325373306269696

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792140352410791980

  • I haven’t used Facebook since they purged Conservatives in … I think it was De

    I haven’t used Facebook since they purged Conservatives in … I think it was December of 2020?

    And I had quite a following, bigger and more international with bigger reach than here on X.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 22:11:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792317155901325701

    Reply addressees: @elonmuskADO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791980144430588027

  • I haven’t used Facebook since they purged Conservatives in … I think it was De

    I haven’t used Facebook since they purged Conservatives in … I think it was December of 2020?

    And I had quite a following, bigger and more international with bigger reach than here on X.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 22:11:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792317155842658304

  • No. I need access to the information stream, and my organization needs the capac

    No. I need access to the information stream, and my organization needs the capacity to reach people.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 22:09:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792316573111181641

    Reply addressees: @elonmuskADO

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1791974619596931498

  • RT @charlesmurray: Talk about prescient! This is from Bertrand Russell, of all p

    RT @charlesmurray: Talk about prescient! This is from Bertrand Russell, of all people, predicting the effects of the welfare state on male…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 22:07:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792316094528520678

  • WHAT KIND OF ARISTOCRACY DO A PEOPLE NEED? —“…every people needs an aristocr

    WHAT KIND OF ARISTOCRACY DO A PEOPLE NEED?

    —“…every people needs an aristocracy. It’s an integral part of human nature and can’t be dispensed with. The question then is not ‘For or against aristocracy?’ but ‘What kind of aristocracy?”–

    The short answer is: If you don’t produce a natural aristocracy by merit you will produce an unnatural parasitic clerisy, or a devouring criminal syndicate, by its absence.

    Any aristocracy must be limited to a constitution of the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity in demonstrated interests. This is the difference between european aristocracy and monarchy and the authoritarian alternatives that other civilizations have so regularly produced.

    As such the power of the aristocracy is not so much to make law, but to have the power to act outside the law to restore the law. This is what the english discovered was the natural consequence of increasing agency in a population. It’s not that monarchies are unnecessary, it’s that you don’t REPLACE the hierarchy of houses of government you add to them as you add people who prevously had, or still do have less responsibility for commons, and as such less knowledge, skill and common interests in the commons rather than enrichment of themselves at others’ expense.

    In doing so you produce the market for the production of commons between the classes and the classes represent responsibility, knowledge, and common interest in the production of commons.

    This is the difference between majority democracy that races to the bottom and ‘Concurrent Democracy’ produced by the english and the founding fathers as an extension of the ‘concurrency of classes and regions’ in the assent of legislation using house and senate, and the ‘commonality of judgements in court across regions”, that continues to preserve and expand the capital (interests) of the commons from which all benefit indirectly instead of directly. In other words its empirical government.

    Aristocracy needs to follow a first principle which is the long term interest in self preservation of their position and it’s advantages, even if that advantage is nothing more than the social and political status to influence or sway public opinion or political outcomes.

    After that, aristocracy requires one demonstrates responsibility for normal human behavior across the classes at scale in military, industry, or geographic (political) affairs – even if that responsibility is limited to the reward for excellences demonstrated by members of the polity, investment in arts, legitimizing political actions, vetoing policy, and ‘throwing the bums out’, and negotiating with peers whose interests an influences are the same.

    This is called ‘Natural Aristocracy’. It’s quite important since each generation must spend an inordinate amount of time training the next generation in the rather rigorous protocols, manners ethics and morals, that produce the standard of behavior against which others are judged, and to learn enough of the manners and understandings of community, business, industry, polity, military to provide that ‘ok this is enough’ veto when the natural consequence of human organizations leads to an outcome where the consequences whether short, medium, or long term are against the long term interests of the polity.

    Affections
    CD

    Reply addressees: @sqpatrick77


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-19 21:44:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792310340413243392

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1792304312644771950