Jan 30, 2020, 10:41 AM
—“WASPS haven’t declined so much as been artificially suppressed. Once we remove the monetary monopoly from the hands of our oppressors you will see how artificial their dominance of academia, entertainment, media, finance, and government administration in America really was.”—Scott De Warren
Why? Because we are exceptional not only for what we do BUT FOR WHAT WE DO NOT DO. And they are exceptional for what they do that we don’t: organized crime.
May 13 at 10:06 AM · THE VOCABULARY OF PARTISAN DIVISION by Alan Post The polling data shows that the Democrats are responsible for the partisan divide. It happened due to changes in grammar. Peter Boghossian published an article last year on American Mind, Culture War 2.0, articulating the conflict as rotating around three axes: 1) the new rules of engagement, 2) the correspondence theory of truth, and 3) the role intersectionality ought to play in everyone’s worldview. Let’s examine each of these features to see how Culture War 2.0 has made allies out of former ideological enemies. Call this The Great Realignment. Truth Correspondence
truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
Intersectionality
the complex, cumulative manner in which the effects of different forms of discrimination combine, overlap, or intersect — https://iwda.org.au/what-does-intersectional-feminism-actu…/ — https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf
Rules of Engagement
Those people who accept the correspondence theory of truth (even though they may not know it by name) agree on the traditional rules of engagement (discourse, debate, dialogue) and do not view intersectionality as a necessary model for getting to the truth. [Those people who view intersectionality as a necessary model for understanding the world] believe speech should be shut down if it’s hurtful or potentially harmful, and think intersectional, transformative approaches are necessary to refashion systems.
(via https://americanmind.org/essays/welcome-to-culture-war-2-0/) The author, Peter Boghossian, doesn’t offer any resolution to the so-identified conflict. He closes with the term “cognitive liberty,” but I think the issue is use of language (grammar, vocabulary). What the article calls Culture War 2.0 they distinguish from Culture Wars 1.0 by the Supreme Court affirming same-sex marriage:
That is the war that drifted to a whimpering end as recently as 2013, when the Supreme Court handed down culturally significant rulings bolstering the case for same-sex marriage — https://www.nytimes.com/…/p…/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html
The observation that the nature of disagreement changed is broadly supported in polling data, even if the demarcation identified in the article is a contrivance. Pew did a poll in 2017 showing the “growing partisan gaps on government, race, immigration,” accelerated in 2011, largely from the Democratic party and presumptively as consequence of the 2012 elections (which eventually saw Obama elected to his second term.) from the article:
Across 10 political values Pew Research Center has tracked since 1994, there is now an average 36-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and Democrats and Democratic leaners. In 1994, it was only 15 points. The partisan gap is much larger than the differences between the opinions of blacks and whites, men and women and other groups in society. — https://www.pewresearch.org/…/takeaways-on-americans-growi…/
and the full survey here: https://www.people-press.org/…/the-partisan-divide-on-poli…/ With the following graphs showing a marked change in sentiment since 2011:
“Government should do more to help the needy” (54% – 71%) “Racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days” (~29%-64%) “Immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talents” (~54%-84%)
The change in 2011 was articulated, post-facto, by Thomas B. Edsall in his regular opinion column at the New York Times:
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class. — https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/…/the-future-of-t…/… — http://www.discriminations.us/…/now-its-official-democrats…/
The change in vocabulary following the 2012 election on can be seen in cherry-picked word frequency charts of New York Times articles from 1970 – 2018, with the following words introduced in to the lexicon on or after 2011 (terms with a recently, steeply rising tail with no prior activity): mansplaining toxic masculinity male privilege systemic racism white privilege white nationalism transphobia non binary slut shaming fat shaming implicit bias cultural appropriation micro aggressions intersectionality safe space — https://twitter.com/DavidRozado/status/1134041329292460032 — https://media-analytics.op-bit.nz/ Any of these words could have begun being used only incidentally to the 2012 election, but this set serves as confirmatory of the phenomena at a vocabulary level. The conflict can be seen in the grammar and the polling data shows whose opinion was changed by it.
May 13 at 10:06 AM · THE VOCABULARY OF PARTISAN DIVISION by Alan Post The polling data shows that the Democrats are responsible for the partisan divide. It happened due to changes in grammar. Peter Boghossian published an article last year on American Mind, Culture War 2.0, articulating the conflict as rotating around three axes: 1) the new rules of engagement, 2) the correspondence theory of truth, and 3) the role intersectionality ought to play in everyone’s worldview. Let’s examine each of these features to see how Culture War 2.0 has made allies out of former ideological enemies. Call this The Great Realignment. Truth Correspondence
truth consists in a relation to reality, i.e., that truth is a relational property involving a characteristic relation (to be specified) to some portion of reality (to be specified). — https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/
Intersectionality
the complex, cumulative manner in which the effects of different forms of discrimination combine, overlap, or intersect — https://iwda.org.au/what-does-intersectional-feminism-actu…/ — https://philpapers.org/archive/CREDTI.pdf
Rules of Engagement
Those people who accept the correspondence theory of truth (even though they may not know it by name) agree on the traditional rules of engagement (discourse, debate, dialogue) and do not view intersectionality as a necessary model for getting to the truth. [Those people who view intersectionality as a necessary model for understanding the world] believe speech should be shut down if it’s hurtful or potentially harmful, and think intersectional, transformative approaches are necessary to refashion systems.
(via https://americanmind.org/essays/welcome-to-culture-war-2-0/) The author, Peter Boghossian, doesn’t offer any resolution to the so-identified conflict. He closes with the term “cognitive liberty,” but I think the issue is use of language (grammar, vocabulary). What the article calls Culture War 2.0 they distinguish from Culture Wars 1.0 by the Supreme Court affirming same-sex marriage:
That is the war that drifted to a whimpering end as recently as 2013, when the Supreme Court handed down culturally significant rulings bolstering the case for same-sex marriage — https://www.nytimes.com/…/p…/supreme-court-gay-marriage.html
The observation that the nature of disagreement changed is broadly supported in polling data, even if the demarcation identified in the article is a contrivance. Pew did a poll in 2017 showing the “growing partisan gaps on government, race, immigration,” accelerated in 2011, largely from the Democratic party and presumptively as consequence of the 2012 elections (which eventually saw Obama elected to his second term.) from the article:
Across 10 political values Pew Research Center has tracked since 1994, there is now an average 36-percentage-point gap between Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and Democrats and Democratic leaners. In 1994, it was only 15 points. The partisan gap is much larger than the differences between the opinions of blacks and whites, men and women and other groups in society. — https://www.pewresearch.org/…/takeaways-on-americans-growi…/
and the full survey here: https://www.people-press.org/…/the-partisan-divide-on-poli…/ With the following graphs showing a marked change in sentiment since 2011:
“Government should do more to help the needy” (54% – 71%) “Racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can’t get ahead these days” (~29%-64%) “Immigrants strengthen the country with their hard work and talents” (~54%-84%)
The change in 2011 was articulated, post-facto, by Thomas B. Edsall in his regular opinion column at the New York Times:
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class. — https://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/…/the-future-of-t…/… — http://www.discriminations.us/…/now-its-official-democrats…/
The change in vocabulary following the 2012 election on can be seen in cherry-picked word frequency charts of New York Times articles from 1970 – 2018, with the following words introduced in to the lexicon on or after 2011 (terms with a recently, steeply rising tail with no prior activity): mansplaining toxic masculinity male privilege systemic racism white privilege white nationalism transphobia non binary slut shaming fat shaming implicit bias cultural appropriation micro aggressions intersectionality safe space — https://twitter.com/DavidRozado/status/1134041329292460032 — https://media-analytics.op-bit.nz/ Any of these words could have begun being used only incidentally to the 2012 election, but this set serves as confirmatory of the phenomena at a vocabulary level. The conflict can be seen in the grammar and the polling data shows whose opinion was changed by it.
Beware of Anyone that Tries to Divide Europeans https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/24/beware-of-anyone-that-tries-to-divide-europeans/
Source date (UTC): 2020-05-24 20:26:48 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264654100962181123
Feb 2, 2020, 7:13 PM
—-“Beware of anyone that tries to divide Europeans based on level of development, class, north/south. We are more similar than different and we have a common enemy to defeat.”—Scott De Warren
Feb 2, 2020, 7:13 PM
—-“Beware of anyone that tries to divide Europeans based on level of development, class, north/south. We are more similar than different and we have a common enemy to defeat.”—Scott De Warren
Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.
Feb 3, 2020, 10:25 AM People who want status or attention because they are rejected by the groups they work, live, or associate with, seek some sort of means of feeling they are winning – so they find a single lever (libertarianism, leftism, a philosophical frame, or a religion) and double down on it because it is their only means of obtaining some sense of success in the world through the expression of their preferences by dominance rather than by cooperation. This is an understandable human behavior. We cannot expect people to not negotiate or advance (or bully) for obtaining resources, status, cooperation, in a world where all three are scarce. … However, regardless of our preferences and wants we can argue for reciprocity or we can argue for irreciprocity. Or we can simply act irreciprocally by conquest if negotiation does not succeed, and separation is not possible. So one can argue in concert with the physical world or not. One can argue in concert with the social world or not. One can act in concert with the social world or not. But the reverse of each of those statements cannot be said, without one being a fool, a liar, and a thief – and thereby abandoning your sovereignty and entering into a condition of war where all morality is off the table. P is a method. That method defines reciprocity. And it states the limit of that reciprocity. And beyond that reciprocity there is no moral question – only war.
WHY DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND INCOME DISAPPEARING
—“Great study, but very puzzling that intelligence does not predict income in this study. Too young age at follow-up? Intelligence income relationship is confounded by age (at younger ages, lower intelligence people make more money). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20763”—Emil O W Kirkegaard @KirkegaardEmil
(Short version: college eduction is no longer a proxy for intelligence). We have a set of problems in making that assessment.
(a) between women and underclass preference for pseudoscience, the use of degrees as proxy for intelligence has been eliminated.
(b) IQ doesn’t determine wealth: conscientiousness does.
(c) IQ determines complexity of work.
(d) BUT IQ also determines rate of adaptation, abstractions, error (and FRAUD) detection. So while we can make wealth anywhere on the spectrum there’s an increasing premium on learning, error detection, and abstraction (engineering, tech, law, finance, science, mathematics).
(e) the net (uncomfortable truth) is that, confirming tradition, there is a premium on ethics and discipline at the bottom and middle with increasing incentive for ‘cheating’ hidden in complexity at the top (finance, economics, politics), with the middle holding moral high ground. (Which is why I specialize in expansion of the law to reverse the innovations in free riding, cheating, fraud, parasitism, and predation made possible by the expansion of complexity during the 20th century. Particularly using math, econ, and academic pseudosciences. 😉 )
WHY DOES IT APPEAR THAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTELLIGENCE AND INCOME DISAPPEARING
—“Great study, but very puzzling that intelligence does not predict income in this study. Too young age at follow-up? Intelligence income relationship is confounded by age (at younger ages, lower intelligence people make more money). https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20763”—Emil O W Kirkegaard @KirkegaardEmil
(Short version: college eduction is no longer a proxy for intelligence). We have a set of problems in making that assessment.
(a) between women and underclass preference for pseudoscience, the use of degrees as proxy for intelligence has been eliminated.
(b) IQ doesn’t determine wealth: conscientiousness does.
(c) IQ determines complexity of work.
(d) BUT IQ also determines rate of adaptation, abstractions, error (and FRAUD) detection. So while we can make wealth anywhere on the spectrum there’s an increasing premium on learning, error detection, and abstraction (engineering, tech, law, finance, science, mathematics).
(e) the net (uncomfortable truth) is that, confirming tradition, there is a premium on ethics and discipline at the bottom and middle with increasing incentive for ‘cheating’ hidden in complexity at the top (finance, economics, politics), with the middle holding moral high ground. (Which is why I specialize in expansion of the law to reverse the innovations in free riding, cheating, fraud, parasitism, and predation made possible by the expansion of complexity during the 20th century. Particularly using math, econ, and academic pseudosciences. 😉 )