Hacker News Reader

lexcorvuson The Really Big One

I suspect this is in part a side-effect of the Anglo-American (maturity-mismatched) banking system, which keeps long-term interest rates artificially low, leading to higher time preference.

lexcorvuson How Can There Still Be a Sex Difference, Even When There Is No Sex Difference?

Sex-based difference is the biggest taboo of our time.

I'd argue that race-based differences are even more taboo. But it's close.

lexcorvuson This SAT Math question got no correct submissions

This is a corollary of the coin paradox: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CoinParadox.html

lexcorvuson Animated History of the Atlantic Slave Trade

Wow, a downvote already? Under 5 minutes—that's impressive. Who is still even reading this thread? Bloodthirsty assholes, I guess, or maybe neo-Abolitionists. (But I repeat myself.)

lexcorvuson Animated History of the Atlantic Slave Trade

So, basically, they deserved it. How nice. This is how good people can support mind-boggling evil.

The British Empire managed to abolish slavery without anything remotely so horrific as the Haitian Revolution. As a result, former British colonies are what, hellholes? And Haiti is a paradise on Earth?

You are likely inheritor to the American Abolitionist tradition, which managed to abolish slavery by fomenting a Civil War that, in its wake, claimed the lives of a quarter of the newly freed slaves—approximately a million people. Does your heart bleed for them? Or to the dead do you say, at least you aren't slaves?

lexcorvuson Animated History of the Atlantic Slave Trade

Haitian revolutionaries murdered virtually all white men, and spared only the women willing to marry black men. [1] "Black Jacobins" is indeed an apt term for such barbarism.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1804_Haiti_massacre

lexcorvuson Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

The obvious solution is complete freedom of association. (To the extent that "fit" doesn't help companies succeed, it is its own punishment.) But this would make for a short article. It would also make for simple laws, and would prevent busybodies from making other company's hiring practices their business. But we couldn't have that—not in the Land of the Free.

lexcorvuson Africa Dwarfs China, Europe and the U.S

Oh, come on, people. Projecting is a pun, and the article is obviously political. Grow a sense of humor. Downvoters: if you want to see an asshole, find a mirror.

lexcorvuson Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

In contrast, I devoured the full UR archives over the course of a couple weeks. In this context, his verbosity is a feature, not a bug, because it's people like me Moldbug was trying to reach.

lexcorvuson Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

the actual views and arguments

Getting the views of neoreactionaries from Noah Smith is like getting the views of Luther's 95 Theses from Pope Leo X. How about, you know, just reading Moldbug?

http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com

lexcorvuson Two Kinds of Freedom of Speech (or Strangeloop vs. Curtis Yarvin)

In this context, I think it's worth reading the article "The Curious Case of Mencius Moldbug" at Slate:

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2015/06/cur...

lexcorvuson The Curious Case of Mencius Moldbug

This got five upvotes within a half hour or so, surely enough to have hit the front page. I can only assume that it's being held back by people flagging it, a reaction likely based on not much more than a knee-jerk reaction to the name "Mencius Moldbug" in the title. If they would only read the article, they would see that it's not only totally on-point, but also that there's deep irony in flagging it. It's the Hacker News equivalent of the heckler's veto—the very phenomenon decried in the article.

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

If there is much greater variance within populations than between them, then it is foolish to make decisions about people based on their race, as it gives very little information about them.

All you say is true, but it won't necessarily save you from the Thought Police. For example, the variation in strength within male and female populations is bigger than the variation between them. It may therefore be foolish to make decisions based on gender rather than on strength when hiring, say, dockworkers. But when people complain about how few female dockworkers there are, what will you tell them? Mutatis mutandis.

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

His admission really is incredibly revealing, and refreshingly, even depressingly honest. He's literally saying no amount of reason or evidence could change his mind on a matter that is obviously (in principle) falsifiable. I think it's safe to say that, so far as full contact with reality is concerned, he is a lost cause.

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

claim (a) is that there are such differences that contribute (substantively) to different outcomes

That is not claim (a). Claim (a) is that there are genetic factors in group differences, but makes no assertion about their magnitude. You believe that genetic factors make at most a small contribution. You may well be right. But you have offered no evidence for this assertion, and the burden of proof is on you to show it.

I would assume (b) is false without evidence as well.

Given that different groups live in manifestly different physical and social environments, this assumption is also wrong. The null hypothesis is that both (a) and (b) contribute; the burden of proof in both cases is on those who think one or the other is false. Confusing this issue, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is perhaps the most common source of crimestop on this subject. (Not that I blame you; as a crimethinker myself, I can assure you that volunteer Thought Police are everywhere, even—perhaps especially—on HN.)

Of course, in reality the discussion usually goes something like this:

"There might be genetic factors accounting for differences in group outcomes."

"I doubt it, but even if there are such factors, they're small."

"How do you know they're small?"

"Well, how do you know they're not?"

[Caught in trap] "I don't. So let's investigate the magnitude of the effect by examining the direct evidence…"

"That's racist."

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

No, the burden of proof is on those who claim not-(a), because it is evident at a glance that there are at least some genetic difference between groups. (Detailed genetic analysis, of course, confirms this. Noted anti-racist Henry Louis Gates Jr. has a whole show about it. [1]) There's no law of biology that says evolution only works on physical traits; quite the opposite. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the claim that any particular cognitive or behavioral characteristics have no genetic component.

Answering Yali's question requires at least one of (a) or (b). If (b) were false, then that would imply (a). Providing evidence for (b) rules out the argument based on elimination.

It is impossible to use the process of elimination when the alternatives are not mutually exclusive. I.e., this reasoning is specious: Why are men generally stronger than women? Well, men lift weights more often than women. Therefore, strength differences have no genetic basis. So it goes with Yali's question. You, and Jared Diamond, are obviously smart enough to understand this completely. But the conclusions are heretical, which is the only reason I can think of for why you fail to do so.

[1]: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/finding-your-roots/

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. Inspired by these discussions, I believe I've sharpened my understanding of this subject considerably. When it comes to accounting for observed differences between different groups, the following statements are the only two possible explanations:

(a) Genetic factors contribute to differences in outcomes

(b) Non-genetic factors contribute to differences in outcomes

Note that the two are not mutually exclusive. For example, when you write

Does that mean that Americans are genetically superior to Europeans? No, it's that they had access to more resources on a bare continent, which led to a positive feedback loop of wealth and creation.

you are arguing for (b). But because (a) and (b) are not mutually exclusive, this is not a valid argument against (a). Indeed, virtually the entire mainstream discussion around group differences consists of increasingly strong statements in favor (b), without ever addressing (a) directly.

This isn't to say (a) is always true, just that you need direct evidence to dismiss it. For example, given the observation that any human being with the ability to learn a language can learn any language, (a) appears to be false with respect to acquiring specific natural language (as opposed to language acquisition generally, which of course is genetically based).

So, why is it that so many otherwise clear thinkers fail to see that arguments for (b) aren't arguments against (a)? My guess is that most people who believe in (b) and only (b) implicitly apply the following reasoning:

The non-genetic factors in group differences are so numerous, egregious, and well-documented that they plausibly account for all known differences in outcomes between people of different ancestry. Therefore, genetic factors are probably irrelevant or negligible.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is faulty. For example, there is no a priori way to know how big an effect discrimination will have, and hence no way to rule out (a) without direct evidence.

As to your other points, I agree completely that we should treat people on an individual basis, without discriminating on the basis of ancestry, gender, etc. Furthermore, I believe in finding and cultivating talent anywhere it exists, regardless of background. I hope you agree.

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

Here's the crux of the problem: Jared Diamond's answer to Yali's question is not mutually exclusive with the converse of (b). In other words, Guns, Germs, and Steel argues persuasively that environmental factors played a major role in observed group outcomes, but it does not argue persuasively (or at all) that those environmental factors left no imprint on the genomes of the groups in question.

To put it in concrete terms: Do you believe that, say, Scandinavians and Australian Aborigines have—on average or at the extremes—identical talents and inclinations for playing chess? If so, what is your basis for this belief?

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

This is exactly right. Unfortunately, the fallacy—often called Lewontin's Fallacy [1], after the Harvard biologist who most famously committed it—seems nigh ineradicable. Perhaps there should be some sort of Godwin's Law for it: "As an online discussion of human biological differences grows longer, the probability of someone committing Lewontin's Fallacy approaches 1."

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genetic_Diversity:_Lewon...

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

it's not hard to reach the conclusion that white supremacy --- or some intellectual abstraction isomorphic to it --- is one of its defining features

On the contrary, it's impossible to reach that conclusion if you read even cursorily. For example, neoreactionaries generally accept the results of mainstream academic studies concluding that Chinese are on average more intelligent than Europeans, and that European Jews are on average more intelligent than European Gentiles. These are not views traditionally associated with "white supremacy," to say the least.

P.S. +1 for the reference to one of my favorite sly Simpson's jokes.

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

I have read it. I don't find "But Not NOT One, Either" to be an accurate characterization. Basically, Moldbug's position is that white nationalists include lots of vile racists, but that by itself doesn't mean they're wrong about everything, and we should evaluate such ideas critically if we want to actually solve the problems they identify (which in fact many progressives would identify as well, though the phrasing and emphasis usually differ substantially). Some quotes:

Of course, I am not a white nationalist. I am not arguing that you should be a white nationalist. I am just suggesting that there are many bad reasons not to be a white nationalist.

[…]

So why am I not a white nationalist?

I am not a white nationalist because I don't find white nationalism useful or effective. I don't feel it helps me accurately perceive reality. In fact, I think it distorts reality. And I believe white nationalism is a very ineffective political device for solving the very real problems about which it complains.

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

if that's something he wants to distance himself from, he's done himself no favors by overtly nodding to white nationalism in his own writing

This is incredibly misleading. Replace "overtly nodding" with explicitly disavowing: the post in question is literally called "Why I am not a white nationalist" [1]. And that's not "people have accused me of being a white nationalist, here's why I'm not", it's "here's why I don't believe this thing I find wrong." Oh, and here's what he has to say about racist blogs:

(The Internet is also home to many out-and-out racist blogs. Most are simply unreadable. But some are hosted by relatively capable writers, such as "The Uhuru Guru" or "Big Effer." On these racist blogs you'll find racial epithets, anti-Semitism (see why I am not an anti-Semite) and the like. Obviously, I cannot recommend any of these blogs, and nor will I link to them. However, if you are interested in the mind of the modern racist, Google will get you there.)

Does that sound like the writing of a racist to you?

[1]: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-i-a...

lexcorvuson “A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”

In the context of views that are potentially odious but are tolerated in technology, it's perhaps worth noting that two of the instigators of this decision [1, 2] are respectively an avowed communist [3] and a socialist who serves on the board of a magazine that literally takes its name from the people who brought us the Reign of Terror [4]. Should they be barred from speaking at conferences because people might feel "unsafe" in the presence of someone who holds such views? Or should we learn to leave politics at the door, and be willing to listen to tech talks even from people whose politics we find repulsive? I for one endorse the latter view. Strange Loop is entitled to its decision, but I find it both craven and sad.

[1]: https://twitter.com/steveklabnik/status/606219754513264640

[2]: https://al3x.net/2015/06/04/wouldn't-censorship-be-exciting....

[3]: http://blog.steveklabnik.com/posts/2011-12-15-marx-anarchism...

[4]: https://al3x.net/2015/03/03/jacobin.html

lexcorvuson Alex Miller's Statement on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop

As Alex Payne (@al3x) helpfully explains [1], those calling for Yarvin's talk invitation to be rescinded didn't do so because of politics—oh, no—but because of hate. You see, it's important to be inclusive, even of "far-right" views, but we should draw the line at hate. "Hate has no place in the Strange Loop community, nor in any community with a future." And who gets to determine which beliefs cross the line from merely "uncomfortable," or even "fascistic," to truly hateful? Why, Alex Payne! And the rest of the Thought Police.

[1]: https://al3x.net/2015/06/04/wouldn't-censorship-be-exciting....

lexcorvuson Alex Miller's Statement on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop

Virtually every tech conference operating today is a vehicle for progressive ideology. But since virtually everyone is a progressive, attendees hardly notice, like a fish not noticing water. Consider, for example, this egregious talk, which can reasonably be summarized as "the liberal arts have done a good job at decreasing the relative proportion of white men, and we in technology should learn from their example":

http://railsconf.com/program#prop_842

Or take a look at this one:

http://selfconference.org/sessions#session_33

When "tech" conferences include talks like "Empathy & Gender Diversity: AMA," I'm afraid the pattern is clear.

We in tech are going to have to make a decision about whether we want this process to continue. It's already rather badly violating some cherished liberal principles, such as the policy of offering need-based scholarships to worthy recipients, but only to members of favored underrepresented groups. In other words, poor white and Asian men are out of luck. This policy is being pursued by organizations such as the Y Combinator–backed Recurse Center [1] and by the Strange Loop conference itself [2]. Perhaps we need a fork: in addition to the current events, with their trigger warnings and diversity agendas, maybe we need events that say, "This event is open to anyone. We are all adults here, so if you hear something that upsets you, leave the room or take it in stride. And this is a tech event, so please leave your politics at the door."

[1]: https://www.recurse.com/diversity

[2]: http://www.thestrangeloop.com/opportunity.html

lexcorvuson Why People Are Irrational about Politics

This sort of research only makes sense if you use an expansive definition of "liberal" and "conservative". From a historical perspective, it makes hardly any sense at all. For example, Englishmen in 1590 presumably split into "liberal" and "conservative" camps as defined by such research, and yet essentially everyone was ridiculously reactionary by modern standards, in that most people were monarchists who supported the personal rule of a queen. This suggests that the liberal/conservative divide, while real, need not necessarily bleed into politics. It's democracy, of course, that changed the game.

lexcorvuson Dave Goldberg, CEO of SurveyMonkey, has died

It's an understandable question. Many media outlets are treading carefully, identifying him by his accomplishments (successful entrepreneur and investor) and position (CEO of SurveyMonkey), when in fact the main reason people have heard of Dave Goldberg is that his wife is Facebook COO and Lean In author Sheryl Sandberg. And, while it's true that you could figure out his identity using a search engine (as one commenter suggested), few sources would be so blunt in their explanation of the story's apparent importance, so I think asking the question here isn't out of line. (CNN.com, to its credit, ran the story under the headline "Facebook exec's husband dies".)

lexcorvuson Owner of a Credit Card Processor Is Setting a New Minimum Wage: $70,000 a Year

There's a broader political context, of course, which naturally attracts interest from outsiders. It's apparent from the article that this decision is motivated, at least in part, by progressive ideology. This might sound good, especially to those who believe in "progress", but progressivism at its worst is terrifying (see, e.g., "Comrade Stalin—Leader of Progressive Mankind" [1]). As a result, a move like this, whose potential for capture and enforcement by the state is apparent, understandably gives some people pause.

[1]: https://www.marxists.org/archive/malenkov/1949/12/21.htm

lexcorvuson New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

Assuming that you actually want to understand my position, I'll expand my answer one more time. You don't need to agree with me to see that my view has nothing to do with the literal-minded (and admittedly amusing) observation that "Hacker News doesn't offer financial aid to commenters."

The Recurse Center's guideline against "subtle -isms" takes place in the context of offering financial aid only to favored groups. This suggests that "subtle -isms" against less-favored groups might be policed less vigorously. For example, many ordinary white men might reasonably consider the term "underrepresented" itself to be a "subtle -ism", but I doubt complaints to this effect would fall on sympathetic ears.

This issue applies to Hacker News because being inspired by the Recurse Center's policies risks importing the expectation that "avoid subtle -isms" mainly applies to speech against their favored groups. If Hacker News is to adopt Recurse Center–style community guidelines but wants to avoid such bias, it should be explicit in disclaiming any notion of "protected classes", instead insisting that the guidelines be applied equally to all groups.

lexcorvuson New Hacker News Guideline: Avoid Gratuitous Negativity

Their guidelines are hypocritical, i.e., bad. To spell it out explicitly: the -isms rule is probably fine as far as it goes, but if HN is going to be inspired by the Recurse Center's policies, it should go a step further and officially discourage the Recurse Center's brand of pious discrimination as well.