Pragmatic Zone

Seeking to challenge my perspectives by people honest about their opinions and rational with their arguments.

[pragmatic-zone]

Why free will is a smart bet

I like this Jordan Peterson criticism of free will determinism. A fundamental problem in the discussion is whether the neuroimaging evidence is a proof against free will or not. He goes to some detail why this should not be at least automatically assumed to be the case, but even on the high level considering we have a very sketchy understanding of consciousness over all it seems hard to make causal statements about it's functioning. Just because free will is complex and strange and escapes our understanding does not make it impossible.

A more proper argument would be to make testable predictions, show the existence of the determinism by correctly predicting the outcome of some human choice. This would demonstrate that understanding of the mechanisms of choice and that we're more a passenger than the captain in them. And even this in individual cases would not be the end of free will. Like Jordan Peterson says, free will is not absolute. Most of the choices during most of our days like what to wear, eat, do with our free time happen "automatically" with little agency, but that's just the brain in power saving mode to save calories.

A proper test of free will are cases like quitting smoking we are conscious about the choice, it's important and we have a clear "will" about it. But even then it's hard and in many ways out of our control, you can decide to not smoke any single cigarette but still end up lighting one when you least expect it. Nicotine has spent years rerouting our synapsis making smoking the default option, the path of least resistance. But I'd say free will is not the moment of saying "I quit smoking" but in the moment of thinking "I hate that I smoke and would like to quit and start googling for options". Free will happens more in the domain of what values we hold true, faith, than than individual acts.

And even if you are not convinced of these, I like the thought you're better off acting like it would be. In the end this is probably (at least for now) a matter of faith, something you need to decide whether to hold as true or not. And I'd say life is better if you have free will. And as long as you can't tell the difference from not having it, you might as well enjoy the benefits :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC6BPg7IDpA

[pragmatic-zone]

Why the military UFO's are likely software glitches

Great discussion between Michael Shermer and Joe Rogan about the new UFO sighting by military planes. I'm on the sceptic corner, i.e. there's plenty of ordinary explanations that sufficiently explain what we see to not result in the extraordinary. And even the drone part, even though plausible, I'm doubtful as that would be a credible, direct military threat and has likely been investigated (if you have almost daily sightings, I'm sure several special ops units have been scouring the area for visual confirmation).

One argument I want to add here is that likely software glitches are part of the problem, probably not the root cause but making it bigger. For one everything on the screen is software enhanced and suspect to errors in that enhancement similar to previous generation optical glitches. Secondly, the purpose of the system is to identify and track military targets like other planes and buildings. Drones and birds and other small things is not a priority for the software developers. Filtering out those was probably never a requirement from the beginning and if it was on the table, that's the kind of stuff that tends to get cut or minimized when the project inevitably falls behind of it's schedule. Nobody will spend months in test flights capturing data about drones for developers to implement a working filter.

Also unlike Joe claimed, these are not the "best sensors known to man" but rather the cheapest one that fit the size and weight requirements and got the primary fob done. Unit cost is a primary concern so they'll use a 10% cheaper sensor if they think it will be enough let alone spend 10x on the next gen unit.

Most likely these will quietly get rarer and rarer as the software in the systems gets iterated and improved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fih4cYdsoYs

[pragmatic-zone]

Why the culture war needs more centrists

I've read a few "anti-woke" books and they tend to make the mistake of preaching to the choir, taking the extreme good-vs-evil-position where all the fault is in the other side. The New Puritans by Andrew Doyle shows you can give the devil his due and still reveal him for what he is and in fact doing that makes your criticism stronger. When criticizing wokism he often first steelmans the argument and makes the distinction "good intentions going bad" and straight up malevolent behavior. And this kind of nuanced discussion is badly needed to guide us to the high ground where agreement could be found.

Book itself goes through a wide cross-section of substantial woke transgressions and paints a convincing picture of a corrupt movement more intent on gaining power and seeking revenge than helping anyone. And that this seems to rather be an affluent hobby, most fervently practiced by those that can afford an elite education and probably prefer everyone to focus on points of unfairness besides wealth. The comparison to the hysteria of Salem witch trials is an insightful one and quite shocking how analogous these are. I also loved the thought that in cancel culture the process is the punishment with the purpose of enforcing compliance, which is regularly more important than actual words and actions. Another great insight is that the attacks are not principled (e.g. racism of Marx is ignored) but rather a mob pouncing on a convenient target. Moreover attacks are about power, tearing down targets the imagined opposition values, not principles or the objective fault of the act itself.

As a minor criticism I don't personally find the religion metaphor fitting as unlike the woke, religions are all highly centralized, hierarchical and canonical. The woke are an entirely non-hierarchical distributed collection of guerrilla warriors with some shared values and sense of an enemy (as emphasized by the infighting). Another weakness is perhaps that the book fails to find much meaningful structure / categorization of the woke movement. The book and the cases of wokism are divided to chapters on certain themes but in the end it's mostly just a long list of cases where the order is not hugely important. I failed to find much insight to the structure of the beast, how it's built and operating. That said, this might be more a statement about the target lacking structure than a failure of the author to discover it.

I also would have liked Doyle to go even further in the strategy, how do we turn this around. Doyles previous book is a strong defense of freedom of speech and easy to agree and maybe the next step to that would be due process, making sure that sanctioning is not left to activists and mobs and shouting matches. Meritocracy might be another worthy fight including the opposition of equality of outcome / positive discrimination. And otherwise it might be wise to disengage in order to not give easy targets. As Doyle states the woke rhetoric with its postmodern roots is dense and hard to attack. It might be easier to try to reverse the battle and wait until they take an assertive position against the core values (as they inevitably do) and defend those, point out their racism, their discrimination. You don't have the high ground if you are most of the time in the gutter with the rest of them.

[pragmatic-zone]

Why we need to ask "how far" instead of "either-or"

I am a centrist, or an anti-ideologue, someone who believes there are few absolute truths and that things tend to be more shades of gray than black and white. There are no single solutions that cover every case but it depends on the situation and context. We need more nuance in the discussion instead of just picking sides.

The tribalist version of this classic comic would be to always pick your sides on any debate instead of considering merits of the arguments even though no side is ever 100% correct. The best solution in any given situation is usually the one that best understands the actual cause and instead of just bandaging the symptoms. Forcing debate to either-or, with-us-or-against-us, prevents attempts to understand the problem. A better approach is to think about how far is too far, where the line should be drawn as this forces to think about what the steps are, what are the issues in each step, when the problem becomes too big.

Abortion is a problem like this, only ideologues think we should have more of it or that it can be eliminated (legal or not). The real problem to address is how we can have less of it while keeping it safe. And it's an issue of balancing the emergent right-to-life of the fetus with the right of the woman for bodily autonomy. At conception fetus has no rights (~morning after pills) and at birth the rights are equal to the mother (doctors will try to save both equally, risking one to save the other). Ironically Roe-vs-Wade was more nuanced that any debate on abortion, answering "how far" the abortion right ought to go, not just "no right" / "no limitation". The debate should be about what week, what method (e.g. pharmaceutical vs procedure), under what conditions (e.g. rape, danger to life).

Simple but wrong vs. Complex but right

[pragmatic-zone]

Why wokism is a more serious threat than far right

Sam Harris makes a great point why the threat of the far left is even more serious than that of the far right because it's harder to identify and oppose. Additionally the far right is already ostracized from society, they hold no significant status or power in our institutions, they are not in a position cause major damage (except for individuals). Far left is inside the academia and media and are damaging both by turning them to war zones. We have more to lose to the far left.

That said, it should also be noted that anti-wokism is rapidly becoming a threat of equal proportions. Countering woke censorship of classical works quickly became blanket censorship of things of anything woke-adjacent. Attacking the woke becomes an attack on the institutions where they reside. Ideological puritanism is replaced with a different kind of ideological puritanism. Left has failed to call out extremists among their own and right is following suit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDqtFS_Pvcs&t=2791s

[pragmatic-zone]

Why we need centrist arguments to stop the tribalism

Kyle Kulinski once again makes an elegant summary of the status quo of current public debate and why we can't "fight fire with fire" when it comes to tribalism. Making the most extreme argument will never convince anyone, make them consider their opinions. It needs to come from a person that feels reasonable and be something relatable. We need to talk to people like we care about their opinion (even if we don't!) and agree when possible.

That said, "centrist" doesn't mean "populist" or watered down but rather "essential". We need to consider what's the "Minimal Viable Argument" on the issue, how can you remove all the attitude, insults, dog whistles and petty quips from your argument while successfully arguing your position.

Paraphrasing parables, fixing the village takes a majority. Even if the tribal politics can be successful in getting individuals elected, making big political changes typically requires co-operation across party lines. Changes that we need, that truly matter are such that are not implemented by the activists. Politics is the art of compromise, finding ways to agree with your opponents.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ4kH0g-Aqc

PS. Why opposing taxation should not be a libertarian position

[pragmatic-zone]

you do realise Chapelle drove a trans person to suicide. how exactly was that helpful.

How did Chappelle drive her to suicide? He helped and supported her while the activists / extremists that did not approve her supporting Chappelle where the ones bullying.

[pragmatic-zone]

Why Dave Chappelle was helping the trans-community

Dave Chappelle's latest special The Closer has again caused a lot of controversy about the potential transphobia. Without getting into the argument of whether some joke was too far, I've always felt Dave has made the trans-community more acceptable by treating them in his jokes on the same level with others, as an "us" and not a "them". At least for me comedy of Chappelle has made the problems of trans-community more understandable and relatable.

The fundamental challenge of the trans-community is to be accepted. This requires that general audience has an understanding of what it means, what the troubles are and feels they are not a threat. Dave's jokes might be offensive and of questionable taste (regardless of the target), but they are not coming from malice, he is not pitting them as the other, something to fear. He is laughing with all his targets, regardless if they are white, black, women, gay or trans. By his own admission, he makes fun of groups that he feels a connection with.

And laughing with a group is an integral part of getting accepted. If you look at the movies, both black and gay characters have gone from being the villains / criminals / deviants to laughing stocks to funny ones to sidekicks to main characters. This is even something that happens on a personal level, the "new guy" needs to take a few jokes and laugh with them to get accepted as Jordan Peterson often points out. Most of the time when you can laugh with someone, you know you can trust them, they are not trying to harm you.

This has also been the message of trans-activist Blaire White that the trans-community has an image problem, the extremists are making it look hostile. Unfortunately if trans-rights are synonymous to burning Harry Potters, forbidding comedy, promoting teenage transitioning and allowing male genitalia in girls locker rooms, trans-rights will not be gaining popularity and this is already showing in statistics. This is not a fair representation of the trans-community, but these are the headline level things that most people will remember. Most people will not watch a 90min explainer video from Contrapoints WHY Rowling was offensive, they just remember their favorite books being blamed. It's not fair, but these are not winning battles.

Trans-rights are probably the last big civil rights front and there is a lot of unfair fear and disgust towards trans-community that needs to be dissolved (and I feel Dave was an ally here). There's clearly a need for trans-activism to drive these goals, but we need acknowledge it can and has sometimes gone too far. The extremists need to be called out and expelled from the trans-community and this needs to happen by the trans-community or we'll risk losing the baby with the bathwater.

[pragmatic-zone]

Why vaccine mandates are not either/or

As usual Kyle Kulinski does a great job of articulating a nuanced position about the need to balance vaccine mandates and personal rights. We have conflicting needs of pushing for vaccination coverage and public health and protecting personal liberty. Both needs are real and important. But arresting children without masks is is a bigger harm than a few maskless people. And needing a mask in crowded place is not same fascism.

This applies also to a more general point of that conflicting things can be true at the same time. Life is not black and white where every single things has a correct answer. The task is not pick either/or but to find a balance between the two. And people who try to force it to be either extreme are a problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRgBk5tKJkk

[pragmatic-zone]

Why the woke narrative is effective

Jordan Peterson and Andrew Doyle give a great description of the reasons why the woke narrative is both so tempting and hard to pierce. The face value is very positive and problems are hard to to detect and explain. It's essentially asymmetric verbal warfare, you force the opponent to work an order of magnitude harder and try to wear them down. Arguing the woke side is a kind of motte-and-bailey where you start from the trivial argument ("we need to oppose racism") and extend to the outrageous ("we need racial segregation and preferential discrimination") and retreat back if challenged. And to really challenge this requires extensive explanation that is hard to comprehend. Especially trying to convince bystanders is hard because you're the one with the "difficult product" to sell. Perhaps calling it something like "neo-racism" is effective, but it's kind of a pyrrhic victory of sinking to a similarly dishonest level. Ideas are welcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoH1g5GYhPw&t=4913s

[pragmatic-zone]

Why we need a better drug policy

David Nutt does a great explanation of the problems of the current drug policy and how to fix it

1) Decriminalize possession of drugs so people go to treatment and not jail where they will use more drugs and is more expensive then treatment

2) Make drugs less harmful than alcohol available (potentially in licensed sales)

3) Protect regulated markets by prosecuting illegal sales 4) Create safer variants of existing drugs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bBii6AVxb0&t=1950s

[pragmatic-zone]

Why we need more regulation of gain-of-function viral research

Rob Reid gives a great explanation of the problems / risks with with gain-of-function viral research. Essentially the possible gains (~identify the worst case scenario in time to do something about it) are plausible at best while the risks are non zero (~it just takes a human error) and catastrophic (~airborne H5N1 influenza). Even though assigning guilt on Covid would be something everyone implicitly wants, it would be more important to get to the bottom of this and I would support giving amnesty / "witness protection" to get all the information. We need global regulation to limit viral research proliferation and we can't get it if hide the truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pWicEbawg

[pragmatic-zone]

How both sides use identity politics to avoid debate

Ok, Andrew Schultz is being quite offensive here, but he makes a great point in between, both sides of the political spectrum are abusing identity politics to avoid being criticized. It’s the lazy way of getting your argument out without getting it contested, get a member of an identity group with immunity on the topic to say it. GOP loves to have black people defend gun rights because it can’t be dismissed on the basis of the privilege of not being a victim of gun violence. Both sides like to use kids as proxies as you have to at least listen to them. Probably something we’ve been doing always, but a good thing to note.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=TLPQMzAwMTIwMjGaK2HhDs4bMQ&t=1600

[pragmatic-zone]

Why the woke is just a distraction

Dave Smith makes a great point why we see so many actors, politicians and corporations “go woke”, it requires no real sacrifice or change in the system. A politician does not need to be less corrupt or release power to be woke. A corporation does not need to cut profits to be woke. An actor does not need to be less popular or privileged to be woke. The divide and conquer-part is a bit conspiratory at least literally that it would be somehow coordinated, but I’m sure the people of power don’t mind the division in the left. There are proper problems in the society like environmental sustainability, money in politics and regulating corporations and the culture war is not solving them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PrLGhJnO7I&feature=youtu.be&t=4765

[pragmatic-zone]

Why the fight about gender is pointless

We’ve all seen the fight, are “menstruating men” a biological impossibility or denial of them an act of transphobia? It should be (and I believe it is) obvious that there are two separate concepts here: biological and cultural gender. Former is about chromosomes and latter about expressing sexuality in our own lives. As such, former is a scientific fact and latter a subjective opinion. These correlate highly, i.e. for most people these are the same, but can also exist independently. Both are necessary concepts. 

The stupid part about the fight is that both sides mostly understand what the other side means. There is really no disagreement how biology works or whether transgenderism exists. Even the moral questions around cultural gender issues are largely settled, i.e. most people believe people should be allowed to be the way they are. And whether the person is talking about biological or cultural concept is usually clear from the context. The fight is not about being correct but control, who gets to “own” the meaning of the words. Really stupid part is that is that both sides are in theory trying to convince the other side of an opinion and that’s really not possible to do by being a jerk about. 

Personally, most of the time I think about the biological gender, i.e. I am used to mean by “men” humans with XY-chromosomes. That said, I’d be willing to “concede the term” i.e. gender/men/women should mean the cultural concept and sex/male/female the biological. But what I really hope that the rather conceited controversy over this would cease.

[pragmatic-zone]

Why nuance matters

Tim Minchin gives a great description why the polarization and tribalization of society is leading to failure to communicate. People are trying to make things more black and white, divide people and ideas to teams to support or oppose. As Tim puts it, science and arts are not adversaries but complementary perspectives that improve each other. The focus of discussion often in is zooming out and deciding if the thing is left or right, up or down. But this is not how life works, it’s not either-or but shades of gray. Just about every option in life comes with pros and cons and the challenge is to decide if the former outweigh the latter in the current context. To solve problems we need to zoom in and to see the details understand the details so we can invent solutions that are nuanced enough to work in real life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoEezZD71sc&feature=youtu.be&t=376

[pragmatic-zone]

Why we should not be afraid to tell the truth

Douglas Murray makes a passionate case for why we should not be afraid to defend those things we hold to be true. I.e. even with the risk on consequences, not speaking up is not a safe path, you will pay with your soul. Submitting to lies will demoralize and weaken you and make you vulnerable to further abuse. It’s hard to be in balance with yourself if you concede to telling things are true which you know to be false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7uqHosIj4s&feature=youtu.be&t=4987