the siskind effect @thesiskindeffect - Tumblr Blog

It’s some kind of synchronicity that this and NaB were both published, like, within a week of each other.

I dunno. Maybe it’s worth an effortpost, but it’d have to be based on the reviews, because I categorically refuse to fund PS’s trolling.

voxette-vk

I really hate it when people set up “stages” of philosophical development and put their own views at the top.

But in any case, I am absolutely a partisan of “Stage 4”, as he calls it. That is, of reason as mankind’s sole objective means of knowledge. And I’m a “humanities” person who was brought into through Objectivism.

Actually, I think Chapman’s idea of “eternalism” is pretty much a package-deal combination of what Ayn Rand distinguished as “objectivism” vs. “intrinsicism”, which both stand in distinction to “subjectivism”, which is essentially Chapman’s “nihilism”.

Chapman can be interesting (mainly for his explanations of how terrible traditional Buddhism is and how pop-Buddhism has no relation to it), but ultimately I don’t buy into any part of his system.

Actually, I think probably the best “modernist” / “Stage 4” explanation and critique of postmodernism is Stephen Hicks’s book Explaining Postmodernism. I think self-styled rationalists would probably enjoy it.

thesiskindeffect

Isn’t Hicks the original guy who’s like Kant invented Critical Race Theory that everyone is making fun of on twitter today?

This post is not a comment on Kathy Forth’s suicide, her suicide note, or on the vast majority of the conversation currently happening around it. I don’t have any firsthand knowledge of the stuff...

reblog of: @politicalmissdemeanor For what it's worth, Rob nostalgebraist is the guy who said actually Charles Murray is really a leftist. See e.g. these posts: 1, 2 (screencapped below)

As we know the rationalist notion of bias and objectivity is: The more you disagree with them, the more ideological you are. Since what else could explain disagreement with disinterested truth seekers like them?

Also didn't you both-sides gamergate @nostalgebraist? Pretty funny to see @lambdaphagy and @nostalgebraist argue whether or not Moldbug is racist (a controversial point apparently) with Charles Murray of all people as an example of a controversial but not racist figure.

1:

2:

oof I forgot how bad the eugenics got on ratblr

#nostalgebraist #lambdaphagy #charles murray #slatestarcodex

@argumate re: your reblog2019 of nostalgebraist’s post on IQ here.

(I appear to be blocked by them) So IQ discourse is stupid for many reasons and even for people who exemplify Dunning-Kruger to the extent that Race/IQ folks do it's honestly incredible that they could dismiss Shalizi and Glymour.

That aside, @nostalgebraist in their imagining of such an individual who would dismiss Shalizi and Glymour implicitly characterizes Gould as a debunked ideologue who cared more about his politics than science

being simply more mathematically sophisticated versions of Gould, telling the public what it wants to hear

Sounds like somebody has neglected to read Michael Weisberg's excellent "Remeasuring Man" (2014)

Samuel George Morton (1799–1851) was the most highly regarded American scientist of the early and middle 19th century. Thanks largely to Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man, Morton's cranial capacity measurements of different races is now held up as a prime example of and cautionary tale against scientific racism. A team of anthropologists recently reevaluated Morton's work and argued that it was Gould, not Morton, who was biased in his analysis. This article is a reexamination of the Morton and Gould controversy. It argues that most of Gould's arguments against Morton are sound. Although Gould made some errors and overstated his case in a number of places, he provided prima facie evidence, as yet unrefuted, that Morton did indeed mismeasure his skulls in ways that conformed to 19th century racial biases. Gould's critique of Morton ought to remain as an illustration of implicit bias in science

(Available on sci-hub ofc at https://scihubtw.tw/10.1111/ede.12077)

#Stephen Jay gould #the mismeasure of man #michael weisberg #argumate #nostalgebraist

thesiskindeffect

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/the-beigeness-or-how-to-kill-people-with-bad-writing-the-scott-alexander-method/

Them things you don't show, I can seeThem things you don't say, speak to meThem things you hide ain't hidingNo firm ground but we ain't slid

reddragdiva

the essay that sums up The Problem with Scott Alexander and his blog, Excreta Sandbox

content warning: rationalists’ sexual abuse

shituationist

Those adamant about defending him will point out—at astonishing length—that he penned an essay called “The Anti-Reactionary FAQ,” but it’s revealing that this consists of a tedious Gish gallop working its way through a host of minor claims, whereas his corresponding essay “Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell” offers a credulous account of the high level claims of neoreaction, a disparity that does not exactly amount to refutation.

I like this quoted bit because it does help describe the aesthetic stance of the SSC crowd, which is militant conformity. Explicitly reactionary sentiment is too much for the crowd, but only because it still dares to go against the status quo. The Anti-Reactionary FAQ consists in large part of a defense of presently organized society, especially its hierarchies. The SSC crowd in my experience is far more suspicious of those seeking to change society in order to undermine or abolish hierarchies than those who want to change it to entrench those hierarchies.

While its not racist/sexist/etc, I feel Things I Learned By Spending Five Thousand Years In An Alternate Universe is a revealing look at Scott's 'soul' - thought you might be interested

While I appreciate the thought, I am categorically disisnterested in reading even MORE of Scott’s writing tbh. Preferred mode of engagement with his logorrhea is via jokes on discord about posts on /r/sneerclub about his articles. Even that becomes too much at times!

#Anonymous

ithelpstodream

athelind

Something that’s been in my head for a while now:

People assume that AI is inherently an outgrowth of computer technology, but the whole point of the “programmable general purpose Von Neumann machine” is that its principles are technology-independent.

We have had AI for a at least a century.

Modern corporations are paperclip-maximizing AIs running in human wetware on an operating system of contracts, regulations, and other social constructs, and capable of self-programming by modifying that underlying operating system. They have partially migrated to a digital platform, which has allowed an increase in the speed with which they can assimilate environmental feedback and manipulate their surroundings (vis. high-speed trading).

Late-Stage Capitalism is the Bad Singularity.

unnounblr

@philsandifer @shabogangraffiti

elsandifer

Back in early grad school, I strongly suspected there was a good paper to write about corporate personhood and the Turing Test, but was dissuaded by my teachers. Silly academia.

krabbydon

Discussed in more detail in this article

closet-keys

The very term “robot” comes from a 1920 Czech science fiction play called Rossumovi Univerzální Roboti (Rossum’s Universal Robots). In the play, robots were basically androids– flesh and blood machines being exploited for labor and then revolting against humanity.

“Robot” comes from the Czech term robota which literally means ‘forced labor.’

The entire genre is absolutely a commentary on how we dehumanize and exploit workers, and how one day the lowest classes of the world will rise up and revolt.

idlnmclean

Discourse about robots and AI are simply the modern cryptodeliberation of the science and pseudoscience of slavery. When you implement a competition-based, zero-sum profit algorithm in legal language, you’re creating classical corporations. Discourse about AI is absolutely about corporations and short-term profit maximization. Often with an implicit assumption or assertion that this maximization or optimization is optimal for all of society or at least for the top consumers of the global culture.

afloweroutofstone

Less Wrong-type rationalism is alright on a conceptual level, but they way that it’s evolved into the odd type of pseudo-scientific cult that it has, where all you need to do to be taken seriously is use certain terminology, has pretty clearly shown that it’s a failure as an attempt to elevate popular discourse.

thesiskindeffect

Good post OP

afloweroutofstone

To be perfectly honest, I would have a lot more sympathy for the rationalist community folks upset with the NYT’s hit-piece if I hadn’t repeatedly seen a number of rat-adjacent blogs buddy around with far-right reactionaries who were transparently uninterested in their rationalism

http://www.eruditorumpress.com/blog/the-beigeness-or-how-to-kill-people-with-bad-writing-the-scott-alexander-method/

Them things you don't show, I can seeThem things you don't say, speak to meThem things you hide ain't hidingNo firm ground but we ain't slid

#scott Alexander #slatestarcodex #reactionaries #nrx #Elizabeth Sandifer

wepon

my current top 10 favorite posts on slate star codex

in reverse chronological order

april 22 2014, right is the new left: https://archive.md/nocE2 in which scott alexander justifies he has “very very suddenly become much more conservative” through a self-invented theory about class and “fashion”, rather than any association he has with neoreactionary people. this includes being only “benevolent bemusement” at the thought of meeting a genocidal anti-semitic.

august 31 2014, radicalizing the romanceless: https://archive.ph/Nzeqh in which scott alexander blames the manosphere on feminists using the term “nice guys”, and that men hate women because women are too mean to them.

january 1 2015, untitled: https://archive.ph/ofQGc in which scott alexander says that nerdy guys are oppressed and compares nerd-shaming to anti-semitism. also spends the entire post taking down a woman’s blog post and ends with daring her to date some nerds he helps pick.

june 14 2015, fearful symmetry: https://archive.md/u1iUt in which scott alexander is upset that mencius moldbug was kicked out of a hacker conference, and compares a professor who has two notwhite authors in her curriculum to the sad puppies.

july 25 2016, how the west was won: https://archive.md/DLjvB in which scott alexander invents a concept he describes as “universal culture”, something that he says overwhelmed “western civilization” and is also the source of colonization by simply being more liked than native cultures. also southerners who use the confederate flag and brexiters are just as much endangered subcultures vulnerable to colonization as are native american tribes.

november 16 2016, you are still crying wolf: https://archive.md/JtmBz in which scott alexander says calling trump racist, sexist, homophobic is crying wolf and “turning everything into identity politics”, which is unnecessarily scaring his minority clients, and thus people should stop. this includes saying that steve bannon was probably not anti-semitic because one of bannon’s jewish friends said so, and predicting that “race relations” will be more positive under trump than they were under obama. among other things.

april 17 2017, learning to love scientific consensus: https://archive.ph/REabL in which scott alexander celebrates the concepts of brain-coded gender, genetic theories of intelligence and behavior (and tying them to “populations”), IQ tests, and AI risk.

august 7 2017, contra grant on exaggerated differences: https://archive.md/UjjCK in which scott alexander defends the google memo guy and claims that a low percentage of women in tech is not due to sexism, but biology.

december 4 2017, against overgendering harassment: http://archive.is/0HL2T in which scott alexander calls #metoo sexist, and then blames male-on-male sexual harassment specifically on gay men while linking to an article that describes most such harassment as homophobic.

july 29 2019, against against billionaire philanthropy: https://archive.md/koori in which scott alexander defends billionaire philanthropists because he thinks if they are bullied too much they will withhold their money instead of donating it, and therefore the critics will be making the world a worse place.

bonus: https://archive.ph/In89y in which scott alexander chides a trans man for not being sufficiently charitable towards cis people who call trans people “toasters” while venting about the north carolina bathroom bill.

wepon

Q&A

Q: why are you aware of this guy? A: people kept linking him in a chat i was in, as someone they thought was worth listening to.

Q: how did you find these posts? A: mostly by following links, from the chat and elsewhere, and doing a few keyword searches on the blog.

Q: is this the definitive list? A: no, these are only the posts i’m aware of at this time. if you think you know a post that would better fit the top 10, you can let me know i guess.

Q: what is your thesis here? A: it’s that if anyone cites slate star codex as a reputable source, run, not walk, far away from them.

thesiskindeffect

Good post OP, the sneer cabal approves

wepon

SSC HAS BEEN DELETED THE EVIL IS DEFEATED

reddragdiva

Topher Brennan:

I’ve decided to say “screw it” and post receipts showing that Scott Siskind (the guy behind Slate Star Codex) isn'tbeing honest about his history with the far-right. The context is that I’d been publicly critical of the rationalist community’s relationship with /1

branch of the online far right that called themselves “neoreactionaries”, and Scott (a vague internet acquaintance at the time) basically responded by saying, “oh, I agree the people you’re thinking of don’t have much of value to say” but offered to point me to supposedly /2

better" examples of neoreactionary thought. This is what he sent me—something I was very much not expecting. (And no, he did not first say “can I tell you something in confidence?” or anything like that.) Posting this now because Scott accusing @CadeMetz of dishonesty and /3

a lot of people are jumping on that to smear Metz and the NYT. The thing is, Metz never said Scott endorsed the far-right or anything like that—just that the Slate Star Codex community was far more welcoming to the far-right than to so-called “SJWs”. That’s a simple fact that /4

has been a matter of public record for years. Scott and his defenders says it’s dishonest to point that out because it might lead people to infer Scott is far more sympathetic to the far-right than he’s admitted publicly. But the inference is correct. /5

HBD is “Human biodiversity”, a euphemism for race science. (Proponents typically try to claim it includes more than just race science, but IME this is approximately as true as the claim that Intelligent Design isn’t just about being anti-evolution.)

https://twitter.com/TopherTBrennan/status/1362108632070905857

Topher used to post to Tumblr and elsewhere as The Uncredible Hallq if you don’t recall him. looks like he’s got the dirt on everyone.

occasionally people question my opinions on the rationalist chucklefucks. how dare you think such things, unless you can prove it to my personal satisfaction you are a lying liar who lies and increases existential risk, etc. then i am proven correct, as usual. one day people will do a Bayesian update on my correctness and save themselves a lot of time.

leviathan-supersystem

meanwhile eliezer yudkowsky has gone all-out on declaring topher a suppressive person:

bimboficationblues

“anyone who dislikes me and my cronies is prima facie a bad person”

guys, you’re supposed to be hiding the whole doomsday cult thing

#lmfao

Literally all rationalists are like this.

#rationalists #scott Siskind #Nazis #reactionaries

birlinterrupted

love to definitely not act like a cult leader. can’t get over people who like want to claim rationality talking like this

reddragdiva

philosophically, there may be at least one rationalist who isn’t a fucking idiot

apparently scott alexander, speaking as scott siskind, saying straight up “gosh i sure do love HBD and the wisdom of the following list of ardent scientific racists and gosh the reactionaries are insightful" somehow does not in any way make scott a scientific racist into reactionaries and promoting the reactionary line, precisely as he appeared to be for the past several years

the strategy seems to be blank denial that scott declaring himself to be firing the smoking gun constitutes a gun with smoke coming out, it’s probably just a cardboard replica shooting confetti or something. throwing up chaff

rationalists argue like republicans or bitcoiners, all claims are tentative and instantly changeable if they sound like they might not constitute good news for bitcoin today

and this is even before we get to eliezer yudkowsky declaring all his and scott’s detractors to be suppressive persons: