Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

s3.amazonaws.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 443 posts

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

#401

Post by Jando »

cactusface wrote: post #272
yarvin9 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems worth taking this criticism up with the authors of, for example, Risch et al 2005 [0]. From the abstract: "Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-ide…

What do you do with all the interracial children? Please forgive the oxymoron.

I don't want to read too far into your comment, but if the intent was similar to: "Interracial children don't fall into classical racial categories and, as such, are proof that racial categories don't exist," that's fallacious. The fact that a lab and poodle can produce a labradoodle doesn't negate the fact that labrador and poodle are dog breeds. The spaniards had a system that classified people by percentages of ancestry, e.g. quadroon, octaroon. Today we have more modern technology and ancestry can be determined though the analysis of genetic markers. The usefulness of race can be (and is) debated. Its existence is hardly debatable.

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

#402

Post by sweeneyrod »

lexcorvus wrote: post #353
smitherfield wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a disinterested (in both senses of the word) outside observer, I'd point out that while his (c) is pretty much the same as (b), sans the editorializing it's in no way incompatible with any of the previously mentioned Yarvin/Moldbug quotes. Take, for example, the statement "America is richer than Mexico." By which is meant, "on average, Americans are richer than Mexicans." Someone else could say: "But there are ple…

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…

But you've got to be careful not to make the mistake of incorrectly accusing someone of committing Lewontin's fallacy. Saying that race isn't real is clearly wrong, in the sense that people reliably fit into racial categories.

On the other hand, the other claim (race has no discernible effect on behaviour) isn't fallacious (at least if Lewontin's results are accurate). 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.

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

#403

Post by cactusface »

Jando wrote: post #401
cactusface wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you do with all the interracial children? Please forgive the oxymoron.

I don't want to read too far into your comment, but if the intent was similar to: "Interracial children don't fall into classical racial categories and, as such, are proof that racial categories don't exist," that's fallacious. The fact that a lab and poodle can produce a labradoodle doesn't negate the fact that labrador and poodle are dog breeds. The spaniards had a system that classified people by percentages of an…

Is there anybody that does not have mixed ancestry? Where are the human labs and poodles?

The only real argument is that discrete categories do not exist. What this means is that for the vast majority of cases, the expression of phenotype A is not strictly linked to the expression of phenotype B. That said, it's quite obvious that there is a geographical and cultural distribution of genes.

Humans are not dogs, our populations are not strictly controlled for the purposes of winning dog shows. Attempts to do so are racist, in that they are (scientifically misguided) attempts to create or purify a race. Such as when your parents don't want you to marry someone who doesn't look the same.

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

#404

Post by smsm42 »

tptacek wrote: post #319
lexcorvus wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

He clearly is not a fan of the modern racist. That's unsurprising, because (thankfully) the educated sector of our culture has turned it into a taboo, and so to be a modern racist is for most people to be the sort of yutz who writes things on Stormfront. He sure does seem to have a finely-tuned appreciation of archaic racists, though. I feel like --- maybe I've misinterpreted the whole piece, but this is what I think…

When one writes "X is a racist" (or "white nationalist", or something like this, or something that essentially means that), a reader would certainly assume that you're talking about modern and commonly known representatives of this class. If after that you have to qualify - no, I didn't mean the common meaning of that word but I meant some arcane and archaic meaning that is not immediately obvious but means something different that I could define if I was called on it - I think you own the misinterpretation. If you used the non-obvious meaning, you should explicitly state that, since you know there is an obvious meaning which would completely overwhelm any other meaning.

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

#405

Post by lexcorvus »

sweeneyrod wrote: post #402
lexcorvus wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But you've got to be careful not to make the mistake of incorrectly accusing someone of committing Lewontin's fallacy. Saying that race isn't real is clearly wrong, in the sense that people reliably fit into racial categories. On the other hand, the other claim (race has no discernible effect on behaviour) isn't fallacious (at least if Lewontin's results are accurate). If there is much greater variance within populat…

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.

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

#406

Post by yebyen »

lexcorvus wrote: post #399
devalier wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no possibility that you will convince me Is there any possible evidence, any possible information, that could convince you that genes for IQ were not equally distributed among the races? For my sake, there would be plenty of possible information that would convince me of the idea of neurological uniformity across ethnic groups, for example: studies of cross-racial adoption that showed the gap being erased, t…

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.

To what ends would you change his mind on this issue? For Internet points, or for a greater good? I don't begrudge anyone with a religious devotion to the other view in this particular matter, if only because we have "known" wrong facts before, based on evidence that appeared to be sound and was considered to be incontrovertible at the time. And even true facts based on sound evidence are not always absolute, or unalterable. You just want it on record, or what?

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

#407

Post by anon23457 »

lexcorvus wrote: post #399
devalier wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no possibility that you will convince me Is there any possible evidence, any possible information, that could convince you that genes for IQ were not equally distributed among the races? For my sake, there would be plenty of possible information that would convince me of the idea of neurological uniformity across ethnic groups, for example: studies of cross-racial adoption that showed the gap being erased, t…

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.

I'm not sure I would call it honest. It's what non-anonymous folk have to say to avoid being excommunicated. Hey, for all I know, you and he are actually the same person on two different sides of the anonymity wall.

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

#408

Post by Infinite_Light »

The incentives facing event organizers are quite bad. If only one side throws a fit then non-martyr event organizers will normally capitulate to their demands. Its hard to align the incentives without suggesting people on the free speech side act like the SJ types.

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

#409

Post by tripzilch »

yarvin9 wrote: post #259
tptacek wrote: post #143

Isn't Urbit named for the Mencius Moldbug blog, whose writer repeatedly refers to same as "UR"? How distinct is Urbit and Yarvin from the advocacy of the Moldbug UR blog? The association between Yarvin and that blog isn't exactly cryptic; for instance, Yarvin has given somewhat recent video-recorded talks espousing many of the same ideas as the blog, purposefully and in some depth. Is it possible that the most boring…

Sorry, but no. urbit, from the Latin urbs == city, is actually a good bit older than UR. The initials are somehow very compelling - another couple of great literary UR blogs are the Unz Review (unz.com) and Uncouth Reflections (uncouthreflections.com). I will admit that urbit has very few users, as technically we're really not launched at all. We were thinking Strange Loop might be a good place for this, but I guess…

I thought many of the words in urbit were inspired by a story by Jorge Luis Borges?

It's too bad cause I think urbit it super-interesting, and even the weirdness surrounding the blogs (I came across later) were also super-interesting (but I don't agree with most of those, it was like curiosity-interesting).

I think the tech-conference should have taken the chance, though. Because it is (thought) provoking.

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

#410

Post by vanderleun »

urbit wrote: post #169
lukev wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.fr/2009/07/why-carl... Relevant obnoxious quote, in a sea of drivel: In all these relationships, the structure of obligation is the same. The subject, serf, or slave is obliged to obey the government, lord, or master, and work for the benefit of same. In return, the government, lord or master must care for and guide the subject, serf, or slave. We see these same relationship p…

"He has literally written that several of his co-speakers are genetically more fit to be slaves while he, a white male, is genetically designed to be a master." Certainly a powerful use of the word literally . Frankly, I'm actually considering recanting. Who wouldn't rather be Galileo than Giordano Bruno? But recanting is a serious matter - it's the sort of thing you need to get right the first time. To appear at fut…

Naw, Alex is a deep and abiding chunk of urineyellow crap.
Post reply on HN