Gee, so passionate and so petty. Portraying "capitalism" and "socialism" as some sort of either/or, binary, Manichean distinction is so last-century. And equating "capitalism" with "meritocracy" is at best a horrid over-simplification.
(See the book "The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?")
Appreciate the review. Your ethical and legal theories seem a bit underbaked. For ex., I don't think you mean "ethical realism". And consider the worth or value of a life—you seem to me to conflate its price or cost, under simplifying utilitarian assumptions, with its worth, which is a question of values. Likewise, it's at best circular to identify the most valuable things as those for which people are paid the most–your chosen examples (like health) ignore effects like Baumol and public choice and agency costs, and you ignore seemingly valueless things that are highly-compensated (Tulip-manias etc.), and anyway not all that is valued can be priced.
That you're a crude consequentialist is ironic given you spend so much time tilting against Marxists and their ilk, who tend to be crude consequentialists who are convinced that equity is the true summum bonum.
Oh? I thought you were saying you were an ethical realist, but maybe I misread. Anyway, more to the point, query whether KH says anything in the book about male-female diffs. It strikes me that she's far more invested in preserving female gender as a victim category than anything to do with race.
She only mentions "sexis" 4 times (4 times sexism, 0 times sexist), so it is not really a focus of the book. Trans people are never mentioned at all. Consistent with PH being a closeted TERF. I guess you could search her tweets to confirm, not so interesting to me.
Emil, what do you consider the best career choices for the IQ range you and (most) of your readers are in. I'd say that in general, you are in the +1 to almost but not quite +2SD range(would like to be corrected if you have tests of course). So not stupid enough too be happy with menial tasks but also not smart enough to be a groundbreaking or for that matter even successful researcher/engineering innovator/creator. I would guess a lot of people reading this would identify with this subgroup on the IQ scale, we've seen it in other rationalist communities. What's the best suited for this type of ability?
I am not a guidance counselor. I suggest following the advice of https://80000hours.org/ i.e., try some things that sound good enough, and see if you like them.
That's the trouble with the lives of very clever people like you (+3): it's too boring to write that "poor little goy", instead you try to write something that you think will hurt and shows how much intellectual superiority you have. Pathetic...
Where was intellectual superiority mentioned here? I identify with the group that is mentioned, why the hell else would I ask for advice? What the hell is wrong with people's reading and verbal ability on the Internet? It's not hurtful, it's generally how careers are spread on the IQ range. This is a statistics-heavy blog but somehow most people here fail to understand what +3 means, and how to make accurate or safe estimates on cognitive ability. I said that Emil has above +1 ability because it's way more easily provable than saying he has +3 ability which is incredibly rare, and that's why I asked him if he could provide test scores in order to adjust my priors, as rationalists would say. Why would calling someone between +1 and +2 ability be hurtful??
"murderers bad; philanthropists good"
But for real ... are murderers *actually* worse than philanthropists? :-P
https://im1776.com/2021/11/16/lets-be-uncharitable/
Gee, so passionate and so petty. Portraying "capitalism" and "socialism" as some sort of either/or, binary, Manichean distinction is so last-century. And equating "capitalism" with "meritocracy" is at best a horrid over-simplification.
(See the book "The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?")
Appreciate the review. Your ethical and legal theories seem a bit underbaked. For ex., I don't think you mean "ethical realism". And consider the worth or value of a life—you seem to me to conflate its price or cost, under simplifying utilitarian assumptions, with its worth, which is a question of values. Likewise, it's at best circular to identify the most valuable things as those for which people are paid the most–your chosen examples (like health) ignore effects like Baumol and public choice and agency costs, and you ignore seemingly valueless things that are highly-compensated (Tulip-manias etc.), and anyway not all that is valued can be priced.
That you're a crude consequentialist is ironic given you spend so much time tilting against Marxists and their ilk, who tend to be crude consequentialists who are convinced that equity is the true summum bonum.
I do mean ethical/moral realism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ i.e., the claim that ethical/moral claims are true/false (moral cognitivism), and not all false (error theory).
I am an error theorist, so not a moral realist at all. But sure I like rationalism-style utilitarianism.
Oh? I thought you were saying you were an ethical realist, but maybe I misread. Anyway, more to the point, query whether KH says anything in the book about male-female diffs. It strikes me that she's far more invested in preserving female gender as a victim category than anything to do with race.
She only mentions "sexis" 4 times (4 times sexism, 0 times sexist), so it is not really a focus of the book. Trans people are never mentioned at all. Consistent with PH being a closeted TERF. I guess you could search her tweets to confirm, not so interesting to me.
Many thanks.
Emil, what do you consider the best career choices for the IQ range you and (most) of your readers are in. I'd say that in general, you are in the +1 to almost but not quite +2SD range(would like to be corrected if you have tests of course). So not stupid enough too be happy with menial tasks but also not smart enough to be a groundbreaking or for that matter even successful researcher/engineering innovator/creator. I would guess a lot of people reading this would identify with this subgroup on the IQ scale, we've seen it in other rationalist communities. What's the best suited for this type of ability?
I am not a guidance counselor. I suggest following the advice of https://80000hours.org/ i.e., try some things that sound good enough, and see if you like them.
That's the trouble with the lives of very clever people like you (+3): it's too boring to write that "poor little goy", instead you try to write something that you think will hurt and shows how much intellectual superiority you have. Pathetic...
Where was intellectual superiority mentioned here? I identify with the group that is mentioned, why the hell else would I ask for advice? What the hell is wrong with people's reading and verbal ability on the Internet? It's not hurtful, it's generally how careers are spread on the IQ range. This is a statistics-heavy blog but somehow most people here fail to understand what +3 means, and how to make accurate or safe estimates on cognitive ability. I said that Emil has above +1 ability because it's way more easily provable than saying he has +3 ability which is incredibly rare, and that's why I asked him if he could provide test scores in order to adjust my priors, as rationalists would say. Why would calling someone between +1 and +2 ability be hurtful??
Goy, that's the word you're looking for!