/townhall/ - Townhall

>>13401
>Females with high compassion tend to have low intelligence.
I'd say that high-IQ white women tend to have have *misplaced* compassion rather than *low* compassion.  This is because, in whites, high IQ is correlated with being politically left-leaning.  Leftist politicians in Germany go so far as to defend their own rapists (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3675154/Left-wing-German-politician-raped-migrants-admits-LIED-police-attackers-nationality-did-not-want-encourage-racism.html).  Meanwhile, AWFLs in the US clutch their pearls when people like Daniel Penny protect people from dangerous criminals.

>>13412
Yeah, but I'd say what you call "Misplaced compassion" is what I call virtue signalling or compulsion to submit. Compassion is when you act well to someone, due to the thought of their emotion. Conformity is when you act well to someone, due to the thought of what others will think.

If you've an extremely reduced amount of empathy compared to most men, as well as a far weaker sense of empathy compared to most men, then women will find this unattractive. Because it's inherently unattractive. If you're a gay or bi man looking for partners, then this problem would also exist.

I'm not sure how to explain to conservatives and libertarians that you should have a great deal of empathy and ethics inherently because your fellow citizens who live by you deserve the same rights as you, because this is more or less a psychological thing. A result of brain chemistry and other such things. If seeing your next door neighbor suffering or even dying in public doesn't trigger an emotional response because they're not a family member of yours or such, and strangers being strangers you simply don't care, then so be it. Just know that many people have different emotions.

Can you imagine banning someone over their opinion?

yeah, they are pretty much cosmetic. this was established long ago, and everyone should have learned about it in high school.

>>13367
Racism is healthy. Racism is natural. Racism is what separates man from plant. Has a plant ever called you a nigger? Exhibit A.

>>13391
You're underestimating how well GPT-4 works.  Yeah, it makes mistakes, but it is especially good at simple things like "How do people on the internet use the term 'social justice'?".

>>13392
Oh, you haven't heard of that before?  Here is a web page that goes into it:
https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/the-root-cause-the-insanity-college-campuses-older-you-may-think

>>13393
>it is especially good at simple things like "How do people on the internet use the term 'social justice'?".
It isn't actually good at that. It's good at making what sounds like a reasonable answer to the question.

LLMs aren't actually intelligent, no matter how sophisticated or advanced they are. Despite making a good answer, ChatGPT doesn't know what "justice" means conceptually in the same way a human would understand the term. ChatGPT just knows that words like "justice" is often used with words like "equality" and "fairness" but it doesn't actually know what those concepts mean. ChatGPT is really cool and fun, it just isn't a knowledge source.

>>13394
>It isn't actually good at that.
What failures have you seen on GPT-4 here?

>>13394
>LLMs aren't actually intelligent, no matter how sophisticated or advanced they are.
GPT-4 certainly isn't human-level AGI, but I'd say it certainly has intelligence to some degree.  

>>13394
>ChatGPT just knows that words like "justice" is often used with words like "equality" and "fairness" but it doesn't actually know what those concepts mean.
I disagree with that.  What's a prompt that demonstrates GPT-4 failing to understand what the concepts mean?

>>13372

yeah, but a lot of people are pretty bad at that. they need to gain experience first, and mathematics would help to objectify the measurements

>>13373

>people want to have sex

i always hear this but i question how true it is. do people really want to have sex? highly questionable.

as for your second point, possibly somewhat or mostly true, but would need citations and data to make the point clearer

In almost all circumstances of minors exercising extreme behavior, even to the point of what seems like sociopathy, I think that scientific analysis has generally shown that the young criminals have tended to be mirroring physical and/or psychological abuse that they've been victims of. And what happens is basically a kind of evolution. Or perhaps even literally exact reenactments of what has happened to them previously (only with somebody else chosen to be the victim instead of themselves). This is, however, difficult to explain as an abstract concept.

To pick a specific example that's concrete, look at German dictator and one of the influential figures in modern history: let's talk about Adolf Hitler.

As a child, Hitler received constant maltreatment from a strict, callous, and domineering father in the context of growing up in a very regimented and authoritarian society in which the personal morals that we in 21st Century America view as positive (such as universal health care and freedom of speech) were back then negatives. Being told over and over again that you're a worthless piece of flesh by family took its toll. However, young Hitler had his caring, compassionate mother who totally believed in moral idealism in the Catholic Christian sense as a counterweight.

And then his mother died in an extremely painful and nightmarish fashion of cancer, again with him being a small child unable to rationally comprehend the situation.

It's been documented by historians that adult Hitler actively modeled his life as the opposite of his mother. She was soft-spoken and reflective. He was loud and dominant. She put others before herself and had a religious philosophy based on moral tradition. Hitler thought that he was a demi-god with spiritual abilities and a special destiny, requiring others to serve him. She wasn't focused on her appearance and such. He was focused on machismo and being tough. And so on.

As profoundly weird as it is to express sympathy for Hitler, of all people, it appears pretty clear-cut to historians that the psychological break-up of his mind at directly witnessing the torture and death of his mother caused him in later years to relive and reenact that exact situation by personally causing torture and death of others that he knew. He was a victim. And then he became a bully. The circle closed, so to speak.

While I don't know if this specific criminal case parallels Hitler's journey, the Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>13352
I've never heard of someone being discriminated against due to apathy. That sounds counter productive for a lack of a better word. Greed can lead to discrimination of different classes; as can poverty.

>Like, opposition to disability accommodations can be rooted in devaluing disabled people as being a 'drain' on society (itself rooted in a narrow-minded evaluation of a person's value).
Are you suggesting that if someone owns an establishment and doesn't have disability accommodations that they have a discrimination against disabled people? I tend to disagree.

That said, as someone who is incredibly empathetic and compassionate; my heart does go out to the disabled and I think more places should be accommodating.

>>13353

My point is that the view that disabled people are a drain and thus shouldn't be accommodated for is not rooted in hatred as much as it is greed because accommodations cost money. Granted, it's not a very intelligent position but it appeals to the instinct towards loss prevention and a short-sightedness towards what income they can make long-term by accommodating the disabled.

>>13353
>>>13352 (You)
>I've never heard of someone being discriminated against due to apathy. That sounds counter productive for a lack of a better word.


You're right, it is counterproductive, it's a narrow minded view.

Discrimination doesn't have to be tied to any specific emotions, it can be rooted in prejudice alone, in the sense of the etymology of the word, pre-judgement, judging without sufficient information, it doesn't have to involve any emotion what so ever, or even be concious.

Like if someone building a multi-level mall and not installing elevators alongside escalators because escalators alone is cheaper than elevators with escalators or even elevators alone. Effectively, that space discriminates against people who cannot physically use the escalators to access the shops on the second floor, probably one rooted in simple lack of consideration rather than flat out hatred of the disabled. This not only limits access to shopping, but potential employment too.

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>13354
Actually, I think I know exactly what is going on and why your message is muddled and confusing.

Here are two separate definition from Oxford:

[Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
"victims of racial discrimination"
Similar: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness
unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, chauvinism, partisanship, sexism, racism, racialism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, ageism, classism, ableism, apartheid
Opposite: impartiality
2.
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"]

You are combining the two completely separate definitions into one. You are correct. You don't have to have emotional attachments to discriminate, however when we're talking about groups of people it is almost impossible not to attach some sort of feeling towards it. The first definition is tied to avoidance, aggression, or revulsion/disgust. The only time I can really think of where you wouldn't is if you are simply stating facts. (This weapon type is superior because it's stats are superior.)
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

I also think it's fucking stupid that other countries have to get involved.

Let nature take its course.

>>12773
It's from my immortal

>>12774
Yes, but I still like the other idea about Hagrid.

fyi i bombed farah last week
sucks to suck

>>13301
I'm one of those weird people who actively enjoy talking about historical facts that happened before my parents were born. So, well, I don't care too much about hidden motivations.

W.r.t. Russia versus its neighbors, its interesting to note that Czar Alexander III deliberately avoided any major wars to the point that he's been known ever since as "The Peacemaker" (Russian: Миротворец, tr. Mirotvorets) and has the international title among historians as the "Tsar’-Mirotvorets".

For all the notions that warfare results in fame, that Czar's efforts at friendship with the French specifically resulted in the creation of the Pont Alexandre III, an ornate arch bridge spanning the Seine in Paris, which still stands today. This goes to show that intelligent moderation can also cause fame. At least, in some circumstances.

The Finns were handed over as spoils of war. Russia didn't care as much about the Finns ad people, and cared more about having a buffer zone between Sweden and important Russian cities. Russia had just surrendered to Napoleon and was brought under his influence, where Sweden was still an active belligerent against Napoleon.

Finland also absolutely was annexed. Being an autonomous ducky didn't mean fuck all when your Duke was the Emperor. The reason Finnish culture was allowed to exist is because the Tsars didn't care about them enough to try and Russify the area.

A reminder:

>

At least in the case of America, I feel like every suicide case is essentially a murder.

If we didn't have widespread pain, hatred, and misery in this country due to the average person abandoning basic human niceness and most people treating each other in public like insufferable douche-bags, then depressed individuals wouldn't live like statues being eaten away into lumps by acid rain, the gradual pain of living itself due to the abuse and harassment of others being so tough.

I've little clue how to actually make things better, though, other than countless individual small efforts to raise the sanity waterline.

I would argue that a lot of it does come from the top, though, and a country that moves from having icons such as Donald Trump to icons such as Fred Rogers is getting better.

Honestly, let it happen. Talk to someone if you care, but don't pull that guilt-trip BS. That's just selfish. Forcing someone to live in a world that they can't stand is one of the most cruel things you can do to someone.

I've had a friend who killed theirs self. I'm not mad at them. I'm sad, but I'm also glad they aren't suffering anymore.

It's really terrible.

But everyone should be able to do what they want with their own body, even killing themselves.

>>13125
I feel like that applies to this whole discussion, honestly.
I'm left scratching my head. Especially why I should care about a poll of twitter randos, at that.

I have to wonder what would happen if a bunch of states coming November just announce to not open any voting booths and just declare their pick (Trump or Biden) as the absolute winner?

Will the people take to the street to protest this?
Or will the average person just be very thankful they get to stay in bed and not care about the elections?

>>13127
Even if the state legislature uses some method other than popular vote to select its presidential electors, a popular vote would still be required to select representatives for the House of Representatives.  "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature."

The Constitution does not require a popular vote for presidential electors: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...".  In the early days of the republic, some state legislatures did in fact directly select the state's presidential electors.

I kinda don't feel like reading a paper on intelligence from the guy writing "papers" on the IQ of Rick Sanchez or the scientific justification for incels. Certainly not on a eugenicist's personal slush fund posing as a "think tank".

Someone wanna give me the bullet points?

>>13115
>Most phenotypic traits can't be traced to just one gene
Yes, but how does that relate to my post?

>>13117
I don't get what you're saying. Literally all you have to do is scroll down to the "in conclusion" tab and read four sentences. And that's it. That's really it.

I'm not being sarcastic. That's all.

As far as the political organization supporting the author does, I would care if the article had some obvious agenda in its findings like "clearly socialists and the general left have destroyed IQ progress". However, the study has the exact, black-and-white opposite result. As in, "nah, we're fine".

But, seriously.

Is this one of the "smarter" reasons why people are getting on board the ban IVF train so much lately?

>>13094
>That is to say that a "deliterious" gene can be adaptive in the right ecosystem or even be both adaptive and deleterious.
In some cases that's true, but other mutations are simply bad.  E.g., having two copies (homozygous) of the allele responsible for Tay-Sachs is definitely bad; it almost certainly results in a painful death during childhood.  But having exactly one copy of the allele (heterozygous) isn't harmful and some speculate that it is actually helpful and might be partially responsible for the higher average IQ of the Ashkenazim.  So polygenic embryo selection against homozygous Tay-Sachs alleles is definitely desirable.

As another example, BRCA mutations are very bad in expectation and are autosomal dominant.  Having one mutated allele greatly increase risk of certain cancers, and having two mutated alleles leads to death of the embryo in a majority of cases.   Polygenic embryo selection to avoid BRCA mutations are most likely a good thing.

>>13095
That paper is from before Roe v. Wade was overturned.  I suspect the dysgenic effects of banning abortion might invalidate the paper's conclusions.

A fundamental issue here too is that biological traits related to genetics vary dramatically from clearly positive things to clearly negative things to things with ludicrously ambiguous and complex things.

For example, being bisexual is regarded in modern Western countries for the most part as a bad thing even though in objective scientific terms there's absolutely no negative aspect of it whatsoever. A bi man or woman can have children and live life without any problems should culture and society allow them. There are also other aspects of personal identity such as hair color, skin color, breast size, eye color, and so on that for the most part appear to mean nothing in the sense of scientific value, even if men and women spend literal millions to enlarge chests as much as possible year by year and very obviously would shell out the same to kill off 'the A-Cup genes' if they ever get found.

It's such a metaphorical can of worms.

>>13082
>The online platforms deliberately chose to organize themselves so that their framework hosts content that actively incites violence,
Did they, though?
Or did they just make a platform built to allow people, generally, to organize themselves, host content for whomever wishes to use it?

You're prescribing a motive that I do not believe exists. Especially considering this is Google of all things.
Nothing I've seen suggests that this system is inherently only good for one purpose, violence, as you seem to suggest with the pen analogy.

Google is not handing out grenades, here.
Platforms for content and means to organize are not grenades.
In fact, it falls under an umbrella the government can't regulate, as I understand it, thanks to freedom of association.

>>13082
>content that actively incites violence
Do you have an example of that?  The incitement exception of the First Amendment is pretty narrow.  In particular, it only applies to incitement of imminent lawless action.  See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio :
"""
Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) leader in rural Ohio, contacted a reporter at a Cincinnati television station and invited him to cover a KKK rally that would take place in Hamilton County in the summer of 1964.[9] Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods, some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" against "Niggers", "Jews", and those who supported them and also claimed that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Congress to take place on the Fourth of July.[10] Another speech advocated for the forced expulsion of African Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel.[11]
...
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.
"""

>recommending what body armor to wear when undertaking a mass shooting
That sounds more like crime-facilitating speech than incitement.

>>13082
Huh?  Lots of inherently dangerous products are legal to sell (and should be, IMHO).  Firearms, ammo, circular saws, angle grinders, etc.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>13061

Interesting. It looks like the lawsuit is saying that the algorithms and such have become so advanced that they ought to be treated as a defective product. Unfortunately, while I am quite free speech, such companies may need to be held liable somehow, due to the amount of psychological manipulation involved in marketing nowadays. When you co-opt the English language, which is common heritage, for marketing purposes, isn't it sort-of a crime against humanity at that point? We already know YouTube is an echo-chamber and finding new, original, interesting content is near-impossible anymore.

I think the world would be better off if the lawsuit led to the result of something like such algorithms being banned and opt-in only with full disclosure of the risks and limitations of the product.

>>13081
Then die.

This defeatist notion that humanity is irredeemable is part of the problem.

>>13084
>the temptation to dehumanize
That's absolutely a fair point. Feelings are an extremely powerful motivation. And while they can blind, at the same time they can bring about the sensations of being able to "revel in" something happy. As you put it.

I suppose I'm still idealistic and optimistic about humanity even though I don't really know how the human condition as such can be changed as much as it needs to be.

I suppose it can be compared how to, say, smoking cigarettes and drinking dangerous mixed alcohols are hard to argue against from a broad social viewpoint. As an individual, you want to just feel happy. It's difficult to condemn positive feelings.

>>13071
>>13078
>>13079
Arigato, it seems I was rather ignorant of tensions between Muslims and Russia.

>>12940
>>12972
Yes. The exact word "craving" is important here. Generally speaking, having a "craving" is understandable but can work out pretty badly in the long-run, such as somebody constantly eating fatty fast food meals due to their personal habits. What instead should happen is a more complex and nuanced form of healing.

No. Because I've been turning to AI as well

>>12924
Not like its actually hurting you. There isn't a cooperate agent waiting outside of your door.

>>13041
>Look at the disaster that migration from Middle East countries has been for Europe.
Yeah, no
Far right fearmongering.
But even on the so called worse places where you supposedly get murdered for being native, you just see some dude sitting outside in his shorts and that's it.

>>13055
Do you want a discussion on this screenshot? Or are you just posting it randomly without context?

>>13058
>far right fearmongering
So to be clear, you believe that the mass migration into Europe has not had any problems for those nations?